format: text

text:
# Models for Evolution of Dusty Galaxies and E/S0s Seen in Multiband Surveys

## 1 Introduction

Many new windows have recently been opened in various wavebands for observations of high redshift galaxies. Particularly, deep ISO surveys (e.g. Rowan-Robinson et al. 1997; Franceschini et al. 1997; Kawara et al. 1998; Elbaz et al. 1999; Aussel et al. 1999; Flores et al. 1999b; Puget et al. 1999; Dole et al. 2001; Clements et al. 1999; Serjeant et al. 2000) in the infrared and SCUBA surveys (Hughes et al. 1998; Barger et al. 1998; Blain et al. 1999) in the submm wavebands have shed lights on the dark side of galaxy formation and evolution. This stimulated a surging wave of empirical models (Xu et al. 1998; Blain et al. 1999; Roche & Eales 1999; Dole et al. 2001; Xu 2000; Rowan-Robinson 2001; Xu et al. 2001; Franceschini et al. 2001; Pearson 2001; Malkan & Stecker 2001; Chary & Elbaz 2001) to interpret the new ISO and SCUBA sources. The main aim of these empirical models is to better constrain some important characteristics of the galaxy evolution, including the peak epoch of the star formation rate in the universe and the roles played by different star formation modes (e.g. the quiescent mode against the interaction stimulated mode), for which the earlier optical deep surveys such as the Hubble Deep Field Survey (Williams et al. 1996) may have provided biased information (Madau et al. 1996) by neglecting the dust extinction (Rowan-Robinson et al. 1997; Lonsdale 1999). This will certainly have impact on the theoretical simulations of galaxy formation and evolution, which (e.g. Somerville et al. 2001) have just started facing the fact that most of the early star formation may be hidden behind a thick veil of dust, making the incorporation of effects of dust extinction and emission in the framework essential (Granato et al. 2000).

Some of the most recent empirical models (Rowan-Robinson 2001; Xu et al. 2001; Franceschini et al. 2001; Pearson 2001; Chary & Elbaz 2001) have the feature that they can be constrained by counts and the cosmic background radiation in various IR and submm bands simultaneously. This is achieved by using SED templates to link sources in different bands. The SED library of Xu et al. (2001) contains realistic SEDs of a complete sample of 837 IRAS 25$`\mu m`$ selected galaxies, enabling prediction of counts as well as color distributions, which provide additional constraints to the model. Templates in Rowan-Robinson (2001), Xu et al. (2001) and Chary & Elbaz (2001) extend from the IR-submm to optical and UV wavebands, hence these models can predict also the contributions from IR sources to optical and UV counts, relating the evolution of IR sources to that of galaxies seen in earlier optical and UV surveys. All of these works found strong evolution among IR sources in the redshift range of $`0<z<1.5`$. Assuming that the narrow sub-mJy bump on the Euclidian normalized differential counts of ISOCAM 15$`\mu m`$ surveys (Elbaz et al. 1999) is due to the K-corrections caused by the strong unidentified broad band emission features (UIB) at 6 – 8$`\mu m`$, which are shifted into the ISOCAM 15$`\mu m`$ band filter (LW3) when $`z1`$, Xu (2000) concluded that typical IR galaxies at $`z1`$ have $`L_{15\mu m}10^{11}L_{\mathrm{}}`$, namely about 20 times more luminous than their local counterparts, while their comoving density is about the same as their local counterparts. As argued by Xu et al. (2001), the location of the 15$`\mu m`$ bump ($`f_{15\mu m}0.4mJy`$) provides a strong constraint on the luminosities of IR sources at $`z1`$. This has been confirmed by the detailed study of ISOCAM sources in the HDF-north by Elbaz et al. (2002), who obtained redshifts for nearly all of these sources (40 out of total 41). The strong evolution has also been supported by surveys in other ISOCAM bands. For example, Clements et al. (2001) found that the luminosity functions of their ISO 12$`\mu m`$ sources are consistent with a pure luminosity evolution of rate $`(1+z)^{4.5}`$, as derived by Xu (2000) from the ISOCAM 15$`\mu m`$ counts.

On the other hand, different authors identified different populations of galaxies as the major carriers of the evolution of IR sources. It was found in early IRAS studies (Franceschini et al. 1988; Rowan-Robinson & Crawford 1989) that IR sources can be divided into 3 different populations: normal late-type galaxies (’cirrus galaxies’), starburst galaxies, and galaxies with AGNs. Assuming that all IR sources undergo pure luminosity evolution with the same evolution rate, Rowan-Robinson (2001) found that ’cirrus galaxies’ dominate the ISOCAM $`15\mu m`$ counts, the SCUBA 850$`\mu m`$ counts, and the cosmic IR background radiation. Xu et al. (2001), motivated by results of optical identifications of ISO galaxies by Flores et al. (1999b) and Aussel et al. (1999) which show a larger percentage of these sources are in interacting systems, assumed that most of the evolution of the IR sources is due to starburst galaxies (defined by warm FIR colors: $`f_{60\mu m}/f_{100\mu m}0.5`$). Obscured AGNs with relatively low $`f_{25\mu m}/f_{60\mu m}`$ ratios (due to the very high extinction affecting even the MIR fluxes) may be misclassified as starbursts in Xu et al. (2001), who classified galaxies with AGNs using the criterion $`f_{25\mu m}/f_{60\mu m}0.2`$. Franceschini et al. (2001) also assumed that the strong evolution is confined to the starburst population. Their starburst galaxies include all ’active’ galaxies not classified as Sey 1, i.e. including the Sey 2s and the LINERs, in Rush et al. (1993). Pearson (2001) found that a separate population of ultra-luminous galaxies (ULIRGs) with L$`10^{12}L_{\mathrm{}}`$, confined in a very narrow range of redshift centered at $`z1`$, is mostly responsible for the strong evolution seen in the ISOCAM 15$`\mu m`$ counts. Since all these models can fit the IR-submm counts and the CIB within uncertainty limits, there is apparently a degeneracy concerning the population of galaxies that carry most of the evolution of IR sources. The degeneracy still remains even when the new, detailed information of the 15 micron universe (source counts, redshift distributions, luminosity functions at different redshifts, etc.; Elbaz et al. 2002; Franceschini et al. 2001) is considered (see Section 2).

One of the central issues in the current agenda of hierarchical galaxy formation simulation studies concerns the roles played by two different star formation modes (eg. Somerville et al. 2001; Kauffmann et al. 2001), namely the quiescent star formation mode and the interaction-induced star formation mode. There are apparent links between the normal quiescent galaxies and the quiescent star formation (as in the Milky Way and M31) and between starburst galaxies and the interaction-induced star formation (as in the Antennae Galaxies and in M82). Therefore, the answer to the question whether the normal galaxies or starburst galaxies dominate the faint IR counts will have important impact on galaxy evolution theories.

Another deficiency of the current models for IR sources is the neglection of early type galaxies. Although these galaxies have little dust emission, therefore do not contribute significantly to IR counts at wavelengths longer than $`10\mu m`$, they are found as an important population in ISO 6.7$`\mu m`$ counts (Flores et al. 1999b; Aussel et al. 1999; Serjeant et al. 2000). Future mid-IR surveys such as those planned for SIRTF IRAC cameras (4 bands centered at 3.6$`\mu m`$, 4.5$`\mu m`$, 5.8$`\mu m`$ and 8$`\mu m`$, respectively) will certainly detect many of these galaxies.

In this paper, we shall address the above two issues, namely (1) developing new models to investigate how to break the degeneracy concerning the major evolution population in IR counts (using SIRTF data in particular), and (2) modeling the evolution of E/S0 galaxies and predicting their contributions to the MIR counts. The plan of the paper is as follows: in Section 2 a set of new models for evolution of dusty galaxies are presented, while in Section 3 models for evolution of E/S0 galaxies are developed and compared to the observations; predictions for the UV, optical and NIR counts by a set of composite models, each consisting of a dusty galaxy evolution model and an E/S0 evolution model, are presented and compared with data in Section 4. The predictions for counts and confusion limits in SIRTF bands by the same models are presented in Section 5. In Section 6 we show how to use color distributions of ISO sources and future SIRTF sources to answer the question whether starburst galaxies or normal late-type galaxies are dominant in the IR sources. Section 7 is devoted to discussion. A summary is given in Section 8.111More detailed results on predicitons of models presented in this paper are available on request to C.K.X.. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-Cosmology ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, H0=75 km sec-1 Mpc-1) is assumed throughout the paper.

## 2 New Models for Evolution of Dusty Galaxies

### 2.1 Previous Models

In all the multi-band models for the evolution of dusty galaxies in the literature, the different populations of galaxies are separated by their characteristic spectral energy distributions (SEDs): the normal galaxies have relatively low $`f_{60\mu m}/f_{100\mu m}`$ and $`f_{25\mu m}/f_{12\mu m}`$ ratios and very prominent UIB features, the starburst galaxies have relatively high $`f_{60\mu m}/f_{100\mu m}`$ and $`f_{25\mu m}/f_{12\mu m}`$ ratios and less prominent UIB features over a steep rising MIR continuum, and galaxies with AGNs have relatively high $`f_{25\mu m}/f_{60\mu m}`$ ratios and very week UIB (contributed by ISM dust not associated with the AGN). Models by Xu et al. (2001) have also considered the luminosity dependence of the SED in each population, while some other models (Rowan-Robinson 20001; Franceschini et al. 2001; Pearson 2001; Chary & Elbaz 2001) separate high luminosity starbursts (Arp220 type) from moderate luminosity starbursts (M82 type). Because of their different SEDs, these different populations of galaxies give different relative contributions to counts at different wavelengths. However, it appears that the counts are rather loose constraints to these relative contributions. At least 2 factors are responsible for this degeneracy: (1) there are many parameters in the evolution functions (both the luminosity evolution and the density evolution) when different populations are allowed to evolve differently, and (2) there are still significant uncertainties in the current ISO counts (e.g. counts of the same ELAIS 15$`\mu m`$ sources reported by Serjeant et al. 2000 and by Gruppioni et al. 2002 differ with each other by as much as a factor of 3), due both to calibration errors and the field-to-field variation. In principle, the degeneracy can be broken by comparing model predictions on redshift distributions of deep FIR ($`\lambda \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}60}\mu m`$) selected samples with observations: Models assuming warmer IR SEDs (starbursts dominant) usually predict larger mean redshifts than models assuming cooler IR SEDs (normal-galaxies dominant) do. However, similar to the SCUBA galaxies, the large beams of FIR detectors (such as the ISOPHOT cameras) make it rather difficult to pin-down the optical counterparts (usually quite faint) of faint FIR sources.

A more direct method to constrain the relative contributions of different populations to the IR counts is to compare the predicted and observed color distributions of IR sources. Among the multi-band models for evolution of dusty galaxies in the literature, those of Xu et al. (2001) have the most sophisticated algorithm in dealing with the SEDs, and are the only ones that can predict both the mean colors and their dispersions. Therefore, we choose to build our new models using the same algorithm as Xu et al. (2001).

### 2.2 New Models

In the new models, the simulation code of Xu et al. (2001) is modified in the following aspects:

(1) The luminosity and density evolution functions for the starburst galaxies and normal late-tpye galaxies, respectively, have the following new form:

$`F_i(z)=`$ $`(1+z)^{u_i}\times ((1+(1+z)/(1+z_1))/(1+1/(1+z_1)))^{v_iu_i}\times `$ (1)
$`((1+1/(1+z_2))/(1+(1+z)/(1+z_2))^{v_i+w_i}(z7);`$
and

$`G_i(z)=`$ $`(1+z)^{p_i}\times ((1+(1+z)/(1+z_1))/(1+1/(1+z_1)))^{q_ip_i}\times `$ (2)
$`((1+1/(1+z_2))/(1+(1+z)/(1+z_2))^{q_i+r_i}(z7).`$
These smoothly-joined 3-piece power laws, in contrast with the sharply-joined 2-piece power laws used in Xu et al. (2001), will allow softening in the low redshift end ($`z<0.5`$) of the evolution functions to improve the fit to the redshift distribution of IRAS 60$`\mu m`$ sources.

(2) The 25$`\mu m`$ local luminosity functions (LLF) of 3 populations used in Xu et al. (2001) did not themselves take into account of the evolutionary effects. In the new models, new 25$`\mu m`$ LLFs corrected for these effects are used (see Appendix A for the details of the new LLFs). It is found that these new LLFs are only marginally different from the old ones.

(3) The UV portion ($`\lambda <3000`$Å) of the SEDs in the SED lib, which is an important part of the code, is better constrained in this work (Appendix B).

Given the large number of parameters, it is out the scope of this paper to explore the entire parameter space for models allowed by available data. Instead, we concentrate on three models which predict very different relative contributions by starburst galaxies and normal late-type galaxies to the counts in the IR surveys. For each of them, parameters have been fine-tuned so that the model can fit all available data as well as possible. These models for dusty galaxies are presented in Table 1 and Fig.1.

Model S1 is similar to the models in Xu et al. (2001) and in Franceschini et al. (2001) in the sense that the starburst galaxies are assumed to dominate the evolution of the IR sources. In Model S2, similar to Rowan-Robinson (2001), all three populations of dusty galaxies are assumed to have pure luminosity evolution with the same evolution rate. This is actually the same evolutionary scenario adopted by Xu (2000), who assumed that the entire body of IR sources evolve as a single population. Note Rowan-Robinson (2001) assumes that there is no SED evolution, while in Model S2 we assume SEDs evolving with luminosity. In Model S3, it is assumed that the normal galaxies and starburst galaxies give about equal contributions to the ISOCAM 15$`\mu m`$ counts, as hinted at by the optical identifications of ISO sources (Flores et al. 1999b; Aussel et al. 1999). For Model S1 and Model S3, the luminosity evolution function of galaxies with AGNs is adopted from the optical QSO luminosity evolution function of Boyle et al. (2000)

$$F_{AGN}(z)=10^{1.36z0.27z^2}(z7).$$
(3)
This is slightly different from the power law function used in Xu et al. (2001).

Table1. New models for dusty galaxies
Normals  Starbursts  AGNs  model $`z_1`$ $`z_2`$ $`u_1`$ $`v_1`$ $`w_1`$  $`u_2`$ $`v_2`$ $`w_2`$ $`p_2`$ $`q_2`$ $`r_2`$  $`u_3`$ $`v_3`$ $`w_3`$  S1 0.5 0.85 1.5 1.5 2  2 11.5 1.2 1 9.8 1.2  $`1.36z0.27z^2`$  S2 0.5 1.2 3.2 5.7 2.5  3.2 5.7 2.5 0 0 0  3.2 5.7 2.5  S3 0.5 1 2 8 2  2 10.2 1.5 2 3 1.5  $`1.36z0.27z^2`$

### 2.3 Predictions for Counts and Redshift Distributions

In Fig.2, Fig.3 and Fig.4, predictions by these 3 models for the 15$`\mu m`$, 60$`\mu m`$, 90$`\mu m`$, 170$`\mu m`$, 850$`\mu m`$ counts and for the CIB are compared with the data 222The units used in the plots throughout this paper are rather heterogeneous. This is becuase many data points collected from the literature are measured from figures that used different units. Often it is difficult to convert them to the same units, in particular for errors bars., respectively. The data points are taken from a large pool of measurements found in the literature, which is still evolving rapidly. This is particularly true for the measurements involving ISO data, because more and more new data reduction tools are becoming available for these rather complex data.

Model S1, which is otherwise same as the ’peak model’ in Xu et al. (2001) except for the modifications listed in Section 2.2, predicts that the contribution from the starburst population dominates almost everywhere in these plots. The model predictions are in reasonably good agreements with data in all plots, given the large dispersions in the data sets. Particularly, the new results of Gruppioni et al. (2002) on the 15$`\mu m`$ counts of ELAIS sources (filled 4-point stars in plot) are about a factor of 3 lower than the counts from the same survey reported by Serjeant et al. (2000) (open 4-point stars), and are also significantly lower than other ISOCAM measurements in the flux range of 1 mJy $`<f_{15\mu m}<`$ 10 mJy. Model S1 predicts a less prominent sub-mJy peak in the 15$`\mu m`$ counts than the ’peak model’ of Xu et al. (2001), because the sharp peak at z=1.5 in the evolution functions of the old model is replaced by a smooth peak in the new model (at $`z1.3`$, see Fig.1). It is worth to note that, in the bright end of the SCUBA counts ($`f_{850\mu m}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}mJy`$), the model predicts that the contribution from galaxies with AGN exceeds that from starbursts. This result seems to be consistent with the limited knowledge we have about the bright SCUBA sources: out of the 7 SCUBA sources of $`f_{850\mu m}8mJy`$ in the sample of Smail et al. (2002), 4 show signs of AGN. On the other hand, the model predictions on the SCUBA 850$`\mu m`$ counts are close to the lower boundary of the data.

In contrast to Model S1, Model S2 predicts that for 15$`\mu m`$ counts, 850$`\mu m`$ counts and for the CIB, the population of normal galaxies dominate (Fig.3). This is in agreement with the results of Rowan-Robinson (2001). The same model predicts that normal galaxies and starburst galaxies give about equal contributions to the 170$`\mu m`$ counts, and starbursts dominate the 90$`\mu m`$ and 60$`\mu m`$ counts. This model can also fit the data in all these plots well (Fig.3).

By design, the contributions from normal galaxies and from starburst galaxies are indeed nearly equal in the predictions of Model S3 for 15$`\mu m`$ counts (Fig.4). The same model predicts that the 60$`\mu m`$, 90$`\mu m`$ and 170$`\mu m`$ counts are dominated by starbursts. For the SCUBA 850$`\mu m`$ band, the model predicts comparable contributions from the normal galaxies and from the starbursts to the counts in a wide flux range, and the contribution from AGNs dominant the counts at a few 10s of mJy level while being negligible at sub-mJy level. The CIB predicted by this model is dominated by the contribution from the starbursts in the wavelength range $`20\mu m\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\lambda \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}300}\mu m`$, and by that from normal galaxies at other wavelengths.

In Fig.5, Fig.6 and Fig.7, predictions by the 3 models for the redshift distributions for the IRAS 60$`\mu m`$, ISOCAM 15$`\mu m`$, ELAIS 90$`\mu m`$, FIRBACK 170$`\mu m`$, and SCUBA 850$`\mu m`$, and future SWIRE 24$`\mu m`$ surveys are plotted. The model predictions for the IRAS 60$`\mu m`$ and ISOCAM 15$`\mu m`$ surveys are compared to the data. All 3 models give more satisfactory fits to redshift distribution of the IRAS 60$`\mu m`$ sources than the ‘peak model’ (favorite model) of Xu et al. (2001) does, though Model S1 still over-predicts the number of IRAS 60$`\mu m`$ sources with $`z>0.2`$ by about a factor of 3. For the redshift distribution of ISOCAM 15$`\mu m`$ sources in the HDF-north, the predictions of the Model S1 gives the best fit among the 3 models although, given the large error bars of the data, the difference among model predictions is subtle.

All the 3 models predict bi-modal redshift distributions for ELAIS 90$`\mu m`$ and FIRBACK 170$`\mu m`$ sources, with normal galaxies dominating the first peak and starburst galaxies dominating the second peak. Model S1 predicts that most of ELAIS 90$`\mu m`$ and FIRBACK 170$`\mu m`$ sources have $`z0.5`$. In contrast, Model S2 predicts that most of these sources have $`z0.5`$, being in the first peak of the redshift distributions. This difference is due to the so-called ’temperature-redshift’ degeneracy for infrared galaxies (Blain 1999): In the long wavelength bands such as the 90$`\mu m`$ and the 170$`\mu m`$, the sources in Model S1 tend to have larger redshifts than those in Model S2 in order to compensate their warmer IR SEDs. Interestingly, this indicates that we can break the degeneracy over these models by comparing the predicted and observed redshift distributions of the ISOPHOT sources in these bands. Serjeant et al. (2001) obtained high confidence redshifts for 16 (out of 37) sources of $`f_{90\mu m}0.1Jy`$ in the ELAIS S1 field (3.96 deg2), none of them has redshift larger than 0.5. This sets a lower limit of 43$`\pm 11`$% for the percentage of the 90$`\mu m`$ sources in this field to have $`z<0.5`$. Taken at the face value, only the prediction of S2 (53%) is comfortably above this lower limit, while the prediction of S3 (37%) is marginally consistent with it, and the prediction of S1 (30%) is marginally below the limit. The above comparisons seem to favor Model S2. However, given the fact that this data set was taken from a small region and can be seriously affected by any clustering effect, more observations are needed for any definitive conclusions.

Model S1 predicts a broad redshift distribution, peaking between $`2<z<3`$, for bright SCUBA sources ($`f_{850\mu m}>8`$ mJy), broadly consistent with observational constraints (Smail et al. 2002; Ivison et al. 2002; Fox et al. 2002). For the same sources, Model S2 predicts a prominent peak around z=1.5 and less than 25% of sources at redshifts $`>2`$, not favored by observations which in general suggest a mean redshift larger than 2 (see, e.g. Ivison et al. 2002). Model S3 also predicts a peak around z=1.5 for the $`f_{850\mu m}>8`$ mJy sources, though with a much wider high-redshift wing (44% of sources have $`z2`$).

### 2.4 Predictions for ISO LFs and SFH

The ISOCAM $`15\mu m`$ sources in HDF-North have been thoroughly studied in the literature (Rowan-Robinson et al. 1997; Aussel et al. 1999; Elbaz et al. 1999; Cohen et al. 2000; Franceschini et al. 2001; Elbaz et al. 2002). All but 1 of a total of 41 sources with $`f_{15\mu m}0.1`$ mJy have spectroscopic redshifts (Franceschini et al. 2001; Elbaz et al. 2002). Exploiting these redshifts, we derived the 15$`\mu m`$ luminosity functions (LFs) in three redshift intervals: $`0.4<z0.7`$, $`0.7<z1`$, and $`1<z1.3`$ using the classical Vmax method. These results are compared to the predictions of the three models in Fig.8.

Given the small size of the data set (40 galaxies), it is understandable that the derived luminosity functions have substantial uncertainties. Particularly, significant fluctuations can be found in the redshift distributions (Fig.5–7), presumably due to clustering effects. Compared to these uncertainties, the difference in the predictions by the three different models is again subtle. They all lie near the lower ends of the error-bars (Poisson error) of the two data points in the panel of $`0.4<z<0.7`$. This is likely to be due to a bias in the data caused by the over-density in the $`0.4<z<0.6`$ bin (Fig.5–7). In the panels of $`0.7<z<1`$ and $`1<z<1.3`$, the predictions of Model S1 are slightly higher and fit the data slightly better than those of other two models.

In Fig.9a, the star formation history (SFH) predicted by the three models are compared to observations. The red lower limits are derived from the ISOCAM 15$`\mu m`$ LFs (Fig.8). The lower limit of 15$`\mu m`$ luminosity density is derived by summing up the contributions in the bins where the LF is actually measured (i.e. no extrapolations are applied to measured LFs), then converted to total IR luminosity using the formula $`L_{ir}=11.1\times L_{15\mu m}`$ (Elbaz et al. 2002). The star formation rate is then estimated from the IR luminosity density using the formula of Kennicutt (1998): SFR ($`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1)=$`L_{ir}\times \mathrm{1.7\hspace{0.33em}10}^{10}`$ L. The predictions of the three models are very close to each other (within 50%).

In Fig.9b, Fig.9c and Fig.9d, these predictions are broken into contributions by different populations. Indeed Model S1 predicts that, except for in the low z end ($`z\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}`$), the starburst galaxies overwhelmingly dominate the star formation in the universe. Model S2 predicts just the opposite: the star formation in the universe has been always dominated by normal late-type galaxies, while in Model S3 the contributions of these two populations are more comparable. All three models predict minor contributions from galaxies with AGNs. Note that since some of the IR emission from galaxies with AGNs is powered by the gravitational energy released in the AGN, not by star formation, the model predictions plotted here should be treated as upper limits.

In the literature, the steep decline of the star formation rate since $`z1`$ has been well established since early works of Lilly et al. (1996) and Madau et al. (1996). However, it is still controversial on what happened to the star formation rate in earlier universe, particularly before $`z=2`$. Most information on this issue is obtained from observations of Lyman-Break galaxies (LBGs, Steidel et al. 1999). However, the extinction correction for these rest-frame UV selected galaxies is very uncertain. In addition, many high redshift star-forming galaxies may be completely missed in the surveys of LBGs because of heavy extinction, causing systematic underestimation when using LBGs to determine the star formation rate in high z universe (see, e.g., Rowan-Robinson et al. 1997). In this respect, the predictions of our models follow closely the data points determined from LBG surveys after the extinction correction (Steidel et al. 1999). As discussed in Xu et al. (2001), the evolution of IR galaxies at redshifts $`>2`$ is mainly constrained by the sub-mm data in the SCUBA surveys and in the CIB observations, due to the negative K-correction. Too much star formation in those large redshifts will result in too many sub-mm counts and too high sub-mm background radiation. In the literature, other models (e.g. Gispert et al. 2000; Rowan-Robinson 2000; Chary & Elbaz 2001) which also invoked sub-mm data to constrain the evolution of $`z>2`$ IR galaxies found the similar trend (a peak at $`z1`$ and a shallow/flat slope in $`z\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$) in the SFR evolution. The claim that the universal star formation rate increases monotonically with redshift to very high z ($`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}`$) by Lanzetta et al. (2002) is not supported by our and other studies on evolution of IR galaxies.

## 3 Passive Evolution Models for E/S0 Galaxies

The models follow a simple, passive evolution approach (Pozzetti et al. 1996). The basic assumption is that there has been no star formation in an E/S0 galaxy since its initial formation. Consequently, its radiation in different bands (i.e. the SED and the L/M ratio) evolves passively with the ever-aging stellar population. Instead of assuming that all E/S0’s formed at once together (as in the classical monolithic galaxy formation scenario), the E/S0 galaxies are assumed to form in a broad redshift range (Franceschini et al. 1998), specified by a truncated Gaussian function. The SEDs of different ages are calculated using the GRASIL code of Silva et al. (1998). No dust emission is considered in these models.

### 3.1 Evolution Function

The evolution function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(M,t)`$, specifying how many E/S0s are formed in a unit volume, in a unit time interval, and in a unit mass interval, is assumed to have the following form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(M,t)=\psi (M)T(t)$$
(4)
where the time dependence function $`T(t)`$ is a truncated Gaussian:

$`T(t)`$ $`=`$ $`exp((tt(z_{peak}))^2/\omega ^2)(tt(z_0))`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`0(t<t(z_0)).`$
In this prescription, for the sake of simplicity, the time dependence is assumed to be independent of the mass. This implies that E/S0s of different mass have the same formation history (i.e. no differential evolution). The time dependence function $`T(t)`$ is fully defined by 3 free parameters: the peak formation time $`t(z_{peak})`$, the time scale $`\omega `$ (in Gyr), and the time when the formation of E/S0s started $`t(z_0)`$.

Accordingly, for a given redshift z, the number of E/S0’s in a unit mass interval and a unit volume can be found from the following integration:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(M,z)=\psi (M)_{t(z_0)}^{t(z)}T(t^{})𝑑t^{}.$$
(6)
If the local mass function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M,z=0)`$ is known, then the mass dependence function $`\psi (M)`$ can be derived:

$$\psi (M)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(M,z=0)}{_{t(z_0)}^{t(z=0)}T(t^{})𝑑t^{}}.$$
(7)
where $`t(z=0)`$ is the current age of the universe.

In this work, the local mass function is constrained using the local K-band luminosity function of Kochanek et al. (2001) and the $`L_K/M`$ ratio predicted by GRASIL code (Silva et al. 1999).

### 3.2 Galaxy Age Distribution and SED Assignment

Eq(6) predicts galaxy number for a given redshift in a unit mass interval and a unit volume. These galaxies have different ages spanning between $`\tau =0`$ and $`\tau =t(z)t(z_0)`$. The age distribution function, $`G(z,\tau )`$, is also a truncated Gaussian:

$`G(z,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`G_0exp((t(z)\tau t(z_{peak}))^2/\omega ^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}\tau (t(z)t(z_0))`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`0(otherwise).`$
For every galaxy simulated, an age is assigned to it according to the above distribution (i.e. probability) function. According to the passive evolution model, galaxies of different ages have different SEDs and different L/M ratios. The SEDs of different ages are calculated using GRASIL (Silva et al. 1998). Again, for the sake of simplicity, we assume a simple ‘single-burst’ scenario, in analogy to the merger scenario of E/S0 formation as hinted at in the studies of ULIRGs (Kormendy & Sanders 1992), to model the formation of E/S0s. Namely, we assume that all the stars in an E/S0 galaxy were formed in a short burst (lasting $`10^8`$ yrs), after which all the ISM was blown out. Accordingly, the following parameters are adopted for the input of GRASIL: $`t_{win}=0.1`$ (Gyr), $`k_{sch}=1.0`$, $`\nu _{sch}=20.0`$, and $`\tau _{inf}=0.01`$. Then, in the simulation of E/S0s, we include only sources older than 1 Gyrs. Here we implicitly assume that merger remnants younger than 1 Gyr do not look like E/S0s because these systems may have not fully relaxed. Namely they should be classified as post-starbursts or E+As, not E/S0s. Optical follow-up observations of ISOCAM sources (Flores et al. 1999b; Aussel et al. 1999; Cohen et al. 2000; Elbaz et al. 2002) have shown that E+A galaxies are IR bright and have similar IR properties as active starburst galaxies.

### 3.3 Three Models for E/S0 Evolution

We consider 3 different E/S0 models in this paper, specified by different $`z_{peak}`$ and $`\omega `$ (Table 2, Fig.10). Model E1 ($`z_{peak}=5`$, $`\omega =0.5`$ Gyr) mimics the classical monolithic scenario (Eggen et al. 1962). Model E2 assumes a later and broader E/S0 formation epoch ($`z_{peak}=2`$, $`\omega =2`$ Gyr). Model E3 ($`z_{peak}=1`$, $`\omega =3`$ Gyr) assumes that most of E/S0s are formed at $`z>1`$, as hierarchical galaxy formation workers have advocated (Kauffmann et al. 1993; Kauffmann & Charlot 1998).

Table 2. Evolution models for E/S0s

| Models | $`z_{peak}`$ | $`\omega `$ (Gyr) | $`z_0`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| E1 | 5 | 0.5 | 7 |
| E2 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| E3 | 1 | 3 | 7 |

In Fig.11 we compare the model predictions on the redshift dependence of optical/NIR colors with the data from Franceschini et al. (1998). Predictions of all three models can fit the overall trend of the data well. On the other hand, Model E1 predicts very little scattering, which is not confirmed by the data. The other two models predict significantly larger dispersion, in better agreement with the data.

In Fig.12 the redshift distribution of early type galaxies of $`K_{ab}20.15`$, taken from Franceschini et al. (1998), is compared to the model predictions. Note that only 15 out of 35 redshifts in Franceschini et al. (1998) are spectroscopically measured, the rest are photometric redshifts. Among the three models, Model E2 fits the data best. It should be noted that, as discussed in Benitez et al. (1999) and Rodighiero et al. (2001), some high z E/S0s may have been missed in the Franceschini et al. (1998) investigation.

## 4 Counts in UV, Optical, NIR and MIR Bands

Both the E/S0 galaxies and the dusty galaxies contribute significantly in these bands. Since the three E/S0 models predict almost identical counts (difference $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.1}`$ dex), in the rest of the paper we shall present only the results from Model E2 ($`z_{peak}=2`$, $`\omega =2`$ Gyr).

In Fig.13, Fig.14 and Fig.15 the contributions of E/S0 galaxies to the counts in these bands (as predicted by Model E2) are added to the contributions of dusty galaxies as predicted by Model S1, Model S2 and Model S3, respectively. These model predictions are compared to observations in the vacuum UV (2000Å), the B and R, the NIR K, and the MIR 6.7$`\mu m`$ band (ISOCAM) and 12$`\mu m`$ (IRAS and ISO CAM) bands. Between the three figures, the differences in the total counts in the bands plotted are generally within the uncertainties of data. The model predictions can account for all counts in the R, K and MIR bands. On the other hand, the model predictions are significantly lower than the counts observed in the 2000Å band (Milliard et al. 1994). For the B band, the model predictions are slightly lower ($`0.3`$ dex) than the observed counts for $`B>20`$ mags. These results strongly hint at a population of star forming galaxies which are infrared quiet (very low dust attenuation/emission), therefore seen only in the UV and the blue bands (see Section 7.3 for more discussion).

In the bright end of the K-band counts, the prediction by S1+E2 (Fig.13) is in good agreement with the morphologically segregated counts reported by Huang et al. (1998), namely at K$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}17}`$ the E/S0 galaxies contribute about 50% of the counts, and at fainter magnitudes the contribution from late-types becomes more and more dominant. The predictions by S2+E2 and S3+E2 on the E/S0 contribution to K-band counts at K$`=16`$ are $`30\%`$ and $`40\%`$, slightly less than the observational result of Huang et al. (1998).

The three models fit the faint, sub-mJy ISOCAM 6.7$`\mu m`$ counts very well. However, predictions of S1+E2 are about a factor of 3 lower than the ELAIS counts (Serjeant et al. 2000) at few mJy level. For these counts, predictions by S3+E3 have the best agreement with, though being still about 50% less than, the data. It should be noted that, as indicated by the large discrepancy between the ELAIS 15$`\mu m`$ counts of Serjeant at al. (2000) and of Gruppioni et al. (2002), the uncertainties of the ELAIS 6.7$`\mu m`$ counts of Serjeant et al. (2000) may be signicantly larger than reported.

The scatters of the ISOCAM 12$`\mu m`$ data (Clements et al. 1999) are large, indicating significantly larger uncertainties than the Poisson noise (error bars in the plot). The three brightest ISO points may suffer serious biases caused by errors in galaxy/star separation (Clements et al. 1999), so are likely to be less reliable than other data points. If this is indeed the case then, among the three models, the predictions of S1+E2 have the best agreement with the data. The effect of the Local Supercluster (Lonsdale et al. 1990) can be seen in the bright IRAS 12$`\mu m`$ counts.

## 5 Counts and Confusion Limits in SIRTF Bands

The E/S0 galaxies contribute significantly only to the four IRAC bands (3.6$`\mu m`$, 4.5$`\mu m`$, 5.8$`\mu m`$, and 8$`\mu m`$), while the 3 MIPS bands (24$`\mu m`$, 70$`\mu m`$ and 160$`\mu m`$) will see only dusty galaxies.

Model predictions of contributions by E/S0 galaxies and by different populations of dusty galaxies to the counts in three SIRTF bands ($`3.6\mu m`$, $`24\mu m`$ and $`70\mu m`$ bands) are plotted in Fig.16. The total counts by the three different models are very close to each other, though the relative contributions from normal galaxies and from starbursts are very different. This can be understood by the fact that, tuned to fit the same counts in the ISO bands which covers a wide wavelength range from 6.7$`\mu m`$ to 170$`\mu m`$, these models are forced to be similar with each other.

The 3-$`\sigma `$ confusion limits are given in Table 3 for all 7 SIRTF bands. These are calculated by the method described in Xu et al. (2001), and assuming that SIRTF (85 cm dish) is diffraction limited in all bands (so the beams can be approximated by the Airy function). Since this idealized assumption may not be true, particularly for the short wavelength IRAC bands (e.g. the 3.6$`\mu m`$ and 4.5$`\mu m`$ bands), the results for those bands should be treated as lower limits. The confusion limits predicted by the 3 different models differ by up to 80%. The largest difference occurs for the 70$`\mu m`$ band. These differences reflect the real uncertainties, mostly due to the uncertainties in the ISO data which are the major constraints to the models.

Table 3. Confusion limits (3$`\sigma `$) of SIRTF bands

| Models | 3.6$`\mu m`$ | 4.5$`\mu m`$ | 5.8$`\mu m`$ | 8$`\mu m`$ | 24$`\mu m`$ | 70$`\mu m`$ | 160$`\mu m`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| S1+E2 | 0.12 $`\mu `$Jy | 0.21 $`\mu `$Jy | 0.43 $`\mu `$Jy | 1.02 $`\mu `$Jy | 65 $`\mu `$Jy | 6.15 mJy | 81.5 mJy |
| S2+E2 | 0.18 $`\mu `$Jy | 0.35 $`\mu `$Jy | 0.65 $`\mu `$Jy | 1.32 $`\mu `$Jy | 57 $`\mu `$Jy | 3.35 mJy | 57.5 mJy |
| S3+E2 | 0.14 $`\mu `$Jy | 0.27 $`\mu `$Jy | 0.53 $`\mu `$Jy | 1.17 $`\mu `$Jy | 57 $`\mu `$Jy | 4.45 mJy | 68.5 mJy |

## 6 Colors as Model Discriminators for Dusty Galaxies

In empirical evolution models, different populations of dusty galaxies are distinguished by different SEDs. Therefore, the most direct method to distinguish models predicting different dominant populations for IR sources is to compare the predicted color distributions with the observations.

In Fig.17, we compare predictions of the three models for evolution of dusty galaxies (Table 1) for colors of ISO galaxies. The detection limits are set to be $`f_{6.7\mu m}30\mu Jy`$, $`f_{15\mu m}100\mu Jy`$, $`f_{90\mu m}100mJy`$, $`f_{170\mu m}180mJy`$, $`R24mag`$, and $`K20mag`$. The predictions for $`f_{15\mu m}/f_R`$ and $`f_{15\mu m}/f_K`$ are compared to the data of ISOCAM $`15\mu m`$ sources in HDF-N (Aussel et al. 1999; Cohen et al. 2000; Hogg et al. 2000). It appears that, for ISO galaxies, only the $`f_{15\mu m}/f_K`$ color is a good model discriminator in the sense that the peaks of the color distributions predicted by the three models are separated from each other. The data seem to favor Model S1 which predicts a peak in the $`f_{15\mu m}/f_K`$ color distribution right at the place where the data peaks. However, this data set is again too small (30 galaxies) and error bars too large to distinguish the three models.

SWIRE333http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/SWIRE., a SIRTF Legacy Science program, will survey 65 deg2 of sky in all 7 SIRTF bands (3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8, 24, 70, and 160$`\mu m`$) down to a depth comparable to, or even deeper than, that of ISOCAM 15$`\mu m`$ surveys. The documented 5$`\sigma `$ sensitivity limits of SWIRE are: $`f_{3.6\mu m}=7.3\mu Jy`$, $`f_{4.5\mu m}=8.7\mu Jy`$, $`f_{5.8\mu m}=27.5\mu Jy`$, $`f_{8\mu m}=32.5\mu Jy`$, $`f_{24\mu m}=0.45mJy`$, and $`f_{70\mu m}=2.75mJy`$, $`f_{160\mu m}=17.5mJy`$. Compared to predicted confusion limits in Table 3, it appears that SWIRE surveys will be confusion limited in the the 70$`\mu m`$ and 160$`\mu m`$ bands. Extensive ground based follow-up observations in the optical, NIR and radio bands will be carried out. These survey areas will also be observed in the far-UV (1500Å and 2300Å) by GALEX444http://www.srl.caltech.edu/galex. in the deep survey mode. In Fig.18, model predictions for the distributions of 6 colors of SWIRE galaxies are plotted. These colors are selected among many possible combinations to illustrate how the colors of SWIRE galaxies can discriminate the models. Model simulations of sky coverage of 5 deg2 are carried out. For each plot, the samples of simulated sources are selected according to SWIRE’s sensitivity limits or, for the 70$`\mu m`$ and 160$`\mu m`$ bands, the confusion limits. Also it is required that $`R24`$ mag and $`K20`$ mag when the R and K band data are invovled. In four ($`f_{70\mu m}/f_{8\mu m}`$, $`f_{24\mu m}/f_{3.6\mu m}`$, $`f_{24\mu m}/f_{8\mu m}`$, and $`f_{24\mu m}/f_K`$) of the six colors plotted, the peaks of Model S1 (starburst dominant) and Model S2 (normals dominant) are clearly separate. Among these, the peak of the distribution predicted by Model 3 (intermediate model) is close to that of S1 in the $`f_{70\mu m}/f_{8\mu m}`$ color plot, close to that of S2 in the $`f_{24\mu m}/f_{8\mu m}`$ color plot, and more ambiguous in the other two plots. Given the large sky coverage of SWIRE, which is 13 times of what is simulated here, it is very hopeful that these color distributions will indeed provide clues to the question of which population is dominant among IR sources.

## 7 Discussion

### 7.1 Evolution of SEDs of Starburst Galaxies

As pointed out in Xu et al. (2001), the most important assumption in our models for the evolution of dusty galaxies is that high redshift (i.e. $`z\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$) star-forming galaxies have the same SEDs as their local counterparts when the luminosity is the same. Since our SEDs cover from the UV all the way through to the radio waveband, the validity of this assumption demands similarity between high redshift and local galaxies in many physical conditions, a requirement that seems too strong to be fulfilled in the strict sense. Particularly, the long term star formation history plays an important role in the optical and NIR emission of galaxies, and it is obvious that high redshift galaxies have very different long term star formation history (i.e. much younger) than that of local galaxies. Does this mean that our predictions for the optical/NIR flux densities of high redshift dusty galaxies are flawed and therefore unreliable? Our argument to dispute this suspicion is based on the fact that high redshift galaxies (particularly IR selected galaxies), already detected or to be detected in the future surveys, are almost exclusively high luminousity galaxies (less luminous galaxies with high redshift are too faint to be detected). As their local counterparts, these high redshift ULIRGs must host very powerful starbursts or AGNs as energy sources which contribute much of the emission even in the NIR bands ($`40\%`$ for the local ULIRGs, Surace et al. 2000; Scoville et al. 2000). Therefore, as far as the detectable IR sources are concerned, the difference in the underlying old population between the high redshift dusty starforming galaxies and their local counterparts does not affect very seriously our model predictions.

Recent multi-wavebands observations of SCUBA galaxies (Smail et al. 2002), Lyman-Break Galaxies (Adelberger & Steidel 2000), and ISOCAM galaxies (Flores et al. 1999a; Aussel et al. 1999; Cohen et al. 2000; Elbaz et al. 2002) are consistent with our assumption that high redshift star-forming galaxies have similar SEDs as their local counterparts, particularly when binned according to the luminosity (as stressed by Adelberger & Steidel 2000). On the other hand, some new observations hint at possible systematic differences between high redshift and local ULIRGs. The HST image of SCUBA galaxy SMM J14011+0252 (Ivison et al. 2001) shows that the star formation activity in that source is widely spread (up to a few kpc), a situation remarkably different from typical ULIRGs found in the local universe (Sanders & Mirabel 1998). Compared to centrally concentrated starbursts found in most of the local ULIRGs, galaxies with such widely distributed starbursts are expected to have less steep MIR slopes (i.e. smaller $`f_{25\mu m}/f_{12\mu m}`$ ratio) and cooler FIR color (i.e. larger $`f_{100\mu m}/f_{60\mu m}`$ ratios). This is due to the less intense radiation field (less warm dust emission in the 25$`\mu m`$ and 60$`\mu m`$ bands) and less dust opacity (less extinction for MIR fluxes). Indeed, Chapman et al. (2002) found that two sources detected both by the FIRBACK 170$`\mu m`$ band survey (Puget et al. 1999; Dole et al. 2001) and by SCUBA (Scott et al. 2000), one at z=0.91 and the other at z=0.46, have significantly cooler dust temperatures ($`T_{dust}30`$K) compared to $`T_{dust}50`$K found for typical ULIRGs such as Arp220. They argue that this may indicate the starbursts in these systems are also extended. Given the small amount of information and the possible bias for cooler galaxies due to the sub-mm selection (Chapman et al. 2002), it is still too early to tell whether high-redshift ULIRGa are systematically more extended, and therefore have SEDs closer to less luminous local interacting galaxies (such as the Antennae galaxies) which are in earlier stages along the merger sequence. Future surveys like SWIRE will address these questions.

### 7.2 E/S0 evolution and starburst evolution

Comparisons between predictions E/S0 evolution models and observational data (Fig.11–12) indicate that the intermediate model (Model E2), which assumes a peak formation redshift of $`z_{peak}=2`$, is the favorite among the three models. This is in agreement with some previous works (Franceschini et al. 1998; Rodighiero et al. 2001; Im et al. 2002). This model can reproduce well the trend in the color-z plots and also fit the redshift distribution very well. However, particular in the B-K v.s. z plot, the data show significantly larger dispersion than the model predictions. There are two possible causes for this:

(1) In our simple models, we have assumed that all of the E/S0s are formed through the same starburst procedure, which means their stellar populations have the same metallicity. It is known (e.g. Worthy 1994) that local E/S0s have different metallicity which is a major cause of the different M/L ratios and colors among these galaxies. Therefore, by neglecting these effects, our models leave some of the scatters in the color distributions unaccounted for.

(2) Some of the blue E/S0s in the data (Franceschini et al. 1998) may not be true E/S0s. According to Im et al. (2002), many of these ’blue interlopers’ have strong, narrow emission lines, suggesting that they are low-mass starbursts rather than massive star-forming E/S0s.

In fact, there is still a lack of consensus in the definition of E/S0s in deep surveys. Using a strict algorithm selecting the most symmetric and smooth galaxies, Im et al. (2002) found far less blue sources among their E/S0 sample than, e.g., Schade et al. (1999) and Menanteau (1999) whose samples were selected with less strict algorithms. A related uncertainty in our models is the choice on the exclusion of galaxies younger than 1 Gyr (Section 3.2). This choice is not entirely arbitrary: pushing the cut-off toward younger ages means more galaxies with high L/M ratios, which in turn results in too high model predictions for optical and NIR counts. This shows that the question of where to put the boundary between E/S0s and post-starbursts deserves more investigation.

If indeed E/S0s are formed through mergers (Toomre 1978; Kormendy & Sanders 1992), then their evolution is linked to the evolution of starburst galaxies which are closely related to mergers (Sanders & Mirabel 1998). Our results indeed indicate some synchronization between the two populations, in the sense that the peak of the formation function of E/S0s in the best fit model ($`z_{peak}=2`$) is close to the peak of the evolution functions of starburst galaxies ($`z_{peak}=1.4`$). Future works exploring this possible link will provide important constraints to the evolution of both populations.

### 7.3 IR-quiet star-forming galaxies

Our results (Fig. 13 – 15) show that only a small fraction (10 – 20 %) of UV selected galaxies (as in the sample of FOCA survey, Milliard et al. 1992) are IR bright, as indicated by the small contribution of simulated dusty galaxies to the UV counts (the E/S0 galaxies contribute even less). This suggests a separate population of IR quiet, UV bright galaxies which dominate the UV selected samples. Such a population is also needed for the B-band counts, because our simulations under-predict 30 – 50% of observed counts in that band, while fully account for the R and K band counts (Fig. 13 – 15). The best candidates for such galaxies are the low-metallicity (therefore low dust content) blue dwarf galaxies such as I Zw 18 (Searle & Sargent 1972). There is an apparent link between this IR quiet star-forming galaxy population and the ’faint blue galaxies’ found in deep optical surveys (see Koo & Kron 1992 and Ellis 1997 for reviews). What is the relation between this population and the dusty (IR bright) star-forming galaxies? How does this population evolve (backwardly) with the redshift, and how does this evolution correlate with the evolution of IR bright galaxies? Are Lyman Break Galaxies, being selected by the UV flux in the rest frame, more closely related to the IR quiet star forming galaxies, or to the dusty star forming galaxies (as argued by Adelberger & Steidel 2000)? Answers to these questions will help to unify the pictures of galaxy formation/evolution seen in different wavebands. We plan to address these questions in our future work, particularly in connections with the forthcoming GALEX and SWIRE missions.

## 8 Summary

New models for the evolution of extragalactic IR sources are presented in this paper. The models for dusty galaxies and for E/S0 galaxies, the latter contributing significantly to counts at wavelengths $`\lambda <10\mu m`$, have been developed separately.

Compared to previously published models in Xu et al. (2001), the new models for evolution of dusty galaxies in this work have the following improvements:

(1) The evolution functions have the form of smoothly-joined 3-piece power-law (Fig.1), instead of the sharply-joined 2-piece power-law.

(2) New local luminosity functions at 25$`\mu m`$, which take into account the evolution effects, are used for the three dust galaxy populations (i.e. normal late-type galaxies, starburst galaxies, and galaxies with AGNs).

(3) The UV portion ($`\lambda <3000`$Å) of the SEDs in the SED library is constrained by an empirical correlation between $`f_{UV}f_B`$ and $`BK`$, instead of mere an extrapolation of the optical SED ($`\lambda >4000`$Å).

In order to address the question whether normal late-type galaxies or starburst galaxies dominate among IR sources of $`z>0.5`$, three new models are developed:

* Model S1 — starburst galaxies dominant ;
* Model S2 — normal galaxies dominant;
* Model S3 — intermediate between S1 and S2.

Predictions of these three models for counts in various bands are fairly close to each other, therefore they can hardly be distinguished using the counts. They can also fit very well the luminosity functions of ISO $`15\mu m`$ sources in three redshift intervals ($`0.4<z0.7`$, $`0.7<z1`$, $`1<z1.3`$). In principle, they can be distinguished by redshift distributions of FIR sources, but the large beams of FIR detectors (such as the ISOPHOT cameras) make it rather difficult to pin-down the optical counterparts (usually very faint) of faint FIR sources. At the same time, the peaks in the distributions of several IR and optical colors predicted by these models have separated locations. We argue that these color distributions are the best tools to distinguish these models. There are only very limited amount of multi-waveband data available for high redshift dusty galaxies in the literature (mostly for ISOCAM 15$`\mu m`$ sources), a situation that will be drastically improved when SIRTF is launched and SWIRE surveys are available.

The models for E/S0s follow a simple, passive evolution approach. The basic assumption is that there has been no star formation in an E/S0 galaxy since its initial formation. Instead of assuming that all E/S0’s formed at once together (as in the classical monolithic galaxy formation scenario), the E/S0 galaxies are assumed to form in a broad redshift range (Franceschini et al. 1998), specified by a truncated Gaussian function. The SEDs of different ages are calculated using the GRASIL code of Silva et al. (1998). No dust emission is considered in these models. Three such models with different E/S0 formation histories are calculated: Model E1 ($`z_{peak}=5`$, $`\omega =0.5`$ Gyr) is close to the classical monolithic scenario. Model E2 assumes a later and broader E/S0 formation epoch ($`z_{peak}=2`$, $`\omega =2`$ Gyr). Model E3 ($`z_{peak}=1`$, $`\omega =3`$ Gyr) assumes that most of E/S0s are formed at $`z>1`$, as the hierarchical galaxy formation works have advocated (Kauffmann et al. 1993; Kauffmann & Charlot 1998). Comparisons with limited data (e.g. colors and redshift distribution) available for morphologically identified E/S0 galaxies at z$`1`$ indicate that model E2 can fit the data best among the three models. This suggests a synchronization between the evolution of E/S0 galaxies and of starburst galaxies, in the sense that the peak of the formation function of E/S0s ($`z_{peak}=2`$) is close to the peak of the evolution functions of starburst galaxies ($`z_{peak}=1.4`$). Combining model predictions by E2 with those by S1, S2 and S3 (dusty galaxy evolution models), comparisons with number counts in different wavebands (Fig.13–15) indicate that E/S0s contribute upto 30 – 50% of the optical/NIR counts in the bright end, and about 20 – 30% of the ISOCAM 6.7$`\mu m`$ band counts. Their contributions to counts in the UV (2000Å) and in the longer wavelength IR ($`12\mu m`$) bands are negligible.

Using these new models for extragalactic IR sources, particularly including E/S0 galaxies, we made new predictions for the counts and confusion limits in the SIRTF bands. The results indicate that SWIRE surveys will be confusion limited in the 70$`\mu m`$ and 160$`\mu m`$ bands. The confusion limits predicted by different models differ by up to 80%. These differences reflect the uncertainties of these predictions.

Appendix

## Appendix A New 25$`\mu m`$ Local Luminosity Functions for Three Populations

In Xu et al. (2001), luminosity functions were presented for three population subsamples–AGNs, normal late-type galaxies and starbursts. The subsamples were determined by IRAS colors. We have extended this work to take into account the effects of luminosity evolution on the LLF estimates, and to include a more comprehensive uncertainty analysis.

We recomputed the population LLFs including a luminosity evolution term of the form $`(1+z)^q`$, for values of q =0, 3.0, and 4.5. This factor is applied to both the source luminosity, and the minimum luminosity detectable at the source’s redshift. The shape parameters are tabulated in Table A.1.

Table A.1. Paremeters of 25$`\mu m`$ Luminosity Functions

| Population | q | $`\alpha `$ | $`\beta `$ | $`L_{}/L_{\mathrm{}}`$ | $`\alpha +\beta `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| AGNs | 0.0 | 0.336 | 1.691 | 6.9$`\times 10^9`$ | 2.027 |
| AGNs | 3.0 | 0.329 | 1.713 | 6.6$`\times 10^9`$ | 2.042 |
| AGNs | 4.5 | 0.326 | 1.724 | 6.5$`\times 10^9`$ | 2.040 |
| Starbursts | 0.0 | 0.265 | 2.283 | 7.9$`\times 10^9`$ | 2.548 |
| Starbursts | 3.0 | 0.265 | 2.275 | 7.7$`\times 10^9`$ | 2.540 |
| Starbursts | 4.5 | 0.264 | 2.300 | 7.9$`\times 10^9`$ | 2.564 |
| Normals | 0.0 | 0.482 | 3.875 | 5.7$`\times 10^9`$ | 4.357 |
| Normals | 3.0 | 0.480 | 3.992 | 5.8$`\times 10^9`$ | 4.472 |
| Normals | 4.5 | 0.479 | 4.055 | 5.8$`\times 10^9`$ | 4.534 |

The resulting LLFs (with same normalization constant applied) are plotted as visibilities in panel a of Fig.19 (solid line is no evolution; dashed is q=3.0; dashed-dot is q=4.5). There is a small difference between the LLFs at large luminosities. The model calculations in this paper use the LLFs with q=3.0.

We performed an analysis of the covariance of the fitted parameters, using the information matrix (Efstathiou et al. 1988). In panels b, c, and d of Fig.19, we have plotted the 68% confidence intervals in pairs of the parameters, as ellipses under the assumption of normally distributed uncertainties (Avni 1976; Press et al. 1992). In general, the parameters are not strongly correlated, except for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ for AGNs. This correlation is explained by the distribution of this population at higher relative redshifts; the high-luminosity slope of the luminosity function depends on the sum of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, so the parameters are degenerate when $`\alpha `$ is not well determined at low luminosities. For the same reason, the confidence intervals for AGNs for $`\alpha `$ and $`L_{}`$ are larger for the other populations. The variations in the parameters with evolution exponent are for the most part small compared to the uncertainties in the parameters.

## Appendix B Extrapolation of SEDs to the UV Bands

In Xu et al. (2001), the UV (1000 — 4000Å) SEDs are extrapolations from data points in the B, J, H and K bands, and therefore are not well constrained. In this work, this is improved by introducing the following constraints:

(1) The UV-B v.s. B-K correlation. The correlation is established using a sample of galaxies detected both in the vacuum UV bands (1500Å – 2500Å) and in the FIR bands (IRAS). The sample is taken from Xu & Buat (1995). The K-band magnitudes are found in the 2MASS database. In Fig.20, the UV-B v.s. B-K color-color plot for this sample is presented. The sample is divided into galaxies with AGNs ($`f_{60\mu m}/f_{25\mu m}<0.4`$), galaxies with IR excess ($`f_{60\mu m}/f_{25\mu m}0.4`$ and $`L_{fir}/L_B>0.5`$), and normal late-types ($`f_{60\mu m}/f_{25\mu m}0.4`$ and $`L_{fir}/L_B0.5`$). Data of the three ULIRGs observed by Trentham et al. (1999) in UV using HST are also plotted. They follow the same trend of IR excess galaxies, though with larger scatters. We found that the trend for normal late-types can be well fitted by the following function

$`\mathrm{log}(\nu f_\nu (2000\AA )/\nu f_\nu (4400\AA )`$ $`=0.20.3\times ((BK)2)^2((BK)>2)`$ (B1)
$`=0.20.1\times ((BK)2)((BK)2),`$
and for galaxies with AGNs and galaxies with IR excess, it can be well fitted by a two-step linear function

$`\mathrm{log}(\nu f_\nu (2000\AA )/\nu f_\nu (4400\AA )`$ $`=0.4\times ((BK)2.)((BK)>2)`$ (B2)
$`=0((BK)2).`$
(2) The UV slope. We use the following relation between the UV slope $`\beta `$ ($`F_\lambda \lambda ^\beta `$, $`1200\AA <\lambda <2600\AA `$) and the $`L_{fir}/L_B`$ ratio, found by Calzetti et al. (1995), to constrain the slope of the UV SEDs between 1200Å and 2600Å:

$$\beta =1.12\times \mathrm{log}(L_{fir}/L_B)0.94.$$
(B3)
(3) Lyman-break. A sharp drop-off is imposed to the SEDs shortward of 912Å: The flux density decreases a factor of 30 from 912Å to 700Å. There is a less steep drop-off, about a factor of 5, from 1200Å to 912Å, which is to mimic the effect of the Ly$`\alpha `$ absorption.

As an example, the model SED of M82 is compared to data in Fig.21.

This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This work has made use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. C. K. Xu, C. J. Lonsdale and D. L. Shupe were supported by the SIRTF Legacy Science Program provided by NASA through a contract with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.

Figure Captions:


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently the string theory on the plane wave background has attracted much attention in relation to the correspondence to the N=4 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills (SYM) theory . It is now well known that for the usual AdS/CFT correspondence, the various checks have been done essentially on the supergravity states on the string side. In the seminal paper by Berenstein, Maldacena and Nastase , this major obstacle was overcome, thereby showing the explicit correspondence between more general string states and the suitable Yang-Mills operators in the plane wave background , which is the Penrose limit of the AdS . After their paper, more progress was made on how the string Hamiltonian is mapped to the anomalous dimension of the Yang-Mills operator and more precise dictionaries for the correspondence have been developed .

The previously mentioned development was made in Type IIB side. In Type IIA side, the matrix theory on the plane wave background has been important focus in relation to the better understanding of the M-theory on the plane wave background . Recently, simple Type IIA string theory on the plane wave background was proposed by the Kaluza-Klein compactification of the M-theory . The resulting string theory has many nice features. It admits light cone gauge where the string theory spectrum is that of the free massive theory as happens in Type IIB . Furthermore the worldsheet enjoys (4,4) supersymmetry . The structure of the supersymmetry is simpler than that of Type IIB in the sense that the supersymmetry commutes with the Hamiltonian so that all members of the same supermultiplet has the same mass. In the extended version, more detailed exposition was given and the various 1/2 BPS D-branes states were analyzed in the light cone gauge , which are compatible with the BPS branes in matrix model .

The purpose of this letter is to carry out the analysis about the D-branes states in the covariant setting. We follow the logic of Lambert and West  and consider the kappa symmetric string action in the plane wave background and figure out how the supersymmetry is reduced when we impose suitable boundary conditions on the boundary of the worldsheet. Similar work  has been done in Type IIB side and given results in agreement with the previous results . See also  for recent alternative study. Various aspects of kappa symmetry and worldsheet supersymmetry in the plane wave background is discussed in . In our study, as expected, for the D-brane located at the origin of the plane wave background, the analysis in the covariant setting coincides with that in the lightcone gauge . The merit of the covariant analysis is that we are able to work out other D-brane states, which are difficult to analyze in the lightcone gauge. For example, we work out the supersymmetry of D-particle (in fact, nonsupersymmetry) and analyze the supersymmetry of D-branes located away from the origin. In the investigation we found out some potential subtleties arising in the D-brane analysis in the lightcone gauge. We will comment on this in the later section. We think that the analysis in the covariant setting is a good starting point to sort out various, sometimes conflicting, claims  on the number of supersymmetry of various D-branes in the PP-wave.

## 2 Covariant Wess-Zumino action of Type IIA string

The covariant description of D-branes via open string may be given by investigating the boundary contributions in the kappa symmetry variation of the Wess-Zumino part of the superstring action . In this section, starting from the superspace geometry of $`AdS_4\times S^7`$  whose Penrose limit leads to the eleven dimensional pp-wave background, we derive the covariant Wess-Zumino action of Type IIA superstring in the IIA pp-wave background of Refs.  up to quartic order in the fermionic coordinate $`\theta `$.

The eleven dimensional superspace geometry of $`AdS_4\times S^7`$  is encoded in the super elfbein $`\widehat{E}^{\widehat{A}}=(\widehat{E}^{\widehat{r}},\widehat{E})`$ and the three form superfield $`\widehat{B}`$.111We note that $`\widehat{E}`$ means $`\widehat{E}^{\widehat{a}}`$. The index notations adopted here are as follows: $`M,N,\mathrm{}`$ are used for the target superspace indices while $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ for tangent superspace. As usual, a superspace index is the composition of two types of indices such as $`M=(\mu ,\alpha )`$ and $`A=(r,a)`$. $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}(r,s,\mathrm{})`$ are the ten dimensional target (tangent) space-time indices. $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}(a,b,\mathrm{})`$ are the ten dimensional (tangent) spinor indices. For the eleven dimensional case, we denote quantities and indices with hat to distinguish from those of ten dimensions. $`m,n,\mathrm{}`$ are the worldsheet vector indices with values $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$. The convention for the worldsheet antisymmetric tensor is taken to be $`ϵ^{\tau \sigma }=1`$.  The super elfbein is

$`\widehat{E}^{\widehat{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`dx^{\widehat{\mu }}\widehat{e}_{\widehat{\mu }}^{\widehat{r}}+2{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{15}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2n+2)!}}\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{r}}^{2n}\widehat{D}\theta ,`$
$`\widehat{E}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{16}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2n+1)!}}^{2n}\widehat{D}\theta ,`$ (2.1)
where $`\widehat{e}_{\widehat{\mu }}^{\widehat{r}}`$ is the elfbein and $`\widehat{D}\theta `$, the covariant derivative of $`\theta `$, is given by

$$\widehat{D}\theta =d\theta +\frac{1}{4}\widehat{\omega }^{\widehat{r}\widehat{s}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{r}\widehat{s}}+\widehat{e}^{\widehat{r}}T_{\widehat{r}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{s}\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}}\widehat{F}_{\widehat{s}\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}}^{}\theta $$
(2.2)
with the eleven dimensional spin connection $`\widehat{\omega }^{\widehat{r}\widehat{s}}`$. The matrix $`^2`$ is

$$_{ab}^2=2(T_{\widehat{r}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{s}\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}}\widehat{F}_{\widehat{s}\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}}^{}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{r}})_b\frac{1}{4}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{r}\widehat{s}}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }S_{\widehat{r}\widehat{s}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}\widehat{w}}\widehat{F}_{\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}\widehat{w}}^{})_b.$$
(2.3)
The definitions for the tensor structures are as follows:

$$T_{\widehat{r}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{s}\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}}\frac{1}{288}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{r}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{s}\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}}8\delta _{\widehat{r}}^{[\widehat{s}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}]}),S_{\widehat{r}\widehat{s}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}\widehat{w}}\frac{1}{72}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{r}\widehat{s}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{t}\widehat{u}\widehat{v}\widehat{w}}+24\delta _{\widehat{r}}^{[\widehat{t}}\delta _{\widehat{s}}^{\widehat{u}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{v}\widehat{w}]}).$$
(2.4)
The three form superfield is given by

$$\widehat{B}=\frac{1}{6}\widehat{e}^{\widehat{r}}\widehat{e}^{\widehat{s}}\widehat{e}^{\widehat{t}}\widehat{C}_{\widehat{r}\widehat{s}\widehat{t}}_0^1𝑑t\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{r}\widehat{s}}\widehat{E}\widehat{E}^{\widehat{r}}\widehat{E}^{\widehat{s}},$$
(2.5)
where $`\widehat{C}_{\widehat{r}\widehat{s}\widehat{t}}`$ is three form gauge field whose field strength is $`\widehat{F}_{\widehat{r}\widehat{s}\widehat{t}\widehat{u}}=4_{[\widehat{r}}\widehat{C}_{\widehat{s}\widehat{t}\widehat{u}]}`$. We note that the super elfbeins in the second term on the right hand side have $`t`$ dependence in a way that $`\theta `$’s in (2.1) are replaced as $`\theta t\theta `$.

The component fields in Eqs. (2.1) and (2.5) are for the $`AdS_4\times S^7`$. As shown in , by taking the Penrose limit , they become the fields describing the eleven dimensional pp-wave background. After some rotation in a certain plane, say 49-plane, for our convenience in ten dimensions, the eleven dimensional pp-wave background becomes as follows:222For detailed derivation of this background and its ten dimensional reduction, see .

$`\widehat{e}^+=dx^+,\widehat{e}^{}=dx^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A(x^I)dx^+,`$
$`\widehat{e}^I=dx^I,\widehat{e}^9=dx^9+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}x^4dx^+,`$
$`\widehat{F}_{+123}=\mu ,`$ (2.6)
where $`\mu `$ is constant characterizing the pp-wave, $`I=1,\mathrm{},8`$ and

$$A(x^I)=\left(\frac{\mu }{3}\right)^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(x^i)^2+\left(\frac{\mu }{6}\right)^2\underset{i^{}=5}{\overset{8}{}}(x^i^{})^2.$$
(2.7)
We now turn to the ten dimensional background, which is the Type IIA pp-wave background obtained from the circle compactification of the eleven dimensional pp-wave (2.6). If we take $`x^9`$ as the direction of compactification, then the usual Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction leads us to have the following ten dimensional background:

$`e^+=dx^+,`$
$`e^{}=dx^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A(x^I)dx^+,`$
$`e^I=dx^I,`$
$`F_{+123}=\mu ,F_{+4}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{3}}.`$ (2.8)
In terms of these ten dimensional fields and by using the logic of the Kaluza-Klein reduction, one can express the elementary pieces of the eleven dimensional superfields (2.1) and (2.5), which are $`\widehat{D}\theta `$ and the matrix $`^2`$. Firstly, the eleven dimensional supercovariant derivative becomes

$$\widehat{D}\theta =D\theta +\frac{\mu }{6}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta )\widehat{e}^9,$$
(2.9)
where $`D\theta `$ is the ten dimensional supercovariant derivative of $`\theta `$ and $`h_\pm `$ is the operator projecting spinor states onto the states with eigenvalue $`\pm 1`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{12349}`$;

$$h_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }^{12349}).$$
(2.10)
The covariant derivative $`D\theta `$ is given by

$$D\theta =d\theta +\frac{1}{4}\omega ^{rs}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}\theta +\mathrm{\Omega }\theta ,$$
(2.11)
where the non-vanishing ten dimensional spin connection is

$$\omega ^I=\frac{1}{2}_IAdx^+$$
(2.12)
and the definition for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}\left[e^+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+123}+2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{49}(2h_{}h_+)\right)+2e^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+i}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}+2e^4\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+9}h_+e^i^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+i^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\right],`$
where $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`i^{}=5,6,7,8`$. The explicit expression of matrix $`^2`$ in term of ten dimensional quantities is obtained as

$`_{ab}^2`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}[(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+123}\theta +3\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)_b+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+i^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^i^{})_b+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^4)_b`$ (2.14)
$`+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+9}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^9)_b+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+i^{}}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+i^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123})_b+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123})_b`$
$`+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+9}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+9}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123})_b+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i^{}j^{}}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+i^{}j^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123})_b+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i^{}4}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+i^{}4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123})_b`$
$`+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i^{}9}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+i^{}9}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123})_b+(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+ij}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123})_b(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij})_b`$
$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}\theta )_a(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123})_b].`$
Here we note that, going from eleven to ten dimensions, the fermionic coordinate $`\theta `$ splits into two Majorana-Weyl spinors with opposite $`SO(1,9)`$ chiralities measured by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^9`$:

$$\theta =\theta ^1+\theta ^2,$$
(2.15)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^9\theta ^1=\theta ^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^9\theta ^2=\theta ^2`$.

We now have all the ingredients for writing down the covariant Wess-Zumino action of Type IIA string in the pp-wave background, (2.8). In the superfield formalism, the Wess-Zumino action is given by

$$S_{WZ}=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2\sigma \frac{1}{2!}ϵ^{mn}\mathrm{\Pi }_m^A\mathrm{\Pi }_n^BB_{BA},$$
(2.16)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_m^A=_mZ^ME_M^A`$ with supercoordinate $`Z^M=(X^\mu ,\theta ^\alpha )`$ and $`B_{BA}`$ is the two form superfield. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ represents the worldsheet of open string. In the context of this paper, it is useful to remind the well known fact that $`S_{WZ}`$ can be viewed as the action obtained from the Wess-Zumino action for the eleven dimensional super membrane through the double dimensional reduction . Since we compactify the super membrane along the $`x^9`$ direction, the two form superfield is identified with the eleven dimensional three form superfield with the index $`9`$, that is, $`\widehat{B}_{9NM}`$. Then the above Wess-Zumino action is rewritten as

$$S_{WZ}=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2\sigma \frac{1}{2!}ϵ^{mn}_mZ^M_nZ^N\widehat{B}_{9NM}.$$
(2.17)
Now by using Eqs. (2.1), (2.5), (2.8), (2.9), and (2.14), the Wess-Zumino action is given in component form and expanded in terms of $`\theta `$. Although it has expansion up to 32th order in $`\theta `$, we will give the expansion up to quartic order since, as we shall see in the next section, the nontrivial information for the description of D-branes is obtained already at the quartic order. The resulting Wess-Zumino action of Type IIA string in the IIA pp-wave background is then

$`S_{WZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^2\sigma ϵ^{mn}[\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{r9}D_m\theta e_n^r{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{r9}D_m\theta )(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^rD_n\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta )e_m^re_n^s`$ (2.18)
$`+i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^r\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta )(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}D_m\theta )e_n^s+i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^9\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta )(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{9r}D_m\theta )e_n^r`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta )(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^rD_m\theta )e_n^si{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{9r}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta )(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^9D_m\theta )e_n^r`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{r9}^2D_m\theta )e_n^r{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{144}}(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta )e_m^re_n^s+𝒪(\theta ^6)],`$
where $`e_m^r=_mX^\mu e_\mu ^r`$ and $`D_m\theta =_mX^\mu (D\theta )_\mu `$.

## 3 Boundary conditions from kappa symmetry

The $`\kappa `$ symmetry transformation rules are read off from

$$\delta Z^ME_M^r=0,\delta Z^ME_M^a=(1\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^9)^a{}_{b}{}^{}\kappa _{}^{b},$$
(3.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{2!}ϵ^{mn}\mathrm{\Pi }_m^r\mathrm{\Pi }_n^s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}`$. From (3.1), one can see that the variation of $`X^\mu `$ is given by

$$\delta X^\mu =i\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \delta \theta ^1i\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \delta \theta ^2+𝒪(\theta ^3).$$
(3.2)
Here we retain the variations up to the quadratic in $`\theta `$ since we are interested in the kappa variation up to the quartic in $`\theta `$. As shown in , the kinematic parts of the kappa symmetric action does not produce the boundary terms, so we just consider the variations of the Wess-Zumino terms. We divide the resulting kappa variations as three parts, i.e., $`\mu `$ independent part, $`\mu `$ dependent part with no position dependence and finally the part with both $`\mu `$ and position dependence.

$`\mu `$ independent part gives the same result as in the flat case, which gives the well known result . The relevant variation is given by

$`\delta S_{WZ}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}[i(\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\delta \theta ^1\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\delta \theta ^2)dX^\mu e_\mu ^r`$ (3.3)
$`(\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_rd\theta ^1\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^r\delta \theta ^1\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_rd\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^r\delta \theta ^2)],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ represents the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, that is, the boundary of open string worldsheet. Here the arrow means that we are ignoring overall coefficients in front of the Wess-Zumino terms. In order to have vanishing variation on the boundary, we impose the usual half-BPS boundary conditions,

$$\theta ^2=P\theta ^1$$
(3.4)
with

$$P=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{(p1)}},$$
(3.5)
where $`+i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{(p1)}`$ denotes the Neumann directions of the D-brane considered. And $`p`$ should be even since $`\theta ^1`$ and $`\theta ^2`$ have opposite chiralities. Then333$`rN(D)`$ means that $`r`$ is the direction of Neumann (Dirichlet) boundary condition.

$$\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\delta \theta ^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}+\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\delta \theta ^1:\hfill & rN\hfill \\ \overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\delta \theta ^1:\hfill & rD\hfill \end{array}.$$
(3.6)
It is clear that the boundary conditions eliminate the boundary terms.

The kappa variation of the Wess-Zumino terms which have dependence on $`\mu `$ with no position dependence is given by

$`\delta S_{WZ}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝑑X^\mu e_\mu ^r`$ (3.7)
$`\times [(\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\delta \theta ^1+\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\delta \theta ^2)`$
$`\times \left(\overline{\theta }^1\left(2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[r}\mathrm{\Omega }_{s]}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\right)\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2\left(2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[r}\mathrm{\Omega }_{s]}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\right)\theta ^1\right)`$
$`+(\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\delta \theta ^2)(\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\mathrm{\Omega }_r\theta ^2)(\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\delta \theta ^1)(\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\mathrm{\Omega }_r\theta ^1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}(\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}\delta \theta ^2+\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}\delta \theta ^1)(\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta ^1+\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta ^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}(\overline{\theta }^1\delta \theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2\delta \theta ^1)(\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta ^1\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_r\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta ^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{12}}(\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{r9}^2\delta \theta )].`$
First consider terms of the structure $`\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}\delta \theta `$.

$$\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}\delta \theta ^2+\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}\delta \theta ^1=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0:& rN,sD(N)\mathrm{for}p=2,6(4,8)\hfill \\ \hfill 2\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}P\delta \theta ^1:& rN,sN(D)\mathrm{for}p=2,6(4,8)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(3.8)
We see that for $`p=4,8(2,6)`$ with $`sD(N)`$, $`\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta ^1+\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta ^2`$ should vanish. However it does not vanish only with the boundary condition $`\theta ^2=P\theta ^1`$. Some constraints should be imposed on the structure of $`P`$ and thus picks up the branes with particular orientations. Let us label the matrix $`P`$ by three non negative integers $`n`$, $`n_4`$ and $`n^{}`$ with $`n+n_4+n^{}=p1`$:

$$P^{(n,n_4,n^{})}.$$

$`n(n^{})`$ denotes the number of gamma matrices with indices in 123 (5678) directions and $`n_4`$ the presence or the absence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^4`$ thus taking value of 0 or 1 respectively in eq. (3.5).

Careful analysis shows that

$$\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta ^1+\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+4}h_{}\theta ^2=0$$
(3.9)
if we bear in mind that $`sN(D)`$ for $`p=2,6(4,8)`$ and impose the following constraints,

$`p=2,6`$ $`:`$ $`n=\mathrm{odd},n_4=0`$
$`p=4,8`$ $`:`$ $`n=\mathrm{even},n_4=1.`$ (3.10)
Interestingly, one can check, with lengthy calculation, that all other remaining terms in (3.7) vanishes if we impose the constraints (3.10).

Possible D-brane configurations making the above boundary contributions vanish are given by the following choices of $`(n,n_4,n^{})`$ for $`Dp`$-brane.

$`p=2`$ $`:`$ $`(1,0,0)`$
$`p=4`$ $`:`$ $`(0,1,2),(2,1,0)`$
$`p=6`$ $`:`$ $`(1,0,4),(3,0,2)`$
$`p=8`$ $`:`$ $`(2,1,4).`$ (3.11)
This exactly coincides with the previous result obtained in the light-cone gauge formulation .

Finally the kappa variations which have both dependence on $`\mu `$ and the position are given by

$`\delta S_{WZ}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}dX^\mu e_\mu ^r[(\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\delta \theta ^1+\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\delta \theta ^2)(\overline{\theta }^1\omega _{[r}{}_{}{}^{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{s]}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+I}\theta ^1\overline{\theta }^2\omega _{[r}{}_{}{}^{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{s]}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+I}\theta ^2)`$ (3.12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\delta \theta ^1)(\overline{\theta }^2\omega _r^I\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+I}\theta ^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\delta \theta ^2)(\overline{\theta }^1\omega _r^I\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+I}\theta ^1)].`$
Note that the position dependence comes from the spin connection $`\omega _r^I`$. From this action, we need to consider only for $`rN`$ since $`dX^\mu e_\mu ^r=0`$ for $`rD`$. First term vanishes for $`sD`$ or $`IN`$. However, for $`sN`$ and $`ID`$, it does not vanish and becomes

$$4(\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\delta \theta ^1)(\overline{\theta }^1\omega _{[r}{}_{}{}^{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{s]}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+I}\theta ^1).$$
(3.13)
The remaining terms combine to vanish for $`IN`$ but for $`ID`$ we have

$$\pm (\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\delta \theta ^1)(\overline{\theta }^1\omega _r^I\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\mathrm{\Gamma }^{+I}\theta ^1),$$
(3.14)
where $`+()`$ sign corresponds to $`sD(N)`$. At this point, we have to impose additional boundary condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\theta ^1|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.$$
(3.15)
This leads to 1/4-BPS.

What would be the physical consequence of the results obtained above? It is well known that the appropriate sigma model of the open string coupled to open string background is given by

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2\sigma \sqrt{h}h^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu _\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑s\left(A_\mu \frac{}{s}X^\mu +\varphi ^i\frac{}{\sigma }X^i\right)$$
(3.16)
for bosonic case where $`X^i`$s denote the Dirichlet directions. If we consider supersymmetric case, we should consider a suitable supersymmetric generalization of (3.16). For the flat background, such model were considered in  in the RNS formalism. Even though the detailed form of the action is not known for the plane wave background, we expect that the one dimensional boundary theory defined above should have different form for the boundary located away from the origin from that at the origin, since the number of supersymmetries are different. Part of such differences can be captured by the Dirac-Born-Infeld action, which can be derived by the condition of the vanishing beta function of (3.16) or its suitable supersymmetric generalization. Currently this issue is on the investigation .

So far we work out the kappa variation up to the quartic terms in $`\theta `$ coordinates. Thus it is interesting to see if the results obtained above are persistent at the higher orders, which we suspect so. Especially for the half BPS branes where the analysis in the light cone gauge is available, the higher terms should not modify the analysis at the quartic order. For the type IIB case, there are some hand waving argument that the quartic results will go through the higher orders . It will be interesting to see if we can find similar argument in the type IIA theory.

## 4 D-particle

Now we consider the possible constraints on the supersymmetry of the open string where the D-particle boundary condition is given. This case cannot be covered by the lightcone analysis. As a first attempt, we take $`P=\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ which means the D-particle whose worldline lies along $`x^+`$. Same thing happens for $`P=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Then even the boundary contribution (3.3) does not vanish. So we consider the boundary condition $`\theta ^2=P\theta ^1`$ with

$$P=\frac{1}{\gamma }(\mathrm{\Gamma }^++\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}),$$
(4.1)
where $`\gamma `$ is a real constant. With this boundary condition, one can easily see that Eq. (3.3) vanishes.

Let’s turn to the boundary contribution, Eq. (3.7). First look at the term with the structure of $`\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}\delta \theta `$, the third line in (3.7). It does not vanish when $`rN`$ and $`sD`$, and is proportional to

$$(\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}P\delta \theta ^1)[\overline{\theta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^s\mathrm{\Gamma }^4(\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\theta _{}^1+\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\theta _+^1)],$$
(4.2)
where

$$\theta _\pm ^1=h_\pm \theta ^1.$$
(4.3)
We should impose additional boundary conditions as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm \theta _{}^1|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.$$
(4.4)
The terms in the first line of (3.7) vanishes basically because of the anti-symmetric property between the indices $`r`$ and $`s`$, and $`r,sN`$. (If $`rD`$ or $`sD`$, it automatically vanishes.)

The terms in the second line of (3.7) do not vanish. For example, for $`sN`$, that is, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^s=P`$, they are proportional to, with (4.4),

$$(\overline{\theta }_+^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\delta \theta _+^1+\gamma \overline{\theta }_{}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\delta \theta _{}^1)(\theta _+^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^4\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\theta _{}^1\theta _{}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^4\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\theta _+^1).$$
(4.5)
To eliminate this contribution, we should further require boundary condition as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm \theta _\pm ^1|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.$$
(4.6)
All other terms with each boundary conditions for indices vanish. For example, the first term vanishes basically because of the anti-symmetric property between the indices $`r`$ and $`s`$, and $`r,sN`$. (If $`rD`$ or $`sD`$, it automatically vanishes.)

We see that D-particle is not supersymmetric.

## Acknowledgments

The work of S.H. was supported in part by grant No. R01-2000-000-00021-0 from the Basic Research Program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation. The work of J.P. was supported by Korea Research Foundation (KRF) Grant KRF-2002-070-C00022 and by POSTECH BSRI research fund 1RB0210601. The work of H.S. was supported by KRF Grant KRF-2001-015-DP0082.