1: %\documentclass[referee]{aa} % for a referee version

2: %

3: %\documentclass{aa}

4: 

5: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

6: 

7: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

8: 

9: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

10: 

11: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

12: 

13: %\documentclass[manuscript,12pt]{aastex}

14: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}

15: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

16: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

17: %% use the longabstract style option.

18: 

19: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

20: 

21: \usepackage{graphicx,amssymb,verbatim,natbib}

22: %\bibpunct{(}{)}{;}{a}{}{,}

23: 

24: \newcommand\hmpc{$h^{-1}$ Mpc}

25: \newcommand\hi{\hbox{H$\rm I$~}}

26: \newcommand\hii{\hbox{H$\rm II$~}}

27: \newcommand\oii{\hbox{O$\rm II$~}}

28: \newcommand\cii{\hbox{C$\rm II$~}}

29: \newcommand\oisiii{\hbox{O$\rm I$/Si$\rm II$~}}

30: \newcommand\se{Sect.~}

31: \newcommand\lya{Ly$\alpha$}

32: \newcommand\ha{H$\alpha$}

33: %\newcommand\gp{$g^\prime$}

34: %\newcommand\rp{$r^\prime$}

35: %\newcommand\ip{$i^\prime$}

36: %\newcommand\zp{$z^\prime$}

37: \newcommand\gp{$g_{475}$}

38: \newcommand\wt{$w(\theta)$}

39: \newcommand\rp{$r_{625}$}

40: \newcommand\ip{$i_{775}$}

41: \newcommand\inp{$I_{814}$}

42: \newcommand\zp{$z_{850}$}

43: \newcommand\bp{$B_{435}$}

44: \newcommand\up{$U_{330}$}

45: \newcommand\vp{$V_{606}$}

46: \newcommand\ks{$K_{S}$}

47: \newcommand\kp{$K_{S}$}

48: \newcommand\nicmosj{$J_{110}$}

49: \newcommand\nicmosh{$H_{160}$}

50: 

51: 

52: 

53: \shorttitle{New evidence for a merger-driven formation of LBGs}

54: \shortauthors{Overzier et al.}

55: 

56: \begin{document}      

57:                       

58:  \title{HST morphologies of local Lyman break galaxy analogs I:\\

59: Evidence for starbursts triggered by merging}

60: 

61: \author{Roderik A. Overzier\altaffilmark{1,2}, Timothy

62:   M. Heckman\altaffilmark{1}, Guinevere Kauffmann\altaffilmark{2},

63:   Mark Seibert\altaffilmark{3}, R. Michael Rich\altaffilmark{4},

64:   Antara Basu-Zych\altaffilmark{5}, Jennifer Lotz\altaffilmark{6},

65:   Alessandra Aloisi\altaffilmark{7}, St\'ephane

66:   Charlot\altaffilmark{8}, C. Hoopes\altaffilmark{1}, D. Christopher

67:   Martin\altaffilmark{9}, David Schiminovich\altaffilmark{5}, Barry Madore\altaffilmark{3}}

68: \email{overzier@mpa-garching.mpg.de}

69: 

70: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218.}

71: \altaffiltext{2}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik, D-85748 Garching, Germany.}

72: \altaffiltext{3}{Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, California 91101, USA.}

73: \altaffiltext{4}{Deptartment of Physics and Astronomy, Division of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1562, USA.}

74: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, MC 2457, 550 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027.}

75: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064.}

76: \altaffiltext{7}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218.}

77: \altaffiltext{8}{Institut d'Astrophysique du CNRS, 98 bis Boulevard Arago, F-75014 Paris, France.}

78: \altaffiltext{9}{California Institute of Technology, MC 405-47, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125.}

79: 

80: \begin{abstract}

81: \noindent

82: Heckman et al. (2005) used the Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) UV

83: imaging survey to show that there exists a rare population of nearby

84: compact UV-luminous galaxies (UVLGs) that closely resembles high

85: redshift Lyman break galaxies (LBGs).  We present HST images in the

86: UV, optical, and H$\alpha$, and resimulate them at the depth and

87: resolution of the GOODS/UDF fields to show that the morphologies of

88: UVLGs are also similar to those of LBGs. Our sample of 8 LBG analogs

89: thus provides detailed insight into the connection between star

90: formation and LBG morphology. Faint tidal features or companions can be seen

91: in all of the rest-frame optical images, suggesting that

92: the starbursts are the result of a merger or interaction.  The

93: UV/optical light is dominated by unresolved ($\sim$100-300 pc) super

94: starburst regions (SSBs). A detailed comparison with the galaxies Haro 11 and VV 114 at $z=0.02$ indicates that 

95: the SSBs themselves consist of diffuse stars and (super) star clusters. 

96: The structural features revealed by the new

97: HST images occur on very small physical scales and are thus not

98: detectable in images of high redshift LBGs, except in a few cases

99: where they are magnified by gravitational lensing. We propose,

100: therefore, that LBGs are mergers of gas-rich, relatively low-mass

101: ($M_*\sim10^{10}$ $M_\odot$) systems, and that the mergers trigger the

102: formation of SSBs. If galaxies at high redshifts are dominated by

103: SSBs, then the faint end slope of the luminosity function is predicted

104: to have slope $\alpha\sim2$. Our results are the most direct

105: confirmation to date of models that predict that the main mode of star

106: formation in the early universe was highly collisional.

107: \end{abstract}

108: 

109: \keywords{cosmology: observations -- early universe -- galaxies: high-redshift -- galaxies: starburst}

110: 

111: %________________________________________________________________

112: 

113: \section{Introduction}

114: \label{sec:intro}

115: 

116: \noindent

117: How did galaxies form? Ultimately, this simple question captures most,

118: if not all of the most widely pursued research topics in

119: cosmology. Surveys of galaxies at different redshifts are being used

120: to study which galaxies contain most of the stellar mass at a given

121: epoch, and which galaxies are undergoing the strongest

122: evolution. These measurements serve to constrain models of structure

123: formation.  The main formative processes associated with typical

124: galaxies (e.g. star formation, merging, and feedback) were largely

125: completed within the first half of the Hubble time, making their study

126: a very challenging one.  One of the best probes for studying star

127: formation in the early universe is provided by galaxies that are

128: luminous in the rest-frame UV due to intense star formation. The most

129: luminous of these, the Lyman break galaxies (LBGs), are easily

130: detected at $z=2-6$ in deep pencil beam surveys from the ground and

131: with the {\it Hubble Space Telescope} (HST)

132: \citep[e.g.][]{steidel93,steidel99,shapley01,giavalisco04,adelberger04,bouwens06,yoshida06}. The

133: cosmic star formation rate (SFR) reached a maximum at $z\sim1-3$ and

134: decreased dramatically toward $z=0$

135: \citep[e.g.][]{lilly96,schiminovich05}. There is only a modest

136: decrease in the UV luminosity density from $z\sim3$ to $z\sim6$

137: \citep[e.g.][]{ouchi04,bouwens06}, indicating that LBGs represent a

138: major phase in the early stages of galaxy formation and

139: evolution. Based on their clustering and number statistics, LBGs are

140: the precursors of present day massive galaxies undergoing a phase of

141: intense star formation, and a large fraction of LBGs may merge to form

142: elliptical galaxies that are situated in present-day groups and

143: clusters

144: \citep[][]{governato01,giavalisco01,moustakas02,ouchi04b,adelberger05}.

145: 

146: Studies of the structure and sizes of LBGs indicate that high redshift

147: galaxies are compact \citep[$\sim$0.1\arcsec--0.3\arcsec, or

148: $\sim$1--2.5 kpc;][]{giavalisco96a,lowenthal97,ferguson04,bouwens04},

149: and that large ($\gtrsim$0.4\arcsec) low surface brightness galaxies

150: are rare. The morphologies are best characterized as being dominated

151: by one to several UV-bright knots embedded in diffuse emission, with

152: little difference between the rest-frame UV and optical light

153: distributions \citep{papovich01,papovich05}.  The morphologies of LBGs

154: are unlike those of nearby galaxies on the Hubble sequence. This is

155: true even if the images of the nearby objects are degraded so that

156: they have similar resolution and depth to those of LBGs.  LBG

157: morphologies are more similar to those of ultraluminous infrared

158: galaxies (ULIRGs), which occupy a region of the

159: concentration/asymmetry plane that lies between double-nucleated

160: mergers, spheroids and disks \citep[e.g.][and references

161: therein]{abraham96,conselice04,lotz04,lotz06,law07a}.  However, the

162: interpretation of the UV morphologies of high redshift populations

163: remains problematic \citep[see][]{law07a}, because it is unclear

164: whether the irregular morphologies are a consequence of the merging of

165: gas-rich galaxies, or whether one is just seeing patchily distributed

166: star formation within a single system.  The answer to this question

167: and how it evolves with redshift is essential for understanding how

168: galaxies formed.

169: 

170: A detailed study of LBGs is limited by two factors. First, their

171: distances render them small and faint, and, second, star forming

172: galaxies at high redshift are systematically different from starburst

173: galaxies in the nearby universe.  Local starbursts (SBs) show strong

174: correlations among their basic properties that are different from

175: LBGs.  In particular, there is a systematic increase in the amount of

176: dust obscuration ($L_{FIR}/L_{FUV}$) with increasing SFR,

177: corresponding to a systematic increase in metallicity with mass.  LBGs

178: are substantially less obscured than local SBs of similar SFR or mass

179: \citep[e.g.][]{reddy06}.  The relatively low extinction of LBGs is

180: also a characteristic of blue compact dwarfs (BCDs, alsoor \hii\

181: galaxies), but the latter have SFRs that are typically two orders of

182: magnitude smaller than LBGs and they have lower masses

183: \citep[e.g.][]{fanelli88,telles97,hunter99,gildepaz03}. Although BCDs

184: may resemble the faintest LBGs \citep[e.g.][]{meurer95,noeske06}, and

185: LIRGS and ULIRGS may resemble the dustiest LBGs

186: \citep[e.g.][]{adelberger00,goldader02,daddi05,chapman05,huang05,vandokkum06},

187: typical local SBs are different from typical LBGs.  LBGs have

188: systematically lower metallicities and higher gas-mass fractions than

189: local SBs with the same SFRs.  The typical mechanisms that trigger

190: starbursts might also be very different at high redshift compared to

191: low redshift.

192: 

193: Clearly, if we could find relatively nearby starburst galaxies whose

194: properties are the best match to LBGs, we could study for the first

195: time at a much higher physical resolution how the vigorous star

196: formation and morphologies of typical high redshift galaxies are

197: related.  However, local LBG analogs are currently very rare; as

198: indicated by the Galaxy Evolution Explorer \citep[GALEX;][]{martin05}

199: imaging survey in the near (NUV, $\lambda$$\sim$2250\AA) and far (FUV,

200: $\lambda$$\sim$1550\AA) UV, the co-moving number density of galaxies

201: with FUV luminosities similar to LBGs has declined by a factor of

202: several hundred between $z=3$ and $z=0$. \citet{heckman05} and

203: \citet{hoopes07} (henceforward called ``H05'' \& ``H07'') identified a

204: rare population of low-redshift ($z<0.3$) galaxies with properties

205: remarkably similar to those of LBGs by matching sources in the GALEX

206: all-sky survey with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

207: \citep[SDSS;][]{york00} spectroscopic sample, and selecting according

208: to 2 criteria specifically designed to match the typical UV properties

209: of LBGs \citep[e.g.][]{steidel96,shapley01}: %\\

210: $L_{FUV} \geq 10^{10.3} L_{\odot}$\ $\wedge$\ $I_{FUV} \geq 10^9

211: L_{\odot} \mathrm{kpc}^{-2}$, where $L_{FUV}$ is the FUV luminosity,

212: $\lambda P_\lambda$, and $I_{FUV}$ is the mean FUV surface brightness

213: interior to the SDSS {\it u}-band half-light radius ($I_{FUV} =

214: \frac{1}{2} L_{FUV}/\pi r_{e,u}^2$).  By further limiting the sample

215: to $z<0.3$ and excluding broad line active galactic nuclei (AGN), this

216: resulted in a sample of 31 ``supercompact UV-luminous galaxies''

217: (UVLGs).  Interestingly, once selected according to these criteria,

218: the UVLG sample proved to be similar to typical LBGs in all other

219: measurable properties (see H05 and H07).  Further details on the

220: sample are given by \citet{basuzych07}, who investigated the radio to

221: UV continuum properties of the sample and found that they follow the

222: radio-far infrared correlation of normal star-forming galaxies, but

223: generally have less dust than other star forming galaxies with such

224: high specific SFRs.  In this respect, they are similar to LBGs. This

225: suggests that the process that causes star formation in the

226: supercompact UVLGs differs from other local star forming galaxies, but

227: may be similar to LBGs.  Our sample of UVLGs (``local LBG analogs'')

228: is therefore highly valuable for understanding the nature of Lyman

229: break galaxies at high redshifts\footnote{See the Appendix for a

230:   detailed analysis that demonstrates that the interpretation and

231:   conclusions presented in the recent paper by Scarpa et al. (2007)

232:   are in fact in error.}.

233: 

234: In this paper (Paper I) we present the first set of high resolution

235: HST images of 8 UVLGs and discuss their morphologies. In a subsequent

236: paper (Paper II) we will carry out a more detailed study using a large

237: HST data set to be observed in Cycle 16. The structure of this paper

238: is as follows. In Sect. 2 we describe the new observations with

239: HST. In Sections 3 and 4 we present the data, investigate UVLG

240: morphologies both qualitatively and quantitatively, resimulate our

241: data at higher redshift, and compare with morphologies of star-forming

242: galaxies and LBGs as well as two of the most nearby LBG-like galaxies

243: known (Haro 11 and VV 114). We discuss the implications of our results

244: for understanding the nature of LBGs at high redshifts in Section 5,

245: followed by a summary of the results (Section 6). We use a cosmology

246: [$\Omega_M$, $\Omega_\Lambda$, $h$]$=$[0.27,0.73,0.73] with $H_0=100h$

247: km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.

248: 

249: 

250: \section{Data}

251: 

252: \subsection{HST observations}

253: 

254: \noindent

255: We have observed 8 of the nearest ($0.091<z<0.204$) and brightest

256: local LBG analogs of H05 \& H07 with HST in Cycle 15.  To date, 7

257: UVLGs have been observed with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS)

258: High Resolution Camera (HRC) in the filter F330W, and with the Wide

259: Field Channel (WFC) through the filter F850LP. In addition, one UVLG

260: has been observed with the Solar Blind Channel (SBC) in the filter

261: F150LP, and with the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) through

262: F606W, given the new constraints following the failure of ACS during

263: the course of 2007. Ramp filter images with a central wavelength equal

264: to that of redshifted H$\alpha$ were also obtained for all but the

265: latter source.  Each filter probes star formation and morphology at a

266: different characteristic timescale.  The F330W filter

267: (central wavelength $\lambda_c$$\approx$3334\AA\ with an effective width $\Delta\lambda\sim548\AA$) is the most sensitive to star formation

268: over the past $\sim$100 Myr \citep{leitherer95} and provide the

269: closest match to the GALEX NUV filter ($\lambda_c$$\approx$2315\AA, $\Delta\lambda\sim730\AA$).

270: The F150LP filter ($\lambda_c$$\approx$1614\AA, $\Delta\lambda\sim$234\AA), available for one of

271: the UVLGs, provides an excellent match to the GALEX FUV filter

272: ($\lambda_c$$\approx$1530\AA, $\Delta\lambda\sim255\AA$).  The F606W

273: ($\lambda_c$$\approx$6001\AA) and F850LP ($\lambda_c$$\approx$9170\AA)

274: images are well-matched to the SDSS images in the {\it r-} and {\it

275:   i}-band and probe older ($>$Gyr) stellar populations. The ACS ramp

276: filters (FR647M with a width of 207\AA\ or FR782N with a width of

277: 52\AA, depending on the redshift) probe redshifted H$\alpha$ from

278: \hii\ regions tracing the youngest stellar population (O stars with

279: lifetimes $<$10 Myr), and allow us to search for evidence of

280: galaxy-wide outflows of ionized gas.

281: 

282: The targets were observed for one orbit per filter with ACS, and two

283: orbits per filter with WFPC2.  The F330W image of

284: SDSS J092600.41+442736.1 failed to execute due to a guide star problem.

285: The F150LP, F330W, ramp filter, F606W, and F850LP images consisted of

286: 3, 3, 2, 6 and 3 exposures, respectively, to facilitate the removal of

287: cosmic rays. The images were combined using {\it Multidrizzle}

288: \citep{koekemoer02}, producing registered, cosmic-ray free,

289: geometrically corrected images. The SBC and HRC images have a plate

290: scale of 0\farcs025 pixel$^{-1}$ and a resolution of $\sim$$0\farcs07$

291: (FWHM). The WFPC2/PC images have a plate scale of 0\farcs046

292: pixel$^{-1}$ with a resolution of $\approx$$0\farcs11$ (FWHM). The WFC

293: images have a scale of 0\farcs05 pixel$^{-1}$ with a resolution of

294: $\approx$$0\farcs12$ (FWHM). Magnitudes in the AB system were measured

295: using SExtractor \citep{bertin96} from

296: $m_{AB}=-2.5\mathrm{log}_{10}(\mathrm{counts}/T_{exp})+\mathrm{ZPT}$,

297: where the zeropoints (ZPT) are 22.448, 24.085, 23.004, and 24.862 mag

298: for F150LP, F330W, F606W and F850LP, resp.  All magnitudes were

299: corrected for Galactic extinction using the dust maps of

300: \citet{schlegel98}.  The reader is referred to Table \ref{tab:log} for

301: a log of the observations, Table \ref{tab:sfrs} for SFRs and stellar

302: masses of the objects in our sample, and Table \ref{tab:phot} for the

303: main photometric data from GALEX and ACS.

304: 

305: \subsection{Continuum subtracted \ha\ images}

306: 

307: \noindent

308: The \ha\ ramp filter images were continuum-subtracted as follows.

309: First we scaled the ACS \zp\ image to an artificial \ip\ continuum

310: image, by determining the ratio of the flux of the \ip\ continuum at

311: the wavelength of redshifted \ha\ (measured from the SDSS fiber

312: spectrum on opposite sides of the \ha\ line) to the total flux in the

313: \zp\ image.  The total flux was measured within an aperture similar in

314: size to the 3\arcsec\ diameter SDSS fiber aperture.  We then created a

315: ``continuum-free'' \ha\ image by subtracting the artificial \ip\

316: continuum image from the ACS ramp filter image. The resulting \ha\

317: image should be a very good approximation, under the (very reasonable)

318: assumption that the morphology of the continuum does not change

319: between \ip\ and \zp.  In the case of object SDSS J080844.26+394852.4 the

320: subtraction was problematic due to the fact that it relied on

321: subtraction of two bright point sources in \zp\ and \ha.

322: 

323: \subsection{Spitzer observations}

324: 

325: \noindent

326: Infrared photometry was obtained with the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC)

327: and the Multi-band Imaging Photometer for Spitzer (MIPS) aboard the

328: {\it Spitzer Space Telescope} (PI: C. Hoopes, \#20390).  The total

329: integration time with IRAC at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8 and 8.0 $\mu$m was 60 s

330: for each channel. The total integration time with MIPS at 24 and 70

331: $\mu$m was 42 and 60 s, resp.  We used a minimum 5 step dither pattern

332: for removal of cosmic rays. The post-basic calibrated data (BCD)

333: delivered by the pipeline were used to measure the integrated flux

334: densities. The infrared photometry is given in Table \ref{tab:ir}.

335: 

336: \subsection{Comparison data}

337: 

338: \noindent

339: The UVLGs in our sample, which have a median redshift of $z\sim0.15$,

340: lie at redshifts that are intermediate between local starburst

341: galaxies ($\sim0.02$) and LBGs at high redshift ($z>1.5$).  Throughout

342: the paper, we therefore find it instructive to present our results

343: with respect to the following two sets of comparison data:

344: 

345: \subsubsection{Archival imaging data of {\it Haro 11} and {\it VV 114}}

346: \label{sec:archival}

347: 

348: \noindent

349: As shown in H07 (see their Fig. 12), a number of very nearby blue

350: compact starburst galaxies and (U)LIRGS fall very near to the boundary

351: of the UVLG selection window as defined in the $L_{FUV}$ vs. $I_{FUV}$

352: plane. Because there is quite some leverage in the definition of a

353: typical `LBG', we will compare our data to two of these objects, which

354: have been found to possess some properties that are similar to high

355: redshift LBGs. The two local comparison objects are Haro 11 and VV

356: 114, both of which lie at $z=0.02$ \citep[for details see][and

357: references therein]{knop94,scoville00,goldader02,bergvall02,kunth03,grimes06,grimes07}.

358: Haro 11 is a blue compact dwarf galaxy consisting of a number of UV

359: bright knots believed to be in the process of merging. VV 114 is a

360: merging system consisting of a UV-luminous Western component (VV

361: 114W), and an IR-luminous Eastern component (VV 114E) with very little

362: associated UV emission.

363: 

364: In this paper, we make use of an ACS/HRC image of Haro 11 taken

365: through the filter F220W ($\lambda_c$$\approx$2255\AA) obtained from

366: the HST archive (Program 10575, PI: G\"oran \"Ostlin). For VV 114(W), we

367: use a Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) image in the NUV

368: ($\lambda_c$$\approx$2365\AA) from Program 8201 (PI: Gerhardt Meurer).

369: 

370: \subsubsection{High redshift samples from \citet{lotz06}}

371: 

372: \noindent

373: Our high redshift comparison samples consist of 55 starburst galaxies

374: at $z\sim1.5$ selected from GOODS, and two (largely non-overlapping)

375: samples of in total 82 $z\sim4$ LBGs in GOODS and the UDF from

376: \citet{lotz06}.  The galaxy sample at $z\sim1.5$ is based on a large

377: spectroscopic sample of strong emission line galaxies. We used the

378: publicly available GOODS and UDF data, and extracted postage stamps of

379: the objects in \bp\ for the $z\sim1.5$ sample, and in \vp$+$\ip\ for

380: the $z\sim4$ sample.  A detailed description of the data and sample

381: selection can be found in \citet{lotz06}.

382: 

383: \section{Results}

384: 

385: \subsection{Images and notes on individual galaxies}

386: 

387: \noindent

388: In Fig. \ref{fig:uv} we show the GALEX FUV and NUV images.  The UV,

389: H$\alpha$, and optical images taken with HST are shown in

390: Fig. \ref{fig:stamps}, which have a resolution of $\sim50$ times that

391: of the GALEX images. Qualitative remarks on the morphologies of the UVLGs in Fig. \ref{fig:stamps} are as follows.\\

392: 

393: \noindent {\bf SDSS J005527.46--002148.7}. This object consists of a strong

394: point source surrounded by diffuse emission that can be seen in \up,

395: \zp\ and \ha.  The diffuse emission has a high surface brightness

396: region extending to the NE with respect to the nucleus, which suggests

397: either the infall of a small diffuse galaxy or an additional

398: off-center star forming region.  The continuum-subtracted \ha\

399: emission is peculiar with an `arm' of emission extending to about

400: 1\arcsec\ South of the nucleus. The morphology of the \ha\ is very

401: different from the \zp\ morphology, and at its outer extremity, the

402: \ha\ is not associated with any UV emission. We suspect that the

403: extended \ha\ is due to an outflow over the larger region probed by

404: the \zp\ continuum.

405: 

406: \noindent {\bf SDSS J032845.99+011150.8}. The \zp\ image suggests a merger

407: of two low surface brightness galaxies, as evidenced by the tidal

408: tails extending symmetrically from the center to the Northwest and

409: Northeast. The starburst dominates the nuclear region, in which five

410: isolated point sources can be seen.  The easternmost knot dominates in

411: \ha.

412: 

413: \noindent {\bf SDSS J040208.86--050642.0}. The \zp\ image suggests a merger

414: of two diffuse systems as the contours of faint \zp\ continuum

415: emission show a sharp bend in position angle. The image center is

416: dominated by three point sources, and several fainter ones lie further

417: out on either side of the center. One of these faint, compact regions

418: (about 1\arcsec\ South of the nucleus) is more extended in \ha.

419: 

420: \noindent {\bf SDSS J080844.26+394852.4}. There is a bright, unresolved

421: source seen in the \up\ image that is located in the centre of an

422: extended, highly diffuse galaxy seen in \zp.  The unresolved source is

423: remarkably bright as both \up\ and \ha\ show the ACS diffraction

424: spikes. The \ha\ image suffers from poor point source subtraction.

425: The object seen $\sim2\arcsec$ to the South lies at a similar

426: redshift, and may be interacting. The nucleus of this companion is

427: also detected in \up, but its flux is $\sim75\times$ lower.

428: 

429: \noindent {\bf SDSS J092600.41+442736.1}. The faint contours of the diffuse

430: emission in \zp\ suggest that at least two diffuse galaxies may be

431: merging.  A bright, compact component dominates in \zp\ and \ha. The

432: faint extension about 1\arcsec\ East of the nucleus in \zp\ has little

433: associated \ha\ emission. The \up\ image failed to execute due to a

434: guide star problem.

435: 

436: \noindent {\bf SDSS J102613.97+484458.9}. This galaxy has a ring-shaped

437: morphology with most of the starburst occurring along the Eastern rim.

438: There is also an isolated knot to the Southwest. The star-forming

439: region contains several bright, unresolved components and diffuse

440: emission. A very faint diffuse companion can be seen in \zp, about

441: 2\arcsec\ to the South, and very faint extended emission, possibly

442: tidal debris, is seen directly to the East along the entire extent of

443: the galaxy. The overall morphology is very similar to that of the

444: ``drop-through'' ring galaxy NGC922 studied by \citet{wong06}.

445: 

446: \noindent {\bf SDSS J135355.90+664800.5}. This UVLG is highly irregular in

447: all bands, showing many star-forming knots and diffuse emission.  The

448: object is interacting or merging with a warped, edge-on or filamentary

449: galaxy located just to the East, which is much redder and only just

450: detected in \up. A longslit spectrum along the major axis of the

451: system shows that the two objects are likely to be a counter-rotating

452: merger (Overzier et al., in prep.).

453: 

454: \noindent {\bf SDSS J214500.25+011157.6}. This is the only object in our

455: sample for which the ACS image provides a direct match at the

456: wavelength of the GALEX FUV image. The F150LP image shows a very

457: compact, but elongated starburst region in which we can discern three

458: different knots. Fainter FUV emission comes from a slightly more

459: extended region of $\sim$1\arcsec.  The optical morphology in \vp\ is

460: strikingly different. The image is still dominated by the emission

461: surrounding the starburst region, and a faint spiral structure may be

462: present. A companion object appears to have gone straight through the

463: star forming nucleus as evidenced by its tadpole-like morphology with

464: a faint tail pointing towards the main galaxy and a trail of tidal

465: debris that can be traced back to a location that is about equidistant

466: from the nucleus on the opposite side of the main galaxy.

467: 

468: \subsection{Emission lines}

469: 

470: \noindent

471: Although the sample of UVLGs does not contain any broad line AGN, we

472: want to make sure that we are studying the morphologies of starburst

473: galaxies rather than those of narrow line AGN. The main optical

474: emission line diagnostic diagrams involving the lines

475: [OIII]$\lambda5007$\AA, H$\beta$, [OI]$\lambda6300$\AA, H$\alpha$,

476: [NII]$\lambda6584$\AA, and the [SII]$\lambda\lambda$6713,6731\AA\

477: doublet (measured from the SDSS spectra) are shown in

478: Fig. \ref{fig:bpt} (see also H07). The 8 objects observed by HST are

479: indicated by the large filled circles and their IDs, while small

480: filled circles indicate objects in our supercompact UVLG sample

481: without HST data.  Most of the UVLGs lie along the main star forming

482: sequence (points) in log([OIII]/H$\beta$) vs. log([NII]/H$\alpha$)

483: (left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:bpt}), albeit offset towards higher

484: values of log([OIII]/H$\beta$ probably due to a more intense ionizing

485: radiation field. It is interesting to note that a similar offset from

486: the main star-forming sequence has been observed for high-redshift LBGs as

487: well \citep{shapley05,erb06a}. 

488: 

489: About one quarter of the sample falls in the region between the

490: relations of \citet{kauffmann03} (solid line) and \citet{kewley06}

491: (dashed line) that is typically populated by objects having a

492: composite spectrum consisting of a metal rich stellar population and

493: an AGN.  When we plot log([OI]/H$\alpha$) vs. log([OIII]/H$\beta$)

494: (middle panel) or log([SII]/H$\alpha$) vs. log([OIII]/H$\beta$) (right

495: panel), the objects that were in the AGN/starburst composite region

496: move to the far, opposite side of the star forming track (see object

497: SDSS J080844.26+394852.4 that is most relevant to this paper). It is not exactly clear

498: what causes this behavior of the line ratios, but it is consistent

499: with starburst model predictions having very high ionization

500: parameters \citep{kewley01} as might be expected for our sample.  A

501: more detailed analysis of the ionization parameters and the possibly 

502: remaining contribution from AGN will be given elsewhere (Overzier et al., in prep.). 

503: In any case, \citet{kauffmann03} have shown that the continuum emission from local

504: narrow-line AGN is almost always dominated by its stellar population;

505: this assures us that the HST images accurately reflect the morphology

506: of the stellar light.

507: 

508: 

509: \subsection{HST-based size measurements} 

510: \label{sec:sizes}

511: \subsubsection{UV sizes}

512: 

513: \noindent

514: Our sample of UVLGs is selected to have high surface brightness, which

515: is estimated from the FUV flux and a half-light radius measured from

516: fitting a seeing-convolved exponential profile to the SDSS {\it

517:   u}-band images (see Section 1, H05 \& H07). The resulting

518: seeing-deconvolved sizes were on the order of 1--2 kpc, but were

519: somewhat uncertain because most of the UVLGs are only barely resolved

520: in the {\it u}-band SDSS images.  The F330W images are a factor 10

521: higher in resolution and thus provide a reliable and independent test

522: for the true sizes of these UVLGs.  We have used SExtractor's circular

523: aperture method to estimate the radii; the 50 and 90\% radii were

524: computed using the light enclosed within 2.5 times the elliptical Kron

525: radius also determined using SExtractor (Table \ref{tab:sizes}). The

526: sizes measured from the HST images are somewhat smaller than our

527: previous estimates based on SDSS. In the case of SDSS J080844,

528: approximately half the light in F330W is coming from a region that is

529: still unresolved even at the resolution of the HRC ($\sim0\farcs07$,

530: or $\sim$110 pc at $z=0.091$).  Excluding this extreme case, the radii

531: range from 0.4 to 1.9 kpc.

532: 

533: One could question (see Appendix) whether the sizes measured in \up\

534: or {\it u}-band (used to calculate the UV surface brightness) are

535: representative for the sizes of the regions that emit in the FUV and

536: NUV as seen by GALEX at the much lower resolution of $\sim4\arcsec$

537: (FWHM). We can test this simply by measuring the slope, $\beta$, of

538: the UV continuum (with $f_\lambda\propto\lambda^\beta$) across the

539: GALEX bands, and comparing the flux measured in the HST image to the

540: extrapolated value at \up. The UV slopes\footnote{Calculated from

541:   $\beta_{GALEX}=2.32(m_{FUV}-m_{NUV})_{AB}-2$.} are given in Table

542: \ref{tab:phot}, and we note that they are very similar to that of

543: high-redshift LBGs \citep[e.g.][]{ouchi07}.  The measured flux in \up\

544: is lower than the predicted values by a factor of $\sim1.3$ on

545: average.  The measured flux in {\it u}-band is $\sim1.2\times$ lower

546: than the value extrapolated from the UV.  The generally good

547: correspondence between the predicted and measured continuum flux at

548: 1500--3500\AA\ indicates that the emission structure seen in the HST

549: and SDSS images is representative of the light distribution in the

550: FUV.  A further test is provided by the case of SDSS J214500 

551: for which we have an ACS/SBC image taken through F150LP, a filter that

552: is almost identical to the GALEX FUV filter \citep[see][]{teplitz06}.

553: The corresponding FUV surface brightness calculated from the ACS data

554: is $\textrm{log}_{10}I_{FUV,ACS}=9.53$ $L_\odot$ kpc$^{-2}$, in

555: agreement with H07.

556: 

557: \subsubsection{H$\alpha$ and Optical sizes}

558: 

559: \noindent

560: The distribution of the optical and \ha\ light need not be the same.

561: We find, however, that the sources are compact at all observed

562: wavelengths (Table \ref{tab:sizes}), and the starbursts dominate the

563: structures.  The half-light radii measured from the continuum

564: subtracted \ha\ images are slightly larger than those measured from

565: \up\ ($\sim$0.5--2 kpc).  In some cases, the \ha\ morphology suggests

566: an outflow (SDSS J005527, and perhaps J032845 and J092600; see

567: Fig. \ref{fig:stamps}), but this does not affect the measured sizes.

568: The half-light radii in F850LP are typically 1--2 kpc, with the

569: exception of SDSS J135355 which has $r_{50,850}\approx4$ kpc

570: (note, however, that it has a nearby companion). Both the 50 and 90\%

571: radii are typically twice as large as the UV size ($\sim$2--5 kpc),

572: indicating that these systems have relatively faint, underlying

573: structures that were already in place prior to the current episode of

574: star formation.

575: 

576: \subsection{UV-optical Colors}

577: 

578: \noindent

579: We have used SExtractor to derive (circular) \up--\zp\ radial color

580: profiles out to the 90\% flux radius.  The results are shown in

581: Fig. \ref{fig:radial}.  Most objects have large gradients in their

582: UV-optical color profile, with objects typically being bluer near the

583: center, and redder further out.  Because the profiles were calculated

584: with respect to the centroid of the objects in the optical image, for

585: some objects (032845, 040208 \& 102613) the bluest regions are

586: sometimes slightly offset from the nominal center of the galaxy (see

587: Fig. \ref{fig:stamps}). We have defined an ``inner'' color measured

588: within the \up\ half-lightradius and an ``outer'' color measured over

589: the region between the 50 and 90\% radii in \zp\ (see Table

590: \ref{tab:sizes}).  In all cases the inner color is bluer than the

591: outer color, and the steepest color gradients are seen for the most

592: compact objects (in \up). This indicates that these objects are

593: composites of recent, central starbursts within older (or more dusty)

594: extended structures.

595: 

596:  

597: \subsection{Extinction}

598: \label{sec:slopes}

599: 

600: \noindent

601: For starburst galaxies there exists a good correlation between the

602: amount of UV flux that is absorbed by dust (usually taken to be a

603: foreground ``screen''), and the amount of flux (re-)emitted in the

604: far-IR \citep{meurer97,calzetti01,kong04,seibert05}. To estimate the

605: internal extinction for our sample we have calculated the attenuation

606: in the FUV, $A_{FUV}$, using the ratio of the bolometric dust

607: luminosity, $L_{TIR}$, to bolometric FUV luminosity, $L_{FUV}$, and

608: the fitting formula of \citet{burgarella05}:

609: \begin{equation}

610: A_{FUV}=a_1x^3+a_2x^2+a_3x+a_4,

611: \end{equation}

612: with $[a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4]=[-0.028,0.392,1.094,0.546]$ and $x=\mathrm{log_{10}}(L_{TIR}/L_{FUV})$. The bolometric dust luminosity is given by  

613: \citep{dale02}:\\

614: \begin{equation}

615: \L_{TIR}=\xi_1\nu_{24}L_{24}+\xi_2\nu_{70}L_{70}+\xi_3\nu_{160}L_{160},

616: \end{equation}

617: with $[\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_3]=[1.559,0.7686,1.347]$. Although we do not

618: have observed flux densities at 160 $\mu$m, we can estimate 160 $\mu$m

619: using the strong empirical correlation between

620: $(f_8/f_{24})_{\mathrm{dust}}$ and $(f_{70}/f_{160})$ by employing the

621: synthetic models of \citet{dale02}. The correlation arises because

622: more intense radiation fields have larger $(f_{70}/f_{160})$ due to

623: hotter large grains, and smaller $(f_8/f_{24})_{\mathrm{dust}}$ due to

624: larger emission by small grains at 24 $\mu$m.  The dust emission at

625: 8.0 and 24 $\mu$m was calculated from the observed flux densities

626: using $(f_8)_{\mathrm{dust}}=f_8-0.232f_{3.6}$ and

627: $(f_{24})_{\mathrm{dust}}=f_{24}-0.032f_{3.6}$, which includes a

628: correction for the contribution due to stars based on the 3.6 $\mu$m

629: flux \citep{dale05}. Finally, we calculate the extinction using the

630: formula $E(B-V)_{\mathrm{stars}}= A_{FUV}/k(\lambda)$ with

631: $k(\lambda)\approx10.77$ \citep{calzetti01}. The extinction ranges

632: from $E(B-V)\approx0.01$ to 0.14.  The IR flux densities, bolometric

633: luminosities, $A_{FUV}$ and extinction are given in Table

634: \ref{tab:ir}. The extinction will be needed in Section 4 when we

635: estimate masses and ages from the data using a set of model star

636: formation histories. We refer the reader to \citet{basuzych07} for a

637: more detailed discussion and analysis of the extinction properties of

638: this sample using alternative estimators.

639: 

640: \subsection{Morphologies}

641: 

642: \subsubsection{Gini coefficient, $M_{20}$, and Concentration}

643: \label{sec:morphologies}

644: 

645: \noindent

646: In order to compare the morphologies of the UVLGs to those of nearby

647: galaxies and of LBGs at high redshift, we calculated the Gini

648: coefficient ($G$; a measure of the equality with which the flux is

649: distributed across a galaxy), $M_{20}$ (the log of the ratio of the

650: second order moment of the pixels containing the 20\% brightest flux

651: to the total second order moment), and concentration ($C$; five times

652: the log of the ratio of the circular radii containing 80 and 20\% of

653: the flux). To calculate the structural parameters we follow the

654: procedures described in full detail in \citet{lotz04,lotz06}. First,

655: we use SExtractor to make an object segmentation map and mask out

656: neighboring objects. The image is background subtracted, and we

657: calculate an initial Petrosian radius ($r_P$ with $\eta\equiv0.2$)

658: using the object center and (elliptical) shape information from

659: SExtractor. We then smooth the image by $\sigma=r_P/5$ and create a

660: new segmentation map by selecting those pixels that have a surface

661: brightness higher than the mean surface brightness at the Petrosian

662: radius. We recalculate the object center by minimizing the second

663: order moment of the flux, and then recalculate the Petrosian radius in

664: the original image using this center. The total flux is defined as the

665: flux within a radius of $1.5\times r_P$ and $C$ is then calculated in

666: circular apertures. The individual measurements are listed in Table

667: \ref{tab:morphologies}, and the results are shown in

668: Fig. \ref{fig:morphologies}.  For each object, the \up\ measurements

669: are plotted as stars and the \zp\ as circles, and are connected by a

670: dotted line.  For 080844, $G$ and $C$ values in \up\ must be

671: considered lower limits, and its $M_{20}$ value is an upper limit

672: because the central pixel of the unresolved component contains

673: $\approx$20\% of the total flux.

674: 

675: Although our sample is small, we will attempt to make a general

676: comparison with the morphologies of nearby galaxies.  As shown in

677: Fig. \ref{fig:morphologies}, the UVLGs populate the region roughly

678: defined by $M_{20}\lesssim-1.3$ and $0.53\lesssim G\lesssim0.7$ (left

679: panel), and $3\lesssim C\lesssim5$ (right panel). We can compare these

680: measurements to the various divisions of morphological parameter space

681: discussed by \citet{lotz06}. Our UVLGs have smaller $M_{20}$ than

682: merging galaxies with two clearly separated nuclei

683: ($M_{20}\gtrsim-1.1$, left hatched region), larger $G$ than the

684: expectations for exponential disks (dotted box), $M_{20}$ similar or

685: larger than those expected for bulge-dominated objects (right hatched

686: region), and $G$ and $C$ that are either similar or smaller than those

687: expected for bulge-dominated galaxies seen face-on (solid box). We do

688: not find any systematic differences between the morphologies measured

689: in \up\ and \zp\ for the sample as a whole. The morphological

690: parameters in the UV and optical are thus dominated by the same

691: (bright) regions, even though some of the objects possess very faint,

692: extended structures in \zp.

693: 

694: Fig. \ref{fig:morphologies} shows that two UVLGs qualify as

695: bulge-dominated in \up, while four objects qualify as bulge-dominated

696: in \zp.  None of the objects qualifies as a pronounced merger, and

697: only one object lies just on the border of the exponential disk region

698: in \zp, with the remainder populating the regions in between. The

699: overall distribution of morphologies is very similar to that of star

700: forming galaxies at $z\sim$1.5 and LBGs at $z\sim4$ selected from

701: GOODS and the UDF. \citet{lotz06} find median values of $G\sim0.55$,

702: $M_{20}\sim-1.5$ and $C\sim3.3$ at $z\sim1.5$, and $G\sim0.58$,

703: $M_{20}\sim-1.6$ and $C\sim3.8$ at $z\sim4$ (encircled crosses in

704: Fig. \ref{fig:morphologies}). However, a fair comparison of the

705: morphologies of UVLGs with the higher redshift comparison samples

706: should be carried out at the same $S/N$ and resolution. In the next

707: section, we will carry out such a comparison.

708: 

709: \subsubsection{Redshift simulations}

710: \label{sec:sims}

711: 

712: \noindent

713: We now investigate whether the conclusions of the previous subsection

714: are still upheld if the analysis is carried out using images that are

715: simulated to have the same depth and resolution as LBGs observed at

716: high redshift.

717: 

718: We follow common practice \citep[e.g.,

719: see][]{giavalisco96b,hibbard97,bouwens98,papovich03,conselice03,lotz04},

720: and apply corrections for cosmological surface brightness dimming and

721: for changes in physical resolutions to the \up\ images, in order to

722: match the instrumental conditions under which our objects would be

723: observed in typical surveys when placed at $z=1-4$.

724: 

725: The first step of the procedure is to rebin the \up\ images by a

726: factor $b=(\theta_1/\theta_2)(s_2/s_1)$, where $\theta_i$ is the angle

727: on the sky of an object of fixed size $d$ at $z=z_i$, and $s_i$ is the

728: instrumental pixel scale (in arcsec pixel$^{-1}$).  The rebinning

729: factor can be expressed in terms of either the angular diameter

730: distance, $D_{A_i}=d/\theta_i$, or the luminosity distance,

731: $D_{L_i}=(1+z_i)^2D_{A_i}$, at low and at high redshift ($z_2>z_1$):

732: \begin{equation}

733: b=\frac{D_{A_2}}{D_{A_1}}\frac{s_2}{s_1}=\left(\frac{1+z_1}{1+z_2}\right)^2\frac{D_{L_2}}{D_{L_1}}\frac{s_2}{s_1},

734: \end{equation}  

735: The second step is to reduce the surface brightness of each (rebinned) pixel according to the relative 

736: amount of cosmological dimming of a galaxy at $z_2$ 

737: with respect to that at $z_1$. We calculate the scaling by making use of the fact that the absolute rest-frame magnitude 

738: (or luminosity) of the object before and after redshifting will be conserved 

739: ($M_{\lambda_2/(1+z_2)}=M_{\lambda_1/(1+z_1)}$ with matched filters so that $\lambda_2=\lambda_1(1+z_2)/(1+z_1)$). 

740: 

741: In order to compare our results to the high redshift samples of

742: \citet{lotz06}, objects were simulated at $z=1.5$ in \bp, and at

743: $z=3.0$ and 4.0 in both \vp\ and \ip. Objects were simulated at the

744: depths of GOODS (3, 2.5 and 2.5 orbits in \bp, \vp\ and \ip, resp.)

745: and the UDF (56, 56, 150 orbits in \bp, \vp\ and \ip, resp.).  For

746: completeness and future reference, we also simulated the sample at the

747: shallower COSMOS survey in the \inp\ filter (1 orbit).  For each

748: filter and for each redshift, we used the HST images that correspond

749: most closely in terms of rest-frame central wavelength. Where

750: necessary, we rescaled the flux of the input images assuming the UV

751: slopes determined in Section \ref{sec:slopes}.  The final steps of the

752: simulation consist of applying Poissonian noise to the simulated

753: profiles based on the typical exposure times of COSMOS/GOODS/UDF,

754: convolving the images with a Gaussian to match the desired output PSF

755: size ($\sim0\farcs12$), and placing the simulated object inside an

756: empty region in a COSMOS, GOODS or UDF image to obtain a realistic

757: background. The simulated pixel scale was $0\farcs03$ pixel$^{-1}$ for

758: GOODS and the UDF, and $0\farcs05$ pixel$^{-1}$ for COSMOS.

759: 

760: The rest-frame UV images of Haro 11 and VV 114 (see top panels of

761: Fig. \ref{fig:haro11vv114sims}) were artificially redshifted in an

762: identical manner using a two-step process.  First, we simulated their

763: F330W images at a redshift ($z=0.15$), depth (2500 s), plate scale

764: ($0\farcs025$ pixel$^{-1}$), and seeing ($\sim0\farcs075$) comparable

765: to our observations of the UVLGs. These images are shown in the bottom

766: panels of Fig. \ref{fig:haro11vv114sims}.  Both Haro 11 and VV 114

767: possess multiple bright nuclei ($\sim$1\arcsec\ apart) when observed

768: in \up\ at $z=0.15$. VV 114 also shows a significant amount of diffuse

769: emission in between the knots.  Next, these images were used to

770: simulate how these objects would appear at high redshift, analogous to

771: the UVLG simulations described above.  To match the desired rest-frame

772: wavelengths of the output filters, small flux extrapolations were

773: performed using $\beta=-1.4$ for both objects as measured by

774: \citet{goldader02} and \citet{bergvall06}.

775: 

776: \subsubsection{Results}

777: 

778: \noindent

779: Figs. \ref{fig:sims_goods_uvlgs}, \ref{fig:sims_udf_uvlgs}, and

780: \ref{fig:sims_cosmos_uvlgs} compare postage stamps of the local LBG

781: analogs (including Haro 11 and VV 114) that are simulated at the depths of the GOODS, UDF, and COSMOS

782: surveys.  Results are shown at the three different redshifts discussed

783: above ($z=1.5$, 3.0 and 4.0). The images demonstrate that as redshift

784: increases, components that are well separated at low redshift blend

785: due to the lower spatial resolution, and that low surface brightness

786: features are lost due to surface brightness dimming. The latter effect

787: is most severe in the shallow COSMOS data, and least severe in the

788: deep UDF data.

789: 

790: Fig. \ref{fig:morphologies_redshift} shows how the measured

791: morphological parameters $G$ (top panel), $M_{20}$ (middle panel) and

792: $C$ (bottom panel) change as a function of redshift and survey depth.

793: There is a systematic drop of $\sim$0.05--0.10 in $G$ from $z\sim0.15$

794: to $z\sim1.5$, followed by a further less significant decrease of a

795: few hundredths out to $z=4$.  The first decrease is caused by the

796: strong drop in resolution, as well as the loss of faint extended

797: features that cause the flux to be more evenly distributed over the

798: galaxy profile. Simulations by \citet{lotz06} show that the second

799: decrease is mainly caused by the loss of low surface brightness pixels

800: lowering $G$ somewhat further at $z>1.5$. The loss of low surface

801: brightness features with redshift also tends to increase $M_{20}$ (the

802: total second order moment is lowered while the second order moment of

803: the 20\% brightest flux stays roughly constant), and tends to lower

804: the concentration, because the 80\% flux radii are systematically

805: underestimated. The measurements at the COSMOS depth show quite a

806: large scatter with respect to GOODS and the UDF, indicating that the

807: lower $S/N$ and its larger pixel scale result in relatively unstable

808: morphology measurements for LBGs.

809: 

810: The main results of our morphological comparison are presented in

811: Fig. \ref{fig:morphologies_lotz}. We compare the UVLG morphologies

812: (filled stars) with those of the low redshift LBG analogs (open stars)

813: and the high redshift comparison sample (plusses) of

814: \citet{lotz06}. In order to make sure that the morphologies are

815: measured in a consistent manner, we used our own code to recalculate

816: the morphologies of the 55 $z\sim1.5$ starburst galaxies in GOODS

817: (bottom panels), and the 82 $z\sim4$ LBGs in GOODS (middle panels) and

818: the UDF (top panels) analyzed by \citet{lotz06}. \citet{lotz06} showed

819: that the morphologies of the $z\sim1.5$ sample are very similar to

820: that of the $z\sim4$ sample. The distribution of the UVLGs is very

821: similar to that of the high redshift objects as well, although the

822: latter has a larger scatter due to the much larger sample size.  

823: 

824: \subsubsection{Comparison with Haro 11 and VV 114}

825: 

826: \noindent

827: Haro 11 and VV 114 (open stars in Fig. \ref{fig:morphologies_lotz})

828: have higher $M_{20}$ and lower $G$ and $C$ when compared to the

829: UVLGs. We can understand this given that both objects possess several

830: bright nuclei with a separation that enables them to be significantly

831: resolved even when simulated at $z=0.15-4.0$. Their qualitative

832: morphology perhaps most closely resembles that of the high redshift

833: ``clump-cluster galaxies'' \citep[e.g., see][]{elmegreen04}. Although

834: objects with similar morphological characteristics are certainly

835: present in high redshift samples, they do not make up the majority of

836: LBGs as can be seen from the distribution in morphological types of

837: LBGs \citep[e.g.][and Fig. \ref{fig:morphologies_lotz} in this

838: paper]{lotz06,ravindranath06,elmegreen07}. 

839: 

840: It is important to note that our GALEX/SDSS selection of local LBG

841: analogs at $z\approx0.1-0.3$ is likely biased against finding objects

842: having such widely separated nuclei as Haro 11 and VV 114. Because we

843: selected objects principally on having a high FUV luminosity, as well

844: as a high UV surface brightness based on the half-light radius

845: measured in the {\it u}-band, we are most sensitive to objects that

846: are not or barely resolved in SDSS. The surface brightness requirement

847: is necessary in order to obtain a relatively clean separation between

848: the LBG analogs on one hand, and large, UV-luminous (predominantly

849: spiral) galaxies on the other. However, we will further investigate

850: whether we can find more LBG analogs of the type of Haro 11/VV 114 by

851: looking closer at the objects that straddle the boundary of the LBG

852: analog selection criteria in a future paper (Overzier et al., in prep.).

853: 

854: \subsubsection{Summary}

855: 

856: \noindent

857: We conclude that the morphologies of the UVLGs cannot be distinguished

858: from the morphologies of high redshift LBGs when measured from the

859: redshifted images simulated at the same depth as GOODS and the

860: UDF. This further strengthens our conclusion that the relatively

861: nearby supercompact UVLGs and high redshift LBGs are very similar.

862: 

863: In the following sections, we will turn our attention again to the

864: undegraded HST images of Fig. \ref{fig:stamps}. In

865: Sect. \ref{sec:sscs} we will study in detail the nature of the

866: starburst regions, and in Sect. \ref{sec:disc} we discuss the

867: connection between morphology and the mechanisms responsible for

868: triggering the vigorous star formation observed in these local LBG

869: analogs.

870: 

871: 

872: \section{Super starburst regions}

873: \label{sec:sscs}

874: 

875: \noindent

876: As discussed in Section 3, in all our sources the UV light is

877: distributed in a series of bright, unresolved knots embedded in a

878: region of more diffuse emission.  In this section we will show that

879: these regions can be interpreted as being (super) starburst regions

880: (SSBs).  An understanding of the physical nature of these regions is

881: crucial for interpreting the UV emission from LBGs.

882: 

883: 

884: 

885: \subsection{Identification and photometry}

886: 

887: \noindent

888: In Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_apertures} we indicate all the starburst regions

889: identifiable by eye from the \up-band images (small circles).

890: Although our identification by eye is somewhat subjective, most

891: regions are bright and isolated and thus easily recognised.  We

892: identify a total of 41 regions in our sample of 8 galaxies. Some

893: galaxies contain only one knot, while others contain as many as ten.

894: Next, we measured the fluxes and colors of each region using circular

895: aperture photometry in matched \up\ and \zp\ images (resolution of

896: $\sim0\farcs12$, FWHM).  We were able to isolate all of the starburst

897: regions identified in Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_apertures} using circular

898: apertures of 0\farcs3 in diameter (corresponding to physical radii of

899: $\sim$240-480 pc).

900: The encircled energy (EE) measurements of \citep{sirianni05} show that

901: circular apertures of this diameter enclose $\sim80$\% of the total

902: light of a point source observed with ACS. We did not apply the EE

903: correction.  Magnitudes were corrected for Galactic extinction, and

904: the magnitude distribution of the 41 starburst regions is shown in

905: Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_maghist}. Absolute magnitudes were calculated from

906: $M=m-5\mathrm{log}_{10}(D_L\mathrm{(pc)})+5+2.5\mathrm{log}_{10}(1+z)$. We

907: did not apply a $K$-correction as the central rest-frame wavelengths

908: at which the absolute magnitudes are determined differ only by a small

909: amount ($\lesssim300$\AA).  Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_maghist} shows that our

910: `by eye' selection is relatively complete at $m_{330}\lesssim23$ mag

911: ($M_{330/(1+z)}\lesssim-16.5$).

912: We also determined the flux and color of the large, diffuse region

913: that generally surrounds the compact starburst knots (large circles in

914: Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_apertures}). These regions measure $\sim$2-5 kpc in

915: radius.  The fluxes measured in the small apertures were subtracted

916: from the larger aperture.

917: 

918: We find that the UV light is typically dominated by emission from the

919: compact, luminous regions: the combined flux of the unresolved regions

920: contributes an average of $\sim$50\% to the total flux in \up. Object

921: 102613 has the lowest contribution from SSBs ($\sim34$\%) and object

922: 080844 the highest ($\sim80$\%).  Although we do not have a \up\ image

923: for 092600, we can infer that its structure is very similar to the

924: other objects given that the unresolved knots contribute $\sim$42\% to

925: the total flux in \zp, and its morphology in \ha\ (assumed to be a

926: good proxy for its \up\ morphology, see Fig. \ref{fig:stamps}), shows

927: a similar knotty structure.

928: 

929: 

930: \subsection{Color-magnitude diagram}

931: 

932: \noindent

933: In Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_cm} we show the color-magnitude diagram of all

934: regions identified in Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_apertures}. Objects 092600 and

935: 214500 were omitted.  Starburst regions from each galaxy are plotted

936: using a different filled symbol, with their corresponding ID number

937: from Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_apertures} indicated for reference. Open

938: symbols of corresponding shape indicate the diffuse regions that

939: surround the compact regions. In order to compare the measured colors

940: and magnitudes to model starburst tracks, we `dereddened' the

941: measurements using the global reddening value for the stellar

942: continuum that was derived from the bolometric dust to FUV luminosity

943: ratio (see Sect. \ref{sec:slopes}). We note that this correction is in

944: general quite small.

945: The compact regions span quite a large range both in color and in

946: absolute magnitude (filled symbols in Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_cm}). The

947: diffuse regions, defined by the larger areas in

948: Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_apertures} but with the circular regions around all

949: the identified point sources removed, lie at $M_U\sim-20$ and

950: (\up--\zp)$\sim0.5$ (open symbols in Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_cm}).

951: 

952: To interpret these colors, we have used STARBURST99

953: \citep{leitherer95,leitherer99} to predict the color and magnitude

954: evolution of a starburst as observed through our filters.  The tracks

955: in the left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_cm} represent an {\it

956:   instantaneous burst model} with burst masses of $M=10^7$ $M_\odot$

957: and $M=10^8$ $M_\odot$, while tracks in the right panel indicate a

958: {\it continuous star formation model} having SFRs of 0.1, 1 and 5

959: $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$.  We use a Kroupa initial mass function (IMF) with

960: a slope of $\alpha=1.3$ between 0.1 and 0.5 $M_\odot$ and $\alpha=2.3$

961: between 0.5 and 100 $M_\odot$.

962: We also use the Padova 1994 models with thermally pulsating AGB stars

963: added \citep{vazquez05}.  The tracks shown were obtained after

964: redshifting the rest-frame spectra to $z=0.15$, the average redshift

965: of our sample, and measuring the magnitudes in \up\ and \zp.  The blue

966: lines correspond to a metallicity equal to that of the Large

967: Magellanic Cloud ($Z=0.008$), while the red lines are for solar

968: metallicity.  Ages (in Myr) have been indicated along the

969: tracks. Dashed lines indicate the contribution from the nebular

970: continuum (assuming no reddening).  The general behaviour of all

971: tracks is to become redder with age. After about 10 Myr, the colors

972: become steadily redder, because the most massive O stars have become

973: supernovae and lower mass O stars have become red supergiants. The red

974: supergiant dominated phase at 10--20 Myr is highly dependent on

975: metallicity, as their number is lower and their temperature is warmer

976: in lower metallicity starbursts \citep{vazquez05}. After 20 Myr, O

977: stars have disappeared leading to a gradual reddening with age.

978: Continuous models become brighter, while instantaneous models fade

979: with time.

980: 

981: \subsection{Results}

982: 

983: \noindent

984: The instantaneous burst and continuous star formation models have been

985: chosen to bracket the range of possible star formation histories of

986: our compact starburst regions. Most of the regions are clearly

987: detected in \ha\ indicating that they must at least have had very

988: recent star formation.  In Fig. \ref{fig:ew} we plot the SSBs in the

989: plane of color vs. the rest-frame equivalent width (EW) of \ha\

990: measured for each SSB.  The measured equivalent widths are 30--500\AA,

991: and are seen to correlate with the \up-\zp\ color, suggesting that the

992: \ha\ EW is a reasonably good age indicator.  We have overplotted the

993: predicted EW of \ha\ based on the STARBURST99 models shown in Fig

994: \ref{fig:ssc_cm}.  For instantaneous models, the \ha\ EW is less than

995: $\sim$100\AA\ after 6 Myr, and less than 10\AA\ after only 10 Myr

996: (dashed lines). For continuous star forming models, a high \ha\ EW is

997: maintained over a much longer period of time, with

998: $EW_{H\alpha}\gtrsim$100\AA\ for ages $\lesssim$1 Gyr.

999: 

1000: Comparison of the instantaneous burst and continuous star formation

1001: tracks with the observed compact and diffuse regions lead us to the

1002: following conclusions:

1003: 

1004: \noindent {\it (i)} The $M\simeq10^{7-8}$ $M_\odot$ instantaneous

1005: starburst tracks shown in the left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_cm}

1006: provide a generally good match to the majority of the compact regions,

1007: but the ages of $\sim$10-100 Myr inferred are inconsistent with their

1008: large \ha\ EWs, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ew}.  A better match to both

1009: the color-magnitude diagram and the \ha\ EWs is provided by the

1010: continuous star formation models shown in the right panel of

1011: Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_cm}.  The exact ages are uncertain, because of

1012: small-scale differences between the \up\ and \ha\ morphologies (note

1013: that the apertures were defined on the \up\ image), uncertainties in

1014: the small-scale dust distribution (now assumed to be a single

1015: foreground screen), and because of the unknown fraction of the light

1016: that is due to the background population inside each of the small

1017: apertures (not subtracted).  Our best estimates for the ages of the

1018: starburst regions range from a few tens of Myr to a few hundreds of

1019: Myr based on a comparison with the tracks in Fig

1020: \ref{fig:ssc_cm}. These ages should be regarded as upper limits,

1021: because we may have underestimated the contribution from dust and

1022: older stars.  The scatter in $M_U$ magnitude can be interpreted as a

1023: sequence in SFR ranging from $\sim$0.1 to $\sim$5 $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$

1024: (or total burst mass ranging from $\sim10^7$ $M_\odot$ to several

1025: $10^8$ $M_\odot$). The scatter in (\up--\zp) color can be interpreted

1026: as a sequence in age (or burst age in the case of instantaneous

1027: bursts).  Note that our results are almost independent of metallicity.

1028: 

1029: \noindent {\it (ii)} For the brightest starburst regions, there is a

1030: strong tendency for neighbouring regions to have a very similar color

1031: and magnitude, e.g. regions (2,4,7) in object 135355, regions (1,4,5)

1032: in object 040208, and regions (4,5) in object 032845. This suggests

1033: that the starburst in these objects tends to occur in the form of

1034: several co-eval and equally massive bursts.

1035: 

1036: \noindent {\it (iii)} The two compact regions that are outliers (in

1037: the sense that they appear to be both extremely young, $\sim$6 Myr, as

1038: well as very massive, $M_*\sim10^8$ $M_\odot$) each correspond to

1039: objects where the UV emission is dominated by a {\it single}, luminous

1040: knot (objects 005527 \& 080844).  Both objects have a very large \ha\

1041: EW, indicating that they are massive, young starbursts.  The SDSS

1042: spectrum\footnote{http://cas.sdss.org/dr5/en/tools/explore/obj.asp?id=588015508738539596}

1043: of 005527 shows a broad feature around a bright and narrow HeII

1044: 4686\AA\ line that is characteristic of Wolf-Rayet (WR) galaxies

1045: \citep[e.g.][]{conti91,sargent91,izotov97}.  The WR phase is a

1046: relatively short phase in the life of the most massive stars during

1047: which they experience a large mass loss.  The presence of WR stars is

1048: a unique indicator of young starbursts, as WR stars disappear after

1049: $\sim6-10$ Myr depending on the metallicity of the burst, with less

1050: mass loss occurring at lower metallicity \citep{leitherer95}. Further

1051: confirmation of this young age comes from the large equivalent width

1052: of H$\beta$ ($\sim$60\AA), consistent with an age of $\sim$6 Myr

1053: \citep{leitherer95}.

1054: 

1055: \noindent {\it (iv)} Some other regions with very blue colors and high

1056: EW in \ha\ (e.g. region 2 in 032845 and region 1 in 102613) appear to

1057: be as young as the previous two, but are $\sim$2-3 magnitudes fainter.

1058: 

1059: \noindent {\it (v)} The more diffuse, inner regions in which the SSBs

1060: are embedded (open symbols in Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_cm}) are typically a

1061: few tenths of a magnitude redder than the average color of the compact

1062: SSBs they surround, and their total magnitudes are very similar to the

1063: combined flux of their SSBs.  These regions contain an older stellar

1064: population. Given their large physical extent, the instantaneous burst

1065: model is unlikely to be appropriate.  We find that the colors and

1066: luminosities of these regions are in good agreement with continuous

1067: star formation models with SFRs of $\simeq1-5$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ and ages 

1068: of $\simeq0.2-1.0$ Gyr.

1069: 

1070: \noindent {\it (vi)} The outer annuli (defined as the region between

1071: $r_{50,850}$ and $r_{90,850}$, see Table \ref{tab:sizes}) are

1072: consistent with older populations having ages between a few Gyr to a

1073: Hubble time, depending on the star formation history.

1074: 

1075: 

1076: \subsection{Summary}

1077: 

1078: \noindent

1079: The starburst regions observed in the local LBG analogs are highly

1080: compact (radii of 100-300 pc), and characterized by bright, unresolved

1081: knots of emission within a larger region of diffuse star formation

1082: that extends out to a radius of a few kpc.  The total UV emission from

1083: these compact starburst regions is substantial, indicating that

1084: 30--80\% of the total SFR is generated in these knots. Comparison with

1085: STARBURST99 evolutionary tracks indicates that some of the regions are

1086: due to very young ($\sim$6 Myr) bursts, while other regions may have

1087: been forming stars in a more continuous manner for several tens to

1088: several hundreds of Myr as indicated by their relatively red colors

1089: and large \ha\ equivalent widths.  There is a tendency for neighboring

1090: knots to have similar colors and luminosities. This implies that they

1091: may be co-eval and of similar mass. Most of the SSBs are still

1092: unresolved in the unbinned \up\ images ($\approx0\farcs075$,

1093: FWHM). The stellar mass densities implied are $\sim10^{2-3}$ $M_\odot$

1094: pc$^{-2}$ estimated from their masses of $\sim10^{7-8}$ $M_\odot$ and

1095: assuming an effective radius of $\sim$100 pc.

1096: 

1097: The masses of the super starburst regions are one to two orders of

1098: magnitude larger than the masses of the most massive clusters found in

1099: the local Universe. We may therefore conclude that the (unresolved)

1100: super starburst regions seen in Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_apertures} are

1101: likely composed of smaller units. \citet{meurer95} found that typical

1102: starburst regions in local starburst galaxies consist of diffuse stars

1103: as well as clusters in the ratio of respectively 80 to 20\%. The most

1104: prominent of the clusters, the so-called super star clusters (SSCs),

1105: have masses of $\approx10^{5-6}$ $M_\odot$ and sizes of a few to

1106: $\sim$10 pc and likely correspond to globular clusters in the process

1107: of formation (provided the stellar IMF extends down to 0.1 $M_\odot$).

1108: 

1109: We can get an even better idea of the sub-resolution structure of the

1110: super starburst regions by comparing the starburst regions in Haro 11

1111: and VV 114 shown in the top panels of Fig. \ref{fig:haro11vv114sims}

1112: with the same regions simulated at $z=0.15$ shown in the bottom panels

1113: of the same figure. The majority of the bright nuclei seen in the

1114: images simulated at $z=0.15$ are a blend of numerous smaller super

1115: starclusters that can clearly be seen in their unredshifted images.

1116: However, the most Northern and brightest knot in the redshifted image

1117: of Haro 11 is still largely unresolved in its unredshifted image. This

1118: indicates that single, highly massive star clusters are capable of

1119: dominating the rest-frame UV/optical morphology of LBG-like galaxies

1120: at virtually any redshift. A detailed determination of the sizes,

1121: masses and ages of the star clusters in Haro 11 and VV 114 is beyond

1122: the scope of this paper, and can be found elsewhere \citep[][Adamo et

1123: al., in prep.]{scoville00,hayes07}.

1124: 

1125: \section{Discussion}

1126: \label{sec:disc}

1127: 

1128: \subsection{Triggering mechanism}

1129: 

1130: \noindent

1131: Although the number of objects in our HST sample is currently quite

1132: small, the results presented in this paper can nevertheless guide us

1133: in the interpretation of the morphologies of these local starburst

1134: galaxies, and by extension, those of LBGs at higher redshifts.\\

1135: 

1136: \noindent

1137: {\it (i) Are the morphologies evidence for merging?}\\

1138: 

1139: \noindent

1140: Although some of the SDSS images showed evidence for close companions

1141: or faint extended emission, the galaxies were extremely compact and it

1142: was not at all clear from the SDSS images that they were highly

1143: disturbed. The biggest surprise from the HST images was that most of

1144: the UVLGs show disturbed morphologies at scales well below the SDSS

1145: seeing or sensitivity.  Each UVLG shows at least one of the typical

1146: signs of merging or interaction, such as multiplicity or twists in the

1147: faint, outer isophotes (e.g., 005527, 032845, 040208, 092600), tidal

1148: debris or tails (e.g., 032845, 102613, 214500), and close companions

1149: (e.g., 080844, 102613, 135355, 214500).

1150: 

1151: While none of the UVLGs appear as fully-formed Hubble sequence

1152: galaxies, in one case, 214500, a small spiral structure seems to be

1153: present both in the FUV and in \vp.  Nonetheless, even in this object

1154: there is circumstantial evidence that the starburst was triggered by a

1155: merging event, as evidenced by its companion that appears to have gone

1156: straight through its nucleus leaving behind a trail of tidal

1157: debris. The projected distance between the centroid of the starburst

1158: region and the companion is about 5 kpc. The companion galaxy would

1159: traverse this distance in $\sim$10-100 Myr assuming a velocity of a

1160: few hundred km s$^{-1}$ and a straight trajectory in the plane of the

1161: sky. If we asume that the starburst is triggered by the interaction

1162: (as suggested by the \vp\ morphology), this timescale constrains the

1163: maximum possible age of the burst. The results are consistent with

1164: 30-100 Myr ages derived from the colors and magnitudes of these

1165: systems.  In many of the other cases, the region that dominates the UV

1166: morphology often lies at the interface of two diffuse merging

1167: structures, as identified by the contours of their outer isophotes in

1168: \zp. In the remaining cases, a companion is always seen at a distance

1169: of less than $\lesssim$5 kpc from the UVLG.  It is well-known that

1170: close neighbours can affect the SFR in galaxies, with close pairs

1171: having separations of $\lesssim50$ kpc showing enhanced star formation

1172: \citep[e.g.][Li et al. in

1173: prep.]{larson78,lambas03,nikolic04,woods06,owers07} This supports the

1174: idea that the starbursts are linked to mergers. The merging galaxies

1175: must be very gas-rich in order to trigger the very high level of

1176: enhanced star formation and the luminous super starburst regions that

1177: we observe.

1178: 

1179: It has been proposed that starburst galaxies at high redshift, such as

1180: Lyman break galaxies, are triggered by mergers of relatively gas-rich

1181: disk galaxies \citep{somerville01}.

1182: Simulations indicate that mergers of gas-rich galaxies can trigger

1183: massive starbursts. The conditions of the starburst depends on a

1184: number of key parameters of the merging system \citep[e.g. see][and

1185: references therein]{mihos94a,mihos94b,springel05,dimatteo07}.  During

1186: a merger of disk galaxies, bar-like patterns develop that efficiently

1187: funnel gas into the central region.  The gas flow to the center is

1188: generally not disrupted or depleted due to star formation during the

1189: early stages of the merger, although the inflow of gas can be limited

1190: due to resonances if a bulge component is present, reducing the

1191: central gas densities and overall SFR and duration of the central

1192: starburst.  The presence of gas is not always a sufficient condition

1193: for generating a starburst. The star formation efficiency of a merger

1194: depends largely on the galaxy spin direction (retrogade encounters

1195: have higher efficiency), and on the amount of gas that is being

1196: expelled due to the tidal interaction at first passage

1197: \citep{springel05,dimatteo07}.

1198: 

1199: We remind the reader that typical ($L$$\sim$$L^*_{z=3}$) LBGs are not

1200: dwarf galaxies, but have masses of $\sim$10$^{10}$ $M\odot$ and SFRs

1201: that are much higher than those of typical (unobscured) local

1202: starbursts \citep{papovich01,shapley01}. They do not show evidence for

1203: spiral structure \citep{papovich05}.  As such, they are very similar

1204: to our local LBG analogs. We conclude that the main mechanism

1205: responsible for triggering star formation in both high redshift LBGs

1206: and their local analogs is likely to be mergers.\\

1207: 

1208: \noindent

1209: {\it (ii) Are the compact super-starburst regions triggered by the mergers?}\\

1210: 

1211: \noindent

1212: Luminous star clusters (e.g. SSCs) occur in many irregular and dwarf

1213: galaxies (e.g. 30 Dor in the LMC). The triggering of compact SSBs as

1214: massive as the ones in our sample of UVLGs probably requires a highly

1215: efficient inflow and compression of the gas that is typically only

1216: seen in galaxy mergers or interactions. The inflow ensures that the

1217: pressure in the interstellar medium becomes larger than the internal

1218: pressure of giant molecular clouds, and that the clouds can collapse

1219: and form SSCs before they are disrupted by supernova explosions \citep{bekki04}.

1220: SPH simulations of galaxy mergers suggest that the properties of the

1221: starburst are determined by the magnitude, timescale and geometry of

1222: this inflow

1223: \citep[see][]{mihos94a,bekki01,bekki04,dimatteo07}. \citet{mihos94a}

1224: found that the central starbursts resulting from gas-rich mergers can

1225: have total sizes of $\sim350$ pc, and contain most of the total mass

1226: in new stars. \citet{bekki01} predict that (i) SSCs have a narrow age distribution

1227: ($\sim200$ Myr) because they form most efficiently during the stage

1228: when the gas density is the highest, (ii) the total number and

1229: intrinsic masses of SSCs are larger in major mergers due to larger

1230: tidal effects and higher peak SFRs, and (iii) SSC production is more

1231: efficient in merging galaxies \citep[e.g. ULIRGS,][]{sanders96} than

1232: in tidally interacting galaxies \citep[e.g. M82,][]{kennicutt98}.

1233: 

1234: Observations show that starbursts indeed occur in regions where the

1235: gas densities are the highest, typically in the cores \citep[e.g. Arp

1236: 220,][]{shaya94} and in circum-nuclear starburst regions

1237: \citep[e.g. VV114,][]{scoville00}. Stars may form in large complexes

1238: having total stellar masses of $\sim10^{7-9}$ $M_\odot$, and

1239: containing several tens to hundreds of SSCs as well as smaller star

1240: clusters. This is true both in ULIRGS and in compact blue galaxies

1241: \citep[e.g.][and

1242: therein]{meurer95,ostlin98,whitmore99,zepf99,goldader02}.

1243: 

1244: We conclude that the characteristic morphologies, ages, sizes and

1245: masses of the starburst regions we have observed are consistent with

1246: those predicted by simulations of gas-rich mergers. They are also

1247: analogous to the large star-forming complexes observed in very nearby

1248: merging galaxies.

1249: 

1250: \subsection{Low redshift lessons for high redshift LBGs}

1251: 

1252: \noindent

1253: Because of their relative proximity, studies of local star-forming

1254: galaxies can help us understand the nature of starburst galaxies at

1255: high redshifts.  As explained in Section 1, up to now these

1256: comparisons have been of limited usefulness, because typical local

1257: starburst galaxies are systematically different from LBGs at high

1258: redshift. The sample of local LBG analogs first studied by H05 was

1259: specifically designed to bridge this gap. In this paper, we have

1260: studied the detailed morphologies of these systems and we now discuss

1261: how our results impact on the study of star-forming galaxies at high

1262: redshifts.

1263: 

1264: \subsubsection{Morphologies and sizes}

1265: 

1266: \noindent

1267: Our analysis of the HST data has established that UVLGs have a light

1268: distribution dominated by very compact starbursting regions (ranging

1269: in number from 1 to more than 10 per galaxy) that are triggered by

1270: mergers or interactions.  In most cases, an older, diffuse, stellar

1271: component is also present. Our redshift simulations showed that the sizes and morphologies at

1272: $z=1.5-4$ are similar to that of LBGs

1273: \citep[e.g.][]{giavalisco96a,conselice06,lotz06,overzier07,younger07}.

1274: The morphological parameters measured at rest-frame UV and optical

1275: wavelengths are very similar. This is unlike typical local galaxies,

1276: but very similar to LBGs as both are dominated by young stars

1277: \citep[e.g.][]{papovich05}.

1278: 

1279: The redshift simulations presented in Section 3 yield a number of

1280: important conclusions: (i) at high redshift, the compact starburst

1281: regions can blend giving rise to a galaxy image that appears to have

1282: the one or two bright `knots' with a total half-light radius of 1--2

1283: kpc, (ii) the diffuse emission is partly lost in the background noise

1284: or may blend with the knots, and (iii) the {\it undegraded} optical

1285: images were in most cases required to establish a definite connection

1286: between the (UV) starbursts and merging (Section 5.1).

1287: 

1288: If `knots' are present in LBGs they are typically not resolved in HST

1289: observations, ground-based spectroscopy with adaptive optics

1290: \citep[resolution $\sim0\farcs1$ or $\sim$1 kpc;][]{genzel06,law07b},

1291: or standard spectroscopy \citep[resolution $\sim0\farcs5$ or $\sim$4

1292: kpc;][]{forster06,erb06b}. Because imaging observations of high

1293: redshift LBGs lack the sensitivity and resolution to see the (often

1294: subtle) features associated with merging, 2D or 3D spectroscopy is the

1295: most promising method of studying the connection between star

1296: formation and morphology in these objects. Small samples studied to

1297: date show complex kinematics and high nuclear gas fractions that are

1298: consistent with the merger hypothesis

1299: \citep{erb03,erb06b,forster06,law07b}. However, some star-forming

1300: objects at $z\sim2$ may have more ordered underlying structures

1301: \citep{forster06,genzel06,wright07}.

1302: 

1303: Coming back to the important, long-standing question of whether the

1304: irregular morphologies of LBGs are a sign of merging or of patchy star

1305: formation within a single (forming) disk \citep[e.g.][]{law07a}, it is

1306: safe to say that in {\it virtually every single case} presented in

1307: this paper we do not see any direct evidence for merging based on the

1308: HST UV images alone. However, in {\it virtually every single case}

1309: evidence for merging is readily apparent from the rest-frame optical

1310: image, and we reiterate that most of the features suggestive of

1311: merging would be too faint or too small to be seen at $z$$\sim$2--4.

1312: In some of the local LBG analogs the burst occurs predominantly in

1313: only one of the members of a merging or interacting pair. In others

1314: the merger seems in such an advanced state that one cannot speak about

1315: separate systems any more, making the distinction between `merging'

1316: and `patchy disk' essentially irrelevant. We conclude that the UV

1317: morphologies of LBGs are likely {\it patchy as the result of merging}.

1318: 

1319: Although both the UV and optical morphologies are dominated by compact

1320: starbursts, some of our objects show evidence for an older, extended

1321: component, which is generally not seen in high redshift LBGs

1322: \citep[e.g.][]{papovich05}.  In this respect, the UVLGs may be more

1323: evolved than LBGs at high redshift. However, it is important to

1324: remember that the age of the universe at $z\sim3$ is only $\sim2$

1325: Gyr. The spectral energy distributions of LBGs are consistent with the

1326: presence of such a ``maximally old'' stellar component

1327: \citet{papovich01}.  The limiting surface brightness of rest-frame

1328: optical images of LBGs in the NICMOS HDFN indicates that these

1329: features are likely often too faint to be detected.  Also, the

1330: rest-frame wavelength of the reddest NICMOS images of LBGs

1331: ($H_{160}$-band) corresponds to only about half that of our {\it

1332:   z-}band observations of the UVLGs and so are less sensitive to

1333: detection of an older population. Resolution effects could play a role

1334: as well.  In paper II we will carry out redshift simulations of a

1335: large set of rest-frame optical images of UVLGs to investigate these

1336: optical structures in detail.

1337: 

1338: Because high surface brightness regions in LBGs are very likely to be

1339: blends of super starburst regions,

1340: we stress that one must be cautious in interpreting size/morphology

1341: measurements in terms of disk- or bulge-like components.  The

1342: half-light or effective radius may be more directly related to the

1343: typical radius over which the compact, super starburst regions are

1344: distributed, rather than to the scale size of a (forming) bulge or

1345: disk \citep[see also][]{noguchi99,immeli04,law07b}, although the two

1346: are likely closely related if stars predominantly form inside these

1347: burst regions and relaxation or tidal disruption spreads them out over

1348: time.  Although we do not rule out the possibility that some fraction

1349: of LBGs has bulges at redshifts as high as $z\sim4$, the high physical

1350: resolution data presented here suggests that this is possibly far less

1351: common than currently believed based on morphological parameters

1352: (e.g. Lotz et al. 2006 estimate $\sim$30\%).

1353: 

1354: Evidence that the small-scale structure of LBG knots is indeed of the

1355: nature advocated in this paper is found in a few rare cases where LBGs

1356: are observed at high magnification due to gravitational lensing. By

1357: studying a lensed galaxy at $z=4.92$, \citet{franx97} were the first

1358: to show that high surface brightness super starburst regions having

1359: sizes of a few hundred pc form an essential contribution ($\sim$75\%)

1360: to the UV flux in LBGs. Similar features can be seen in other lensed

1361: systems that have been discovered at high redshift

1362: \citep{bunker00,ellis01,smail07,swinbank07}.  We note that some

1363: fraction of LBGs with very knotty structures may be discarded in

1364: current large surveys, because their light profiles are similar to

1365: those of stars.  Our sample indicates that this number could be on the

1366: order of 13-25\% (1--2 out of 8 objects). If we compare the

1367: substructure of the super starburst regions in Haro 11 and VV 114 at

1368: $z=0.02$ with the same regions simulated at $z=0.15$

1369: (Fig. \ref{fig:haro11vv114sims}), we see that majority of the bright

1370: nuclei seen in the images simulated at $z=0.15$ are a blend of smaller

1371: super star clusters identified in their unredshifted images.  However,

1372: the most Northern and brightest knot in the redshifted image of Haro

1373: 11 is still largely unresolved in its unredshifted image, indicating

1374: that single, luminous star clusters are capable of dominating the

1375: rest-frame UV/optical morphology of LBG-like galaxies at virtually any

1376: redshift.

1377: 

1378: As shown by \citet{dahlen07}, the fraction of star-forming galaxies

1379: having a bulge-like morphology at rest-frame 2800\AA\ decreases from

1380: $\sim$30\% at $z\approx2$ to $\sim$10\% at $z\approx0.5$, illustrating

1381: the relative importance of concentrated star formation at high

1382: redshift compared to low redshift.  \citet{zirm07} have pointed out

1383: the existence of a population of compact, massive galaxies at

1384: $z\sim2.5$ having effective radii and high stellar mass surface

1385: densities. It is possible that these

1386: are the result of massive and concentrated starbursts in highly dissipative, gas-rich mergers at high redshift ($z\sim3-6$). 

1387: Extrapolation of our results to higher redshifts suggests that very dense stellar `cores' 

1388: are indeed actively being formed in the LBG population.

1389: 

1390: \subsubsection{Prediction for the faint end slope of the LBG luminosity function}

1391: 

1392: \noindent

1393: The UV luminosity function (LF) has now been evaluated over the entire

1394: redshift range from $z=0-6$. Interestingly, the faint end slope of the

1395: LF has been found to flatten with decreasing redshift from

1396: $\alpha\sim$1.74 at $z=6$ to $\sim1.2$ at $z=0$

1397: \citep{yan04a,yan04b,wyder05,bouwens07,ryan07}.  Various simulations

1398: and models have been tried to reproduce the LF and explain its

1399: flattening at faint magnitudes

1400: \citep[e.g.][]{night06,finlator07,khochfar07}.  As we will show, the

1401: existence of compact starbursts in LBGs may offer a natural

1402: explanation for the steep slopes that are observed at high

1403: redshifts. The LF of star-forming regions is well-known to have a

1404: slope of $\alpha\approx2$ over a wide range in physical scales from

1405: \hii\ regions to SSCs and beyond \citep[e.g.][and references

1406: therein]{kennicutt89,meurer95,elmegreen97,zepf99,alonso02,bradley06}.

1407: 

1408: We consider the following, very simple, toy model. Let $N(L,z)$ be the

1409: total number density of galaxies with UV luminosity between $L$ and

1410: $L+dL$ and redshift between $z$ and $z+dz$. We will also assume that

1411: the stellar IMF, as well as the star formation efficiency in galaxies,

1412: does not change with redshift.  The UV luminosity of an individual

1413: galaxy at a given time $t$ is the sum over the luminosity of all its

1414: previous star-formation events, $L_i$, at that time:

1415: \begin{equation}

1416: \label{eq:lf}

1417: L_{\mathrm{LBG}}^{UV}(t)=\sum_i L_i (t).

1418: \end{equation}

1419: The luminosity arising from an `event' can take any arbitrary form

1420: (e.g. burst, constant, declining, etc.), and it is not important what

1421: caused the event.  For LBGs, it is instructive to make a distinction

1422: between the contribution to the total luminosity from a series of $N$

1423: (semi-)discrete starbursts, $L_{\mathrm{burst}}^i$, and that due to a

1424: diffuse star-forming component that is slowly evolving with time,

1425: $L_{\mathrm{diffuse}}$, so that

1426: \begin{equation}

1427: L_{\mathrm{LBG}}^{UV}(t)  =  L_{\mathrm{diffuse}}(t) + \sum_{i=1}^N L_{\mathrm{burst}}^i(t).

1428: \end{equation}

1429: We have learned that the UV luminosity from an LBG is typically

1430: dominated by a series of $N_{\mathrm{knot}}$ `knots' ($\sim$1--2 kpc

1431: in size), and that each knot can be further resolved into a series of

1432: $N_{\mathrm{SSB}}$ super starburst regions ($\sim$100-300 pc in size),

1433: and thus

1434: \begin{equation}

1435: L_{\mathrm{LBG}}^{UV}(t)=L_{\mathrm{diffuse}}(t) + \sum_i^{N_{\mathrm{knot}}} \sum_j^{N_{\mathrm{SSB}}} L_{\mathrm{SSB}}^{i,j} (t),

1436: \end{equation}

1437: where $L_{\mathrm{SSB}}^{i,j}(t)$ is the luminosity of a SSB region

1438: $j$ in knot $i$ at time $t$. For (proto-)galaxies that are just

1439: undergoing their first episode of massive star formation the above

1440: expression will simplify enormously, as we can neglect the diffuse

1441: component, $L_{\mathrm{diffuse}}(t)$, and both $N_{\mathrm{knot}}$ and

1442: $N_{\mathrm{SSB}}$ will be near unity.  The most simple case is

1443: represented by $N_{\mathrm{knot}}=N_{\mathrm{SSB}}=1$, as observed in

1444: some of our local LBG analogs, and (at least in this extreme case) the

1445: total UV LF will be purely determined by a random sampling of the LF

1446: of the SSBs over the galaxy population in a given redshift

1447: interval. As shown by \citet{meurer95}, the `anatomy of starbursts'

1448: typically consists of irregularly shaped cloud(s) (SSBs) with embedded

1449: compact sources (SSCs), the brightest of which are massive forming

1450: (globular) clusters. Star formation thus occurs in hierarchically

1451: clustered systems ranging from sub-pc to multi-kpc scales, and is

1452: believed to be generated at all scales by self-gravity and turbulence

1453: within an underlying hierarchical gas mass distribution $n(M)dM\propto

1454: M^{-\alpha} dM$ \citep[][and references

1455: therein]{elmegreen96,elmegreen97}.  Because the UV luminosity of

1456: starbursts is dominated by its OB stars at all scales, on average

1457: $M\propto L$ with $\alpha\sim1.7-2$ for the references given above.

1458: {\it Therefore, in the regime where the LF is dominated by young

1459:   galaxies generating their first significant amount of stellar mass,

1460:   i.e. at relatively faint magnitudes and high redshift, our simple

1461:   model predicts that the galaxy LF observed will essentially be a

1462:   random subsampling of the LF of starburst regions thereby

1463:   maintaining its intrinsic slope.} It is interesting to note that,

1464: for example, the faintest \bp, \vp, or \ip-dropout galaxies observed

1465: at $z\sim4-6$ have stellar masses very similar to those of our

1466: starburst regions ($\sim10^{8-9}$ $M_\odot$).

1467: 

1468: Generally, it will be impossible to model the full UV LF

1469: quantitatively in this way (e.g. Eq. \ref{eq:lf}) without resorting to

1470: semi-analytic models or simulations because it involves the

1471: convolution of large numbers of galaxies with a range of star

1472: formation histories including effects such as merging, feedback and

1473: dust.  However, qualitatively one expects that, when all processes are

1474: considered, the slope will flatten from its initial value.  Thus, we

1475: expect that the faint end slope of the LF at least steepens with

1476: redshift and will deviate less and less from the `pure' star formation

1477: LF with a slope of $\alpha\approx2$, exactly as observed.

1478: 

1479: 

1480: \section{Conclusions}

1481: 

1482: \noindent

1483: The study of galaxies in the early Universe can benefit enormously

1484: from the study of objects that are relatively nearby, provided that

1485: suitable samples of local analogs can be found. H05 and H07 selected

1486: ``supercompact'', UV-luminous galaxies in a large GALEX-SDSS

1487: cross-matched sample (see \S1).  Because these objects match LBGs in

1488: terms of size, SFR, surface brightness, mass, metallicity, kinematics,

1489: dust, and UV--optical color, this sample of local LBG analogs is well

1490: suited for investigating the connection between star formation and

1491: morphology at a level of detail and precision that is impossible for

1492: high redshift galaxies.  Emission line diagnostics indicate that they

1493: are dominated by starbursts, and that the line ratios show small

1494: offsets with respect to the local star-forming population analogous to

1495: those observed for high redshift LBGs (\S3.2).

1496: 

1497: In this paper we present HST imaging data in \up, \zp\ and \ha\ of a

1498: subsample of 8 local LBG analogs in order to investigate their

1499: morphologies. The effective radii estimated from the \up\ images range from

1500: unresolved ($\lesssim$100 pc) to $\sim2$ kpc, confirming that the

1501: objects are highly compact. The objects are slightly more extended in

1502: \zp\ ($\sim$1--2 kpc), and they generally have color gradients with

1503: relatively blue inner colors and redder outer colors. These gradients

1504: are due to the fact that the starburst regions are very compact and

1505: are embedded in an older, more extended population (\S\S3.3--3.4). The

1506: internal extinctions amount to $E(B-V)\approx0.01-0.14$ mag based on

1507: the bolometric dust to FUV luminosity ratios observed with Spitzer and

1508: GALEX (\S3.5).  We have calculated the morphological parameters $G$,

1509: $M_{20}$ and $C$ and find that local LBG analogs have irregular

1510: morphologies that, on average, lie in between those expected for major

1511: mergers, disks and bulges. We have simulated our data at the depth and

1512: resolution of LBGs at $z=[1.5,3.0,4.0]$ in the COSMOS, GOODS, and UDF

1513: surveys, and we have carried out direct comparisons with the

1514: morphologies of $z\sim1.5$ star-forming galaxies and $z\sim4$ LBGs

1515: extracted from these surveys.  The morphological parameters measured

1516: for the artificially redshifted sample are very similar to those

1517: obtained for the distant LBGs.  This establishes that local LBG

1518: analogs and high-redshift LBGs are likely to be in a similar phase of

1519: their evolution (\S3.6). The UVLGs are more typical of LBGs in

1520: comparison with two very nearby LBG analogs, Haro 11 and VV 114 at

1521: $z=0.02$.  The latter two are more similar to the ``clump cluster

1522: galaxies'' due to their multiple nuclei at relatively large separation

1523: \citep{elmegreen07}. Although more local LBG analogs of this type may

1524: be found as well, we note that our current sample is biased against

1525: finding such objects (\S3.6.4). 

1526: 

1527: Although a large fraction of LBGs at $z\sim3-4$ is consistent with

1528: having exponential or $r^{1/4}$ light profiles, their visual

1529: morphologies include multiple, double and perturbed systems.

1530: Morphological parameters indicate that the majority of LBGs are likely

1531: to be in a range of stages associated with minor and major galaxy

1532: merging \citep[e.g.][]{giavalisco96a,lotz06,ravindranath06,elmegreen07}. In

1533: contrast, \citet{burgarella06} find that the majority of luminous,

1534: UV-selected star-forming galaxies at $z\sim1$ has a disk or spiral

1535: morphology.  At a similar redshift, but at much lower UV luminosities,

1536: \citet{demello06} find a mix of morphological types that include

1537: early-type galaxies as well as starbursts. We note that this is a

1538: direct consequence of the selection of galaxies purely based on their

1539: UV emission. As discussed here and by H05, at relatively low redshifts ($z\sim0-1$) 

1540: the construction of a sample of galaxies that most closely resembles

1541: high redshift LBGs in terms of their physical properties requires

1542: additional selection criteria (e.g. UV surface brightness) rather than

1543: selection on UV luminosity or the presence of a `Lyman break' alone.

1544: 

1545: We have carried out a detailed investigation of the small-scale

1546: structure of the local LBG analogs in terms of their star forming

1547: regions (\S4).  The starburst regions observed in the local LBG

1548: analogs are highly compact (radii of 100-300 pc), and characterized by

1549: bright, unresolved knots of emission within a larger region of diffuse

1550: star formation that extend up to a few kpc in size.  The total UV

1551: emission from these compact super starburst regions (SSBs) is

1552: substantial, indicating that 30--80\% of the total SFR is generated in

1553: these knots. Comparison with STARBURST99 evolutionary tracks indicates

1554: that some of the regions are due to very young ($\sim$6 Myr) and

1555: massive ($\sim10^{8}$ $M_\odot$) bursts, while other regions may have

1556: been forming stars in a more continuous manner for several tens to

1557: several hundreds of Myr as indicated by their relatively red colors

1558: and high \ha\ equivalent widths. The super starburst regions are

1559: likely to be a blend of diffuse star forming regions, stellar

1560: associations and super or globular star clusters, as demonstrated by

1561: comparing the images of Haro 11 and VV 114 at $z=0.02$ to the same

1562: images redshifted to $z=0.15-4.0$.

1563: The SSBs are generally embedded in a

1564: diffuse, older component having ages ranging from a few Gyr to a

1565: Hubble time, depending on the star formation history. In this respect,

1566: the precursors of the UVLGs may have been more evolved than those of

1567: LBGs at high redshift (although the presence of a ``maximally old''

1568: stellar component in LBGs is consistent with the observations).  

1569: 

1570: Although some of the SDSS images showed limited evidence for close

1571: companions or faint extended emission, the optical HST images clearly

1572: reveal disturbed morphologies at scales well below the SDSS seeing or

1573: sensitivity.  Each object shows evidence of merging or interactions,

1574: such as multiplicity of position angles, tidal debris or tails, or

1575: close companions. Most morphological information about high redshift

1576: galaxies has been derived from rest-frame UV images.  In our sample,

1577: the \up-band does not establish a definite case for a merger in any

1578: single one of our galaxies. The disturbed optical ({\it z}-band) morphologies, together with the

1579: luminous, compact super starburt regions, suggests that mergers of

1580: relatively gas-rich objects trigger vigorous episodes of star

1581: formation, with general properties reminiscent of simulations of

1582: collisional starbursts (\S5.1). Our results on local LBGs and their similarity to their high-$z$ LBGs

1583: constitute the most direct evidence to date that the onset of star

1584: formation and morphological structures of high redshift LBGs are

1585: largely driven by highly dissipational merging.

1586: 

1587: We discuss several implications of our results for the interpretation

1588: of lower resolution data on high redshift LBGs.

1589: Resolution effects will cause the compact starburst regions to blend

1590: into typically one or two bright LBG-like `knots'. Although these

1591: knots will appear relatively featureless with total half-light radii

1592: of 1--2 kpc,  

1593: the substructure of our LBG analogs indicates that they should generally

1594: not be interpreted as being evidence of bulges or disks. Evidence that the

1595: substructure of high redshift LBGs is indeed dominated by SSBs is

1596: found in a few cases where LBGs are highly magnified by gravitational

1597: lensing (\S5.2.1). However, the strong relation we find between

1598: merging and the triggering of very compact, massive super starburst

1599: regions indicates that these events may be closely linked to the

1600: formation of stellar bulges. Furthermore, we suggest that the

1601: prominence of luminous, unresolved (super) starburst regions in

1602: forming galaxies may provide a natural explanation for the value of

1603: the faint end slope of the UV luminosity function at high redshift by

1604: an extension of the local star-forming region luminosity function

1605: which is well-known to have a power law slope of $\alpha\approx2$

1606: (\S5.2.2).

1607:  

1608: {\it Future work.--} In Paper II we will study a significantly larger

1609: sample of local LBG analogs to be observed with HST in Cycle 16 in the

1610: FUV/optical using the ACS/SBC and WFPC2.  Follow-up spectroscopy is

1611: being used to study emission line ratios and kinematics, measure

1612: outflows, and identify companion objects.  The ongoing surveys with

1613: GALEX will provide larger samples of local LBGs that will be used to

1614: derive better sample statistics.

1615: 

1616: \begin{acknowledgments}

1617:   This paper has benefited from discussions and helpful comments from

1618:   numerous friends and colleagues.  We thank Casey Papovich, Masami

1619:   Ouchi and Isa Oliveira for carefully reading through the

1620:   manuscript. We further thank Rychard Bouwens, Nick Cross, Ricardo Demarco,

1621:   Marijn Franx, Lisa Kewley, Cheng Li, Crystal Martin, Alessandro Rettura, Samir

1622:   Salim, Christi Tremonti, Arjen van der Wel and Andrew Zirm for

1623:   discussion of various parts of this paper. RAO thanks Gabrelle Saurage for her 

1624: excellent support during observations at APO. 

1625: 

1626:   Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope,

1627:   which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in

1628:   Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.  These

1629:   observations are associated with program \# 10920.  Based on

1630:   observations obtained with the Apache Point Observatory (APO)

1631:   3.5-meter telescope, which is owned and operated by the

1632:   Astrophysical Research

1633:   Consortium. 

1634: \end{acknowledgments}

1635: 

1636: 

1637: 

1638: 

1639: \begin{thebibliography}

1640: 

1641: \bibitem[Abraham et al.(1996)]{abraham96} Abraham, R.~G., van den Bergh, S., Glazebrook, K., Ellis, R.~S., Santiago, B.~X., Surma, P., \& Griffiths, R.~E.\ 1996, \apjs, 107, 1 

1642: \bibitem[Adelberger \& Steidel(2000)]{adelberger00} Adelberger, K.~L., \& Steidel, C.~C.\ 2000, \apj, 544, 218 

1643: \bibitem[Adelberger et al.(2004)]{adelberger04} Adelberger, K.~L., Steidel, C.~C., Shapley, A.~E., Hunt, M.~P., Erb, D.~K., Reddy, N.~A., \& Pettini, M.\ 2004, \apj, 607, 226

1644: \bibitem[Adelberger et al.(2005)]{adelberger05} Adelberger, K.~L., Steidel, C.~C., Pettini, M., Shapley, A.~E., Reddy, N.~A., \& Erb, D.~K.\ 2005, \apj, 619, 697 

1645: \bibitem[Alonso-Herrero et al.(2002)]{alonso02} Alonso-Herrero, A., Rieke, G.~H., Rieke, M.~J., \& Scoville, N.~Z.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 166 

1646: \bibitem[Basu-Zych et al.(2007)]{basuzych07} Basu-Zych, A., et al.\ 2007, Accepted for publication in the GALEX special issue of \apjs\ (astro-ph/arXiv:0706.2948)

1647: \bibitem[Bekki \& Couch(2001)]{bekki01} Bekki, K., \& Couch, W.~J.\ 2001, \apjl, 557, L19 

1648: \bibitem[Bekki(2004)]{bekki04} Bekki, K.\ 2004, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 21, 167 

1649: \bibitem[Bergvall \& \"Ostlin(2002)]{bergvall02} Bergvall, N., \& \"Ostlin, G.\ 2002, \aap, 390, 891 

1650: \bibitem[Bergvall et al.(2006)]{bergvall06} Bergvall, N., Zackrisson, E., Andersson, B.-G., Arnberg, D., Masegosa, J., {\&Ouml}stlin, G.\ 2006, \aap, 448, 513 

1651: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{bertin96} Bertin, E., \& Arnouts, S.\ 1996, \aaps, 117, 393 

1652: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.(1998)]{bouwens98} Bouwens, R., Broadhurst, T., \& Silk, J.\ 1998, \apj, 506, 557 

1653: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.(2004)]{bouwens04} Bouwens, R.~J., Illingworth, G.~D., Blakeslee, J.~P., Broadhurst, T.~J., \& Franx, M.\ 2004, \apjl, 611, L1 

1654: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.(2006)]{bouwens06} Bouwens, R.~J., Illingworth, G.~D., Blakeslee, J.~P., \& Franx, M.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 53 

1655: \bibitem[Bouwens et al.(2007)]{bouwens07} Bouwens, R.~J., Illingworth, G.~D., Franx, M.\ \& Ford, H.\ 2007, \apj, in press (astro-ph/arXiv:0707.2080) 

1656: \bibitem[Bradley et al.(2006)]{bradley06} Bradley, T.~R., Knapen, J.~H., Beckman, J.~E., \& Folkes, S.~L.\ 2006, \aap, 459, L13 

1657: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bruzual03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S.\ 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000 

1658: \bibitem[Bunker et al.(2000)]{bunker00} Bunker, A.~J., Moustakas, L.~A., \& Davis, M.\ 2000, \apj, 531, 95 

1659: \bibitem[Burgarella et al.(2005)]{burgarella05} Burgarella, D., Buat, V., \& Iglesias-P{\'a}ramo, J.\ 2005, \mnras, 360, 1413 

1660: \bibitem[Burgarella et al.(2006)]{burgarella06} Burgarella, D., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 450, 69 

1661: \bibitem[Calzetti(2001)]{calzetti01} Calzetti, D.\ 2001, \pasp, 113, 1449 

1662: \bibitem[Carlberg(1986)]{carlberg86} Carlberg, R.~G.\ 1986, \apj, 310, 593 

1663: \bibitem[Chapman et al.(2005)]{chapman05} Chapman, S.~C., Blain, A.~W., Smail, I., \& Ivison, R.~J.\ 2005, \apj, 622, 772 

1664: \bibitem[Cid Fernandes et al.(2001)]{fernandes01} Cid Fernandes, R., Heckman, T., Schmitt, H., Delgado, R.~M.~G., \& Storchi-Bergmann, T.\ 2001, \apj, 558, 81 

1665: \bibitem[Conselice(2003)]{conselice03} Conselice, C.~J.\ 2003, \apjs, 147, 1 

1666: \bibitem[Conselice et al.(2004)]{conselice04} Conselice, C.~J., et al.\ 2004, \apjl, 600, L139 

1667: \bibitem[Conselice(2006)]{conselice06} Conselice, C.~J.\ 2006, \apj, 638, 686 

1668: \bibitem[Conti(1991)]{conti91} Conti, P.~S.\ 1991, \apj, 377, 115 

1669: \bibitem[Daddi et al.(2005)]{daddi05} Daddi, E., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 631, L13 

1670: \bibitem[Dahlen et al.(2007)]{dahlen07} Dahlen, T., Mobasher, B., Dickinson, M., Ferguson, H.~C., Giavalisco, M., Kretchmer, C., \& Ravindranath, S.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 172 

1671: \bibitem[Dale \& Helou(2002)]{dale02} Dale, D.~A., \& Helou, G.\ 2002, \apj, 576, 159 

1672: \bibitem[Dale et al.(2005)]{dale05} Dale, D.~A., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 857 

1673: \bibitem[de Mello et al.(2006)]{demello06} de Mello, D.~F., Wadadekar, Y., Dahlen, T., Casertano, S., \& Gardner, J.~P.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 216 

1674: \bibitem[di Matteo et al.(2007)]{dimatteo07} di Matteo, P., Combes, F., Melchior, A.-L., \& Semelin, B.\ 2007, \aap, 468, 61 

1675: \bibitem[Ellis et al.(2001)]{ellis01} Ellis, R., Santos, M.~R., Kneib, J.-P., \& Kuijken, K.\ 2001, \apjl, 560, L119 

1676: \bibitem[Elmegreen \& Efremov(1996)]{elmegreen96} Elmegreen, B.~G., \& Efremov, Y.~N.\ 1996, \apj, 466, 802 

1677: \bibitem[Elmegreen \& Efremov(1997)]{elmegreen97} Elmegreen, B.~G., \& Efremov, Y.~N.\ 1997, \apj, 480, 235 

1678: \bibitem[Elmegreen et al.(2004)]{elmegreen04} Elmegreen, D.~M., Elmegreen, B.~G., \& Sheets, C.~M.\ 2004, \apj, 603, 74 

1679: \bibitem[Elmegreen \& Elmegreen(2005)]{elmegreen05} Elmegreen, B.~G., \& Elmegreen, D.~M.\ 2005, \apj, 627, 632 

1680: \bibitem[Elmegreen et al.(2007)]{elmegreen07} Elmegreen, D.~M., Elmegreen, B.~G., Ravindranath, S., \& Coe, D.~A.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 763 

1681: \bibitem[Erb et al.(2003)]{erb03} Erb, D.~K., Shapley, A.~E., Steidel, C.~C., Pettini, M., Adelberger, K.~L., Hunt, M.~P., Moorwood, A.~F.~M., \& Cuby, J.-G.\ 2003, \apj, 591, 101 

1682: \bibitem[Erb et al.(2006a)]{erb06a} Erb, D.~K., Shapley, A.~E., Pettini, M., Steidel, C.~C., Reddy, N.~A., \& Adelberger, K.~L.\ 2006a, \apj, 644, 813 

1683: \bibitem[Erb et al.(2006b)]{erb06b} Erb, D.~K., Steidel, C.~C., Shapley, A.~E., Pettini, M., Reddy, N.~A., \& Adelberger, K.~L.\ 2006b, \apj, 647, 128 

1684: \bibitem[Fanelli et al.(1988)]{fanelli88} Fanelli, M.~N., O'Connell, R.~W., \& Thuan, T.~X.\ 1988, \apj, 334, 665 

1685: \bibitem[Ferguson et al.(2004)]{ferguson04} Ferguson, H.~C., et al.\ 2004, \apjl, 600, L107 

1686: \bibitem[Finlator et al.(2007)]{finlator07} Finlator, K., Dav{\'e}, R., \& Oppenheimer, B.~D.\ 2007, \mnras, 376, 1861 

1687: \bibitem[F{\"o}rster Schreiber et al.(2006)]{forster06} F{\"o}rster Schreiber, N.~M., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 645, 1062 

1688: \bibitem[Franx et al.(1997)]{franx97} Franx, M., Illingworth, G.~D., Kelson, D.~D., van Dokkum, P.~G., \& Tran, K.-V.\ 1997, \apjl, 486, L75 

1689: \bibitem[Woods et al.(2006)]{woods06} Woods, D.~F., Geller, M.~J., \& Barton, E.~J.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 197 

1690: \bibitem[Genzel et al.(2006)]{genzel06} Genzel, R., et al.\ 2006, \nat, 442, 786 

1691: \bibitem[Giavalisco et al.(1996a)]{giavalisco96a} Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C.~C., \& Macchetto, F.~D.\ 1996a, \apj, 470, 189 

1692: \bibitem[Giavalisco et al.(1996b)]{giavalisco96b} Giavalisco, M., Livio, M., Bohlin, R.~C., Macchetto, F.~D., \& Stecher, T.~P.\ 1996b, \aj, 112, 369

1693: \bibitem[Giavalisco \& Dickinson(2001)]{giavalisco01} Giavalisco, M., \& Dickinson, M.\ 2001, \apj, 550, 177 

1694: \bibitem[Giavalisco et al.(2004)]{giavalisco04} Giavalisco, M., et al.\ 2004, \apjl, 600, L103 

1695: \bibitem[Gil de Paz et al.(2003)]{gildepaz03} Gil de Paz, A., Madore, B.~F., \& Pevunova, O.\ 2003, \apjs, 147, 29 

1696: \bibitem[Goldader et al.(2002)]{goldader02} Goldader, J.~D., Meurer, G., Heckman, T.~M., Seibert, M., Sanders, D.~B., Calzetti, D., \& Steidel, C.~C.\ 2002, \apj, 568, 651 

1697: \bibitem[Governato et al.(2001)]{governato01} Governato, F., Ghigna, S., Moore, B., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., \& Lake, G.\ 2001, \apj, 547, 555

1698: \bibitem[Grimes et al.(2006)]{grimes06} Grimes, J.~P., Heckman, T., Hoopes, C., Strickland, D., Aloisi, A., Meurer, G., \& Ptak, A.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 310 

1699: \bibitem[Grimes et al.(2007)]{grimes07} Grimes, J.~P., et al.\ 2007, \apj, in press (astro-ph/arXiv:0707.0693)

1700: \bibitem[Hayes et al.(2007)]{hayes07} Hayes, M., Ostlin, G., Atek, H., Kunth, D., Mas-Hesse, J.~M., Leitherer, C., Jimenez-Bailon, E., \& Adamo, A.\ 2007, \mnras, in press (arXiv:0710.2622)

1701: \bibitem[Heckman et al.(2005)]{heckman05} Heckman, T.~M., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 619, L35 

1702: \bibitem[Hibbard \& Vacca(1997)]{hibbard97} Hibbard, J.~E., \& Vacca, W.~D.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 1741 

1703: \bibitem[Hoopes et al.(2007)]{hoopes07} Hoopes, C., et al. 2007, Accepted for publication in the GALEX special issue of \apjs\ (astro-ph/0609415) 

1704: \bibitem[Huang et al.(2005)]{huang05} Huang, J.-S., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 634, 137 

1705: \bibitem[Hunter \& Hoffman(1999)]{hunter99} Hunter, D.~A., \& Hoffman, L.\ 1999, \aj, 117, 2789 

1706: \bibitem[Immeli et al.(2004)]{immeli04} Immeli, A., Samland, M., Westera, P., \& Gerhard, O.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 20 

1707: \bibitem[Izotov et al.(1997)]{izotov97} Izotov, Y.~I., Foltz, C.~B., Green, R.~F., Guseva, N.~G., \& Thuan, T.~X.\ 1997, \apjl, 487, L37 

1708: \bibitem[Kauffmann \& Haehnelt(2000)]{kauffmann00} Kauffmann, G., \& Haehnelt, M.\ 2000, \mnras, 311, 576 

1709: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(2003)]{kauffmann03} Kauffmann, G., et al.\ 2003, \mnras, 346, 1055 

1710: \bibitem[Kewley et al.(2001)]{kewley01} Kewley, L.~J., Dopita, M.~A., Sutherland, R.~S., Heisler, C.~A., \& Trevena, J.\ 2001, \apj, 556, 121 

1711: \bibitem[Kennicutt et al.(1989)]{kennicutt89} Kennicutt, R.~C., Jr., Edgar, B.~K., \& Hodge, P.~W.\ 1989, \apj, 337, 761 

1712: \bibitem[Kennicutt(1998)]{kennicutt98} Kennicutt, R.~C., Jr.\ 1998, \araa, 36, 189 

1713: \bibitem[Kewley et al.(2006)]{kewley06} Kewley, L.~J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., \& Heckman, T.\ 2006, \mnras, 372, 961 

1714: \bibitem[Khochfar et al.(2007)]{khochfar07} Khochfar, S., Silk, J., Windhorst, R.~A., \& Ryan, R.~E., Jr 2007, \apj, submitted (astro-ph/arXiv:0707.2790) 

1715: \bibitem[Knop et al.(1994)]{knop94} Knop, R.~A., Soifer, B.~T., Graham, J.~R., Matthews, K., Sanders, D.~B., \& Scoville, N.~Z.\ 1994, \aj, 107, 920 

1716: \bibitem[Koekemoer et al.(2002)]{koekemoer02} Koekemoer, A.~M., 

1717: Fruchter, A.~S., Hook, R.~N., \& Hack, W.\ 2002, The 2002 HST Calibration 

1718: Workshop : Hubble after the Installation of the ACS and the NICMOS Cooling 

1719: System, Proceedings of a Workshop held at the Space Telescope Science 

1720: Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, October 17 and 18, 2002.~ Edited by 

1721: Santiago Arribas, Anton Koekemoer, and Brad Whitmore.~Baltimore, MD: Space 

1722: Telescope Science Institute, 2002., p.337, 337 

1723: \bibitem[Kong et al.(2004)]{kong04} Kong, X., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., \& Fall, S.~M.\ 2004, \mnras, 349, 769 

1724: \bibitem[Kunth et al.(2003)]{kunth03} Kunth, D., Leitherer, C., Mas-Hesse, J.~M., {\"O}stlin, G., \& Petrosian, A.\ 2003, \apj, 597, 263 

1725: \bibitem[Labb{\'e} et al.(2003)]{labbe03} Labb{\'e}, I., et al.\ 2003, \apjl, 591, L95 

1726: \bibitem[Lambas et al.(2003)]{lambas03} Lambas, D.~G., Tissera, P.~B., Alonso, M.~S., \& Coldwell, G.\ 2003, \mnras, 346, 1189 

1727: \bibitem[Larson \& Tinsley(1978)]{larson78} Larson, R.~B., \& Tinsley, B.~M.\ 1978, \apj, 219, 46 

1728: \bibitem[Larson(1988)]{larson88} Larson, R.~B.\ 1988, The Harlow-Shapley Symposium on Globular Cluster Systems in Galaxies, 126, 311 

1729: \bibitem[Law et al.(2007a)]{law07a} Law, D.~R., Steidel, C.~C., Erb, D.~K., Pettini, M., Reddy, N.~A., Shapley, A.~E., Adelberger, K.~L., \& Simenc, D.~J.\ 2007a, \apj, 656, 1 

1730: \bibitem[Law et al.(2007b)]{law07b} Law, D.~R., Steidel, C.~C., Erb, D.~K., Larkin, J.~E., Pettini, M., Shapley, A.~E., \& Wright, S.~A.\ 

1731: 2007b, \apj, in press (arXiv:0707.3634)

1732: \bibitem[Leitherer \& Heckman(1995)]{leitherer95} Leitherer, C., \& Heckman, T.~M.\ 1995, \apjs, 96, 9 

1733: \bibitem[Leitherer et al.(1999)]{leitherer99} Leitherer, C., et al.\ 1999, \apjs, 123, 3 

1734: \bibitem[Lilly et al.(1996)]{lilly96} Lilly, S.~J., Le Fevre, O., Hammer, F., \& Crampton, D.\ 1996, \apjl, 460, L1 

1735: \bibitem[Lotz et al.(2004)]{lotz04} Lotz, J.~M., Primack, J., \& Madau, P.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 163 

1736: \bibitem[Lotz et al.(2006)]{lotz06} Lotz, J.~M., Madau, P., Giavalisco, M., Primack, J., \& Ferguson, H.~C.\ 2006, \apj, 636, 592

1737: \bibitem[Lowenthal et al.(1997)]{lowenthal97} Lowenthal, J.~D., et al.\ 1997, \apj, 481, 673 

1738: \bibitem[Magorrian et al.(1998)]{magorrian98} Magorrian, J., et al.\ 1998, \aj, 115, 2285 

1739: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2005)]{martin05} Martin, D.~C., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 619, L1 

1740: \bibitem[Meurer et al.(1995)]{meurer95} Meurer, G.~R., Heckman, T.~M., Leitherer, C., Kinney, A., Robert, C., \& Garnett, D.~R.\ 1995, \aj, 110, 2665 

1741: \bibitem[Meurer et al.(1997)]{meurer97} Meurer, G.~R., Heckman, T.~M., Lehnert, M.~D., Leitherer, C., \& Lowenthal, J.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 54

1742: \bibitem[Mihos \& Hernquist(1994a)]{mihos94a} Mihos, J.~C., \& Hernquist, L.\ 1994a, \apjl, 425, L13 

1743: \bibitem[Mihos \& Hernquist(1994b)]{mihos94b} Mihos, J.~C., \& Hernquist, L.\ 1994b, \apjl, 431, L9 

1744: \bibitem[Mihos \& Hernquist(1994c)]{mihos94c} Mihos, J.~C., \& Hernquist, L.\ 1994c, \apjl, 437, L47 

1745: \bibitem[Moustakas \& Somerville(2002)]{moustakas02} Moustakas, L.~A., \& Somerville, R.~S.\ 2002, \apj, 577, 1 \bibitem[Ouchi et al.(2004)]{ouchi04} Ouchi, M., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 660 

1746: \bibitem[Noeske et al.(2006)]{noeske06} Noeske, K.~G., Koo, D.~C., Phillips, A.~C., Willmer, C.~N.~A., Melbourne, J., Gil de Paz, A., \& Papaderos, P.\ 2006, \apjl, 640, L143 

1747: \bibitem[Night et al.(2006)]{night06} Night, C., Nagamine, K., Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 705 

1748: \bibitem[Nikolic et al.(2004)]{nikolic04} Nikolic, B., Cullen, H., \& Alexander, P.\ 2004, \mnras, 355, 874 

1749: \bibitem[Nipoti et al.(2003)]{nipoti03} Nipoti, C., Londrillo, P., \& Ciotti, L.\ 2003, \mnras, 342, 501 

1750: \bibitem[Noguchi(1999)]{noguchi99} Noguchi, M.\ 1999, \apj, 514, 77 

1751: \bibitem[Oesch et al.(2007)]{oesch07} Oesch, P.~A., et al.\ 2007, \apj, submitted (arXiv:0706.2653)

1752: \bibitem[Ouchi et al.(2004)]{ouchi04b} Ouchi, M., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 685

1753: \bibitem[Ouchi et al.(2007)]{ouchi07} Ouchi, M., et al.\ 2007, \apj, submitted (arXiv:0707.3161)

1754: \bibitem[\"Ostlin et al.(1998)]{ostlin98} \"Ostlin, G., Bergvall, N., \& Roennback, J.\ 1998, \aap, 335, 85 

1755: \bibitem[Overzier et al.(2007)]{overzier07} Overzier, R.~A., et al.\ 2007, \apj, submitted (arXiv:astro-ph/0601223)

1756: \bibitem[Owers et al.(2007)]{owers07} Owers, M., Blake, C., Couch, W., Pracy, M., \& Bekki, K.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 707, arXiv:0707.2566 

1757: \bibitem[Papovich et al.(2001)]{papovich01} Papovich, C., Dickinson, M., \& Ferguson, H.~C.\ 2001, \apj, 559, 620 

1758: \bibitem[Papovich et al.(2003)]{papovich03} Papovich, C., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M., Conselice, C.~J., \& Ferguson, H.~C.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 827 

1759: \bibitem[Papovich et al.(2005)]{papovich05} Papovich, C., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., Conselice, C.~J., \& Ferguson, H.~C.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 101 

1760: \bibitem[Ravindranath et al.(2006)]{ravindranath06} Ravindranath, S., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 963 

1761: \bibitem[Reddy et al.(2006)]{reddy06} Reddy, N.~A., Steidel, C.~C., Fadda, D., Yan, L., Pettini, M., Shapley, A.~E., Erb, D.~K., \& Adelberger, K.~L.\ 2006, \apj, 644, 792 

1762: \bibitem[Richstone et al.(1998)]{richstone98} Richstone, D., et al.\ 1998, \nat, 395, A14 

1763: \bibitem[Ryan et al.(2007)]{ryan07} Ryan, R.~E., Jr., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 668, 839 

1764: \bibitem[Salim et al.(2007)]{salim07} Salim, S., et al.\ 2007, \apj, in press (arXiv:0704.3611) 

1765: \bibitem[Sanders \& Mirabel(1996)]{sanders96} Sanders, D.~B., \& Mirabel, I.~F.\ 1996, \araa, 34, 749 

1766: \bibitem[Sargent \& Filippenko(1991)]{sargent91} Sargent, W.~L.~W., \& Filippenko, A.~V.\ 1991, \aj, 102, 107 

1767: \bibitem[Scarpa et al.(2007)]{scarpa07} Scarpa, R., Falomo, R., \& Lerner, E.\ 2007, \apj, in press (astro-ph/arXiv:0706.2948)

1768: \bibitem[Schiminovich et al.(2005)]{schiminovich05} Schiminovich, D., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 619, L47 

1769: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{schlegel98} Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525 

1770: \bibitem[Schmitt et al.(1999)]{schmitt99} Schmitt, H.~R., Storchi-Bergmann, T., \& Fernandes, R.~C.\ 1999, \mnras, 303, 173 

1771: \bibitem[Scoville et al.(2000)]{scoville00} Scoville, N.~Z., et al.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 991 

1772: \bibitem[Seibert et al.(2005)]{seibert05} Seibert, M., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 619, L55 

1773: \bibitem[Sirianni et al.(2005)]{sirianni05} Sirianni, M., et al.\ 2005, \pasp, 117, 1049 

1774: \bibitem[Shapley et al.(2001)]{shapley01} Shapley, A.~E., Steidel, C.~C., Adelberger, K.~L., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., \& Pettini, M.\ 2001, \apj, 562, 95 

1775: \bibitem[Shapley et al.(2005)]{shapley05} Shapley, A.~E., Coil, A.~L., Ma, C.-P., \& Bundy, K.\ 2005, \apj, 635, 1006 

1776: \bibitem[Shaya et al.(1994)]{shaya94} Shaya, E.~J., Dowling, D.~M., Currie, D.~G., Faber, S.~M., \& Groth, E.~J.\ 1994, \aj, 107, 1675 

1777: \bibitem[Smail et al.(2007)]{smail07} Smail, I., et al.\ 2007, \apjl, 654, L33 

1778: \bibitem[Somerville et al.(2001)]{somerville01} Somerville, R.~S., Primack, J.~R., \& Faber, S.~M.\ 2001, \mnras, 320, 504 

1779: \bibitem[Springel \& Hernquist(2005)]{springel05} Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2005, \apjl, 622, L9 

1780: \bibitem[Steidel \& Hamilton(1993)]{steidel93} Steidel, C.~C., \& Hamilton, D.\ 1993, \aj, 105, 2017 

1781: \bibitem[Steidel et al.(1996)]{steidel96} Steidel, C.~C., Giavalisco, M., Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., \& Adelberger, K.~L.\ 1996, \apjl, 462, L17 

1782: \bibitem[Steidel et al.(1999)]{steidel99} Steidel, C.~C., Adelberger, K.~L., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M., \& Pettini, M.\ 1999, \apj, 519, 1 

1783: \bibitem[Steinmetz \& Navarro(2002)]{steinmetz02} Steinmetz, M., \& Navarro, J.~F.\ 2002, New Astronomy, 7, 155 

1784: \bibitem[Swinbank et al.(2007)]{swinbank07} Swinbank, A.~M., Bower, R.~G., Smith, G.~P., Wilman, R.~J., Smail, I., Ellis, R.~S., Morris, S.~L., \& Kneib, J.-P.\ 2007, \mnras, 376, 479 

1785: \bibitem[Takeuchi et al.(2005)]{takeuchi05} Takeuchi, T.~T., Buat, V., \& Burgarella, D.\ 2005, \aap, 440, L17 

1786: \bibitem[Telles \& Terlevich(1997)]{telles97} Telles, E., \& Terlevich, R.\ 1997, \mnras, 286, 183 

1787: \bibitem[Teplitz et al.(2006)]{teplitz06} Teplitz, H.~I., et al.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 853 

1788: \bibitem[Thilker et al.(2005)]{thilker05} Thilker, D.~A., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 619, L79 

1789: \bibitem[van Dokkum et al.(2006)]{vandokkum06} van Dokkum, P.~G., \ et al.\ 2006, \apjl, 638, L59 

1790: \bibitem[V{\'a}zquez \& Leitherer(2005)]{vazquez05} V{\'a}zquez, G.~A., \& Leitherer, C.\ 2005, \apj, 621, 695 

1791: \bibitem[Whitmore et al.(1999)]{whitmore99} Whitmore, B.~C., Zhang, Q., Leitherer, C., Fall, S.~M., Schweizer, F., \& Miller, B.~W.\ 1999, \aj, 118, 1551 

1792: \bibitem[Wong et al.(2006)]{wong06} Wong, O.~I., et al.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, 1607 

1793: \bibitem[Wright et al.(2007)]{wright07} Wright, S.~A., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 78 

1794: \bibitem[Wyder et al.(2005)]{wyder05} Wyder, T.~K., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 619, L15 

1795: \bibitem[Yan \& Windhorst(2004a)]{yan04a} Yan, H., \& Windhorst, R.~A.\ 2004a, \apjl, 600, L1 

1796: \bibitem[Yan \& Windhorst(2004b)]{yan04b} Yan, H., \& Windhorst, R.~A.\ 2004b, \apjl, 612, L93 

1797: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{york00} York, D.~G., et al.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 1579 

1798: \bibitem[Yoshida et al.(2006)]{yoshida06} Yoshida, M., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 988 

1799: \bibitem[Younger et al.(2007)]{younger07} Younger, J.~D., et al.\ 2007, \apj, in press (arXiv:0708.0835) 

1800: \bibitem[Zepf et al.(1999)]{zepf99} Zepf, S.~E., Ashman, K.~M., English, J., Freeman, K.~C., \& Sharples, R.~M.\ 1999, \aj, 118, 752 

1801: \bibitem[Zirm et al.(2007)]{zirm07} Zirm, A.~W., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 656, 66 

1802: \end{thebibliography}

1803: 

1804: \clearpage

1805: 

1806: 

1807: \begin{table*}[t]

1808: \scriptsize

1809: %\tablecolumns{11} 

1810: %\tablewidth{0pc} 

1811: \caption{\label{tab:log}Sample and log of HST/ACS observations.} 

1812: %\tablehead{

1813: \begin{tabular}{lllrrcccccc}

1814: \hline

1815: \hline

1816: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Galaxy} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\alpha$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\delta$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$z$\tablenotemark{a}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{UT date} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{$T_{exp}$ ($s$)} & $E(B-V)_{gal}$\tablenotemark{b}\\

1817:  & (J2000) & (J2000) &  &  &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{$FUV_{150}$} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{\up}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{H$\alpha$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\vp} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\zp} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mag)}\\

1818: \hline 

1819: SDSS J005527.46--002148.7 & 00$^h$55$^m$27.46$^s$ & --00$\degr$21$\arcmin$48.7$\arcsec$ & 0.167 & 11/01/06 & --   & 2514 & 2302 & --   & 2238 & 0.03\\

1820: SDSS J032845.99+011150.8  & 03$^h$28$^m$45.99$^s$ &  +01$\degr$11$\arcmin$50.8$\arcsec$ & 0.142 & 10/07/06 & --   & 2514 & 2302 & --   & 2238 & 0.11\\

1821: SDSS J040208.86--050642.0 & 04$^h$02$^m$08.86$^s$ & --05$\degr$06$\arcmin$42.0$\arcsec$ & 0.139 & 10/31/06 & --   & 2514 & 2302 & --   & 2238 & 0.10\\

1822: SDSS J080844.26+394852.4  & 08$^h$08$^m$44.26$^s$ &  +39$\degr$48$\arcmin$52.3$\arcsec$ & 0.091 & 10/30/06 & --   & 2541 & 2356 & --   & 2211 & 0.05\\

1823: SDSS J092600.41+442736.1  & 09$^h$26$^m$00.40$^s$ &  +44$\degr$27$\arcmin$36.1$\arcsec$ & 0.181 & 11/06/06 & --   & --   & 2340 & --   & 2274 & 0.02\\

1824: SDSS J102613.97+484458.9  & 10$^h$26$^m$13.97$^s$ &  +48$\degr$44$\arcmin$58.9$\arcsec$ & 0.160 & 11/22/06 & --   & 2565 & 2354 & --   & 2289 & 0.01\\

1825: SDSS J135355.90+664800.5  & 13$^h$53$^m$55.90$^s$ &  +66$\degr$48$\arcmin$00.5$\arcsec$ & 0.198 & 01/04/07 & --   & 2661 & 2468 & --   & 2334 & 0.02\\

1826: SDSS J214500.25+011157.6  & 21$^h$45$^m$00.25$^s$ &  +01$\degr$11$\arcmin$57.3$\arcsec$ & 0.204 & 07/10/07 & 2514 & --   & --   & 3600 & --   & 0.06\\

1827: \end{tabular} 

1828: \tablenotetext{a}{Spectroscopic redshifts from SDSS.}

1829: \tablenotetext{b}{Galactic extinction as given by \citet{schlegel98}.}

1830: \end{table*} 

1831: 

1832: 

1833: 

1834: \begin{table*}[t]

1835: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1836: %\tablecolumns{5} 

1837: %\tablewidth{0pc} 

1838: %\tablewidth{0pc} 

1839: \caption{\label{tab:sfrs}Star formation rates and stellar masses.} 

1840: \begin{tabular}{llcll}

1841: \hline

1842: \hline

1843: %\tablehead{

1844: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Galaxy}  &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{SFR$_{FUV}^a$}  &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{SFR$_{IR}^b$} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{SFR$_{1.4 GHz}^a$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$M_*^c$} \\

1845:  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{($M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{($M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{($M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(10$^{10}$ $M_\odot$)}\\

1846: %\startdata 

1847: \hline

1848: SDSS J005527.46--002148.7 &  $4.2\pm0.8$ & 28    &  14.9$\pm$2.0  & 1.17 \\

1849: SDSS J032845.99+011150.8  &  $3.2\pm1.1$ & $<$3.4  &   $<$4.6       & 0.55 \\

1850: SDSS J040208.86--050642.0 &  $3.7\pm0.6$ & $<$2.8  &   $<$4.1       & 0.25 \\

1851: SDSS J080844.26+394852.4  &  $3.1\pm0.4$ & 7.3   &   $<$3.7       & 2.14 \\

1852: SDSS J092600.41+442736.1  &  $6.8\pm0.4$ & 3.7    &   7.8$\pm$1.4  & 0.16 \\

1853: SDSS J102613.97+484458.9  &  $3.4\pm0.1$ & 6.6    &   9.2$\pm$1.3  & 0.81 \\

1854: SDSS J135355.90+664800.5  &  $7.1\pm0.9$ & 14.6    &  22.5$\pm$2.7  & 0.98 \\

1855: SDSS J214500.25+011157.6  &  $3.4\pm0.8$ & 7.5    &  14.5$\pm$2.9  & 1.32 

1856: %\enddata

1857: \end{tabular}

1858: \tablenotetext{a}{UV SFR derived from the FUV luminosity (uncorrected for dust). Adapted from \citet{basuzych07}.}

1859: \tablenotetext{b}{IR SFR derived from the bolometric dust luminosity (given in Table \ref{tab:ir}), and calculated using the formula 

1860: $\mathrm{log}_{10}L_{dust}=9.75+\mathrm{log}_{10}SFR_{IR}$ and assuming a 100 Myr old constant SFR model with Salpeter IMF as given in \citet{takeuchi05}.}

1861: \tablenotetext{c}{Stellar mass based on SED model fitting. Adapted from H07 \citep[see also][]{salim07}.}

1862: \end{table*} 

1863: 

1864: 

1865: \begin{table*}[h]

1866: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1867: %\tablecolumns{7} 

1868: %\tablewidth{0pc} 

1869: \caption{\label{tab:phot}Photometry and UV spectral slope.} 

1870: %\tablehead{

1871: \begin{tabular}{lrrrrrr}

1872: \hline

1873: \hline

1874: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Galaxy}  &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{$m_{FUV}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$m_{NUV}$}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$m_{330}$}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$m_{u}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$m_{850}$} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\beta_{FUV-NUV}$} \\

1875:  & (mag) & (mag) & (mag)  & (mag) & (mag)    & \\

1876: %\startdata 

1877: \hline

1878: SDSS J005527.46--002148.7 & 19.23$^{+0.15}_{-0.17}$ & 18.85$^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & 18.78 & $18.65\pm0.02$ & 18.25 &  $-1.13\pm0.22$  \\%& 0.08\\%& 0.53 & 0.52 & 0.67\\

1879: SDSS J032845.99+011150.8   & 19.42$^{+0.24}_{-0.31}$ & 19.23$^{+0.14}_{-0.16}$ & 18.97 & $18.68\pm0.04$ & 18.15 &  $-1.56\pm0.39$  \\%& 0.11\\%& 0.82 & 0.73 & 1.16\\

1880: SDSS J040208.86--050642.0 & 18.90$^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & 18.70$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & 18.81 & $18.67\pm0.03$ & 18.08 &  $-1.54\pm0.09$  \\%& 0.13\\%& 0.73 & 0.67 & 1.09\\

1881: SDSS J080844.26+394852.4   & 18.22$^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$ & 17.59$^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & 17.62 & $17.48\pm0.01$ & 17.05 &  $-0.54\pm0.15$  \\%& 0.08\\%& 0.73 & 0.35 & 2.10\\

1882: SDSS J092600.41+442736.1   & 18.83$^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$ & 18.89$^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & --$^a$& $19.04\pm0.03$ & 19.28 &  $-2.12\pm0.18$  \\%& 0.01\\%& --$^a$   & --$^a$   & --$^a$  \\

1883: SDSS J102613.97+484458.9   & 19.27$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & 19.00$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & 18.86 & $18.85\pm0.02$ & 18.23 &  $-1.38\pm0.05$  \\%& 0.05\\%& 0.63 & 0.64 & 0.39\\

1884: SDSS J135355.90+664800.5   & 18.99$^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & 18.57$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & 18.42 & $18.35\pm0.02$ & 17.67 &  $-1.03\pm0.06$  \\%& 0.03\\%& 0.76 & 0.71 & 1.26\\

1885: SDSS J214500.25+011157.6   & 19.94$^{+0.25}_{-0.32}$ & 19.22$^{+0.12}_{-0.13}$ &19.61$^b$&$19.24\pm0.04$& 18.62$^c$ &$-0.35\pm0.41$\\%& 0.14\\%&      &      &

1886: %\enddata 

1887: \end{tabular}

1888: \tablenotetext{a}{We did not obtain data in F330W.}

1889: \tablenotetext{b}{These measurements correspond to the ACS/SBC F150LP data, instead of ACS/HRC F330W.}

1890: \tablenotetext{c}{These measurements correspond to the WFPC2 F606W data, instead of ACS/WFC F850LP.}

1891: \end{table*} 

1892: 

1893: \clearpage

1894: 

1895: \begin{table*}[t]

1896: %\tabletypesize{

1897: \scriptsize

1898: %\tablecolumns{10} 

1899: %\tablewidth{0pc} 

1900: \caption{\label{tab:sizes}Size measurements and colors} 

1901: \begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}

1902: %\tablehead{

1903: \hline

1904: \hline

1905: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Galaxy}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{50,u}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{50,330}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{90,330}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{50,850}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{90,850}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{50,H\alpha}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{90,H\alpha}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(\up--\zp)$_\mathrm{inner}^e$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(\up--\zp)$_\mathrm{outer}^f$} \\

1906:   & (kpc)  & (kpc) & (kpc) & (kpc)   & (kpc) & (kpc) & (kpc) & (mag)  & (mag)\\

1907: %\startdata 

1908: \hline

1909: SDSS J005527.46--002148.7 & 0.77  & 0.37    & 1.26    & 0.78    & 2.13     &  0.50  & 1.69   & 0.03 & 0.89  \\

1910: SDSS J032845.99+011150.8  & 1.66  & 0.87    & 1.96    & 1.79    & 4.93     &  0.93  & 2.49   & 0.24 & 1.32 \\

1911: SDSS J040208.86--050642.0 & 1.16  & 0.84    & 1.94    & 1.44    & 4.26     &  1.23  & 2.81   & 0.48 & 0.84  \\

1912: SDSS J080844.26+394852.4  & 0.47  & 0.16    & 1.41    & 0.57    & 2.77     &   0.47    &  2.94& --0.58 & 1.52 \\

1913: SDSS J092600.41+442736.1  & 0.97  & --$^a$  & --$^a$  & 1.10    & 3.33     &   0.87 & 2.67   & --$^a$ & --$^a$ \\

1914: SDSS J102613.97+484458.9  & 2.07  & 1.89    & 3.86    & 1.99    & 4.48     &   2.13 & 4.22   & 0.53 & 0.67  \\

1915: SDSS J135355.90+664800.5  & 1.81  & 1.46    & 3.19    & 3.56    & 9.06     &   2.74 & 7.23   & 0.48 & 0.81   \\

1916: SDSS J214500.25+011157.6  & 0.74  & 1.10$^b$& 3.55$^b$& 1.30$^c$& 4.64$^c$  & --$^d$ & --$^d$ & 0.93 & 1.00 \\

1917: %\enddata 

1918: \end{tabular}

1919: \tablenotetext{a}{We did not obtain data in F330W.}

1920: \tablenotetext{b}{These measurements correspond to the ACS/SBC F150LP data, instead of ACS/HRC F330W.}

1921: \tablenotetext{c}{These measurements correspond to the WFPC2 F606W data, instead of ACS/WFC F850LP.}

1922: \tablenotetext{d}{We did not obtain data in \ha.}

1923: \tablenotetext{e}{Inner color measured within $r_{50,330}$ (not corrected for internal reddening).}

1924: \tablenotetext{f}{Outer color measured between $r_{50,850}$ and $r_{90,850}$ (not corrected for internal reddening).}

1925: \end{table*} 

1926: 

1927: \begin{table*}[t]

1928: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1929: \scriptsize

1930: %\tablecolumns{10} 

1931: %\tablewidth{0pc} 

1932: \caption{\label{tab:ir}Infrared photometry and extinction.} 

1933: \begin{tabular}{lrrrrrcccc}

1934: %\tablehead{

1935: \hline

1936: \hline

1937: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Galaxy}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{3.6}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{8}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{24}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{70}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{160}^a$} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{$L_{TIR}^b$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$L_{FUV}^c$} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{$A_{FUV}^d$} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{$E(B-V)_{int}^e$} \\

1938:  & ($\mu$Jy)  & ($\mu$Jy) & (mJy)    & (mJy) & (mJy) & \multicolumn{1}{c}{($10^{10}$ $L_\odot$)}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{($10^{10}$ $L_\odot$)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mag)} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mag)}\\

1939: %\startdata 

1940: \hline

1941: SDSS J005527.46--002148.7 &  725.8$\pm$33.2 &   4280.5$\pm$80.8 & 33.2$\pm$0.4 & 163.4$\pm$6.4 & 115.4 & 16   & 3.2  & 1.48  & 0.14\\%  & 0.08\\

1942: SDSS J032845.99+011150.8  &  218.3$\pm$39.0 &    972.0$\pm$71.9 &  3.4$\pm$0.4 & $<$23.4$^f$    &  25.9 & $<$1.9  & 1.8  & 0.56  & 0.05\\%  & 0.11\\

1943: SDSS J040208.86--050642.0 &  131.6$\pm$34.8 &    415.3$\pm$66.6 &  1.1$\pm$0.1 & $<$19.8$^f$    &  25.5 & $<$1.6  & 2.8  & 0.31  & 0.03\\% & 0.13\\

1944: SDSS J080844.26+394852.4  & 1048.6$\pm$39.8 &   5786.5$\pm$66.2 & 39.9$\pm$0.6 & 156.0$\pm$6.8 & 117.0 & 4.1  & 2.0  & 0.91  & 0.08\\%  & 0.08\\

1945: SDSS J092600.41+442736.1  &   90.7$\pm$4.2  &    229.4$\pm$24.0 &  3.4$\pm$0.4 &  20.7$\pm$3.7 &  10.2 & 2.1  & 5.5  & 0.16  & 0.01\\%  & 0.01\\

1946: SDSS J102613.97+484458.9  &  176.6$\pm$36.2 &    614.5$\pm$56.8 &  4.2$\pm$0.3 &  42.5$\pm$4.2 &  31.6 & 3.7  & 2.7  & 0.70  & 0.06\\%  & 0.05\\

1947: SDSS J135355.90+664800.5  &  369.2$\pm$32.4 &   1660.3$\pm$53.1 & 44.4$\pm$0.4 &  70.1$\pm$4.3 &  27.2 & 8.2  & 6.0  & 0.71  & 0.07\\%  & 0.03\\

1948: SDSS J214500.25+011157.6  &  200.4$\pm$31.5 &   1617.5$\pm$64.2 &  5.0$\pm$0.4 &  23.0$\pm$5.5 &  27.7 & 4.2  & 2.6  & 0.79  & 0.07\\%  & 0.14\\

1949: %\enddata 

1950: \end{tabular}

1951: \tablenotetext{a}{Estimated using the observed flux densities at 3.6, 8.0, 24 and 70$\mu$m and the dust models of \citet{dale02}.}

1952: \tablenotetext{b}{Bolometric dust luminosity.}

1953: \tablenotetext{c}{Bolometric FUV luminosity.}

1954: \tablenotetext{d}{FUV attentuation calculated from $L_{TIR}/L_{FUV}$ and using the fitting formula of \citet{burgarella05}.}

1955: \tablenotetext{e}{Internal (stellar) extinction $E(B-V)_{int}=A_{FUV}/k(\lambda)$ \citep{calzetti01}.}

1956: \tablenotetext{f}{Indicates a 3$\sigma$ upper limit.}

1957: \end{table*} 

1958: 

1959: \begin{table*}[t]

1960: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1961: %\tablecolumns{14} 

1962: %\tablewidth{0pc} 

1963: \caption{\label{tab:morphologies}Morphological parameters} 

1964: %\tablehead{

1965: \begin{tabular}{lcccc|cccc}

1966: \hline

1967: \hline

1968: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Galaxy}  & $r_{P,330}$ & $G_{330}$ & $M_{20,330}$ & $C_{330}$ & $r_{P,850}$ & $G_{850}$ & $M_{20,850}$ & $C_{850}$\\

1969:  & (\arcsec) & & & & (\arcsec) & & &\\

1970: \hline

1971: %\startdata 

1972: SDSS J005527.46--002148.7 &  0.55    & 0.63 & -2.41 & 4.73  & 0.83 & 0.58 & -1.98 & 3.53\\

1973: SDSS J032845.99+011150.8  &  1.66    & 0.66 & -1.48 & 3.97  & 2.62 & 0.58 & -1.55 & 3.34\\

1974: SDSS J040208.86--050642.0 &  1.02    & 0.56 & -1.60 & 3.29  & 1.92 & 0.60 & -1.98 & 3.92\\

1975: SDSS J080844.26+394852.4  &  0.13    & $>$0.57 & $<$-2.55 & $>$3.01 & 2.97 & 0.66 & -3.23 & 7.11\\

1976: SDSS J092600.41+442736.1  &  --$^a$  & --$^a$   & --$^a$    & --$^a$    & 1.29 & 0.73 & -1.60 & 3.27\\

1977: SDSS J102613.97+484458.9  &  2.21    & 0.60 & -1.31 & 3.28 & 1.92 & 0.58 & -1.48 & 2.93\\

1978: SDSS J135355.90+664800.5  &  1.26    & 0.60 & -1.27 & 2.88 & 1.29 & 0.53 & -1.57 & 2.88\\

1979: SDSS J214500.25+011157.6  &  0.75$^b$ & 0.56$^b$ & -1.47$^b$ & 2.95$^b$ & 1.40$^c$ & 0.61$^c$ & -1.80$^c$ & 3.56$^c$

1980: %\enddata 

1981: \end{tabular}

1982: \tablenotetext{a}{We did not obtain data in F330W.}

1983: \tablenotetext{b}{These measurements correspond to the ACS/SBC F150LP data, instead of ACS/HRC F330W.}

1984: \tablenotetext{c}{These measurements correspond to the WFPC2 F606W data, instead of ACS/WFC F850LP.}

1985: \end{table*} 

1986: 

1987: 

1988: \begin{comment}

1989: \begin{deluxetable*}{lllrrcccccc}[t]

1990: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1991: \tablecolumns{11} 

1992: \tablewidth{0pc} 

1993: \tablecaption{\label{tab:log}Sample and log of HST/ACS observations.} 

1994: \tablehead{\multicolumn{1}{c}{Galaxy} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\alpha$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\delta$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$z$\tablenotemark{a}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{UT date} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{$T_{exp}$ ($s$)} & $E(B-V)_{gal}$\\

1995: \colhead{} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{$FUV_{150}$} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{\up}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{H$\alpha$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\vp} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\zp} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mag)}}

1996: \startdata 

1997: J005527.46--002148.7 & 00$^h$55$^m$27.46$^s$ & --00$\degr$21$\arcmin$48.7$\arcsec$ & 0.167 & 11/01/06 & --   & 2514 & 2302 & --   & 2238 & 0.03\\

1998: J032845.99+011150.8  & 03$^h$28$^m$45.99$^s$ &  +01$\degr$11$\arcmin$50.8$\arcsec$ & 0.142 & 10/07/06 & --   & 2514 & 2302 & --   & 2238 & 0.11\\

1999: J040208.86--050642.0 & 04$^h$02$^m$08.86$^s$ & --05$\degr$06$\arcmin$42.0$\arcsec$ & 0.139 & 10/31/06 & --   & 2514 & 2302 & --   & 2238 & 0.10\\

2000: J080844.26+394852.3  & 08$^h$08$^m$44.26$^s$ &  +39$\degr$48$\arcmin$52.3$\arcsec$ & 0.091 & 10/30/06 & --   & 2541 & 2356 & --   & 2211 & 0.05\\

2001: J092600.40+442736.1  & 09$^h$26$^m$00.40$^s$ &  +44$\degr$27$\arcmin$36.1$\arcsec$ & 0.181 & 11/06/06 & --   & --   & 2340 & --   & 2274 & 0.02\\

2002: J102613.97+484458.9  & 10$^h$26$^m$13.97$^s$ &  +48$\degr$44$\arcmin$58.9$\arcsec$ & 0.160 & 11/22/06 & --   & 2565 & 2354 & --   & 2289 & 0.01\\

2003: J135355.90+664800.5  & 13$^h$53$^m$55.90$^s$ &  +66$\degr$48$\arcmin$00.5$\arcsec$ & 0.198 & 01/04/07 & --   & 2661 & 2468 & --   & 2334 & 0.02\\

2004: J214500.25+011157.3  & 21$^h$45$^m$00.25$^s$ &  +01$\degr$11$\arcmin$57.3$\arcsec$ & 0.204 & 07/10/07 & 2514 & --   & --   & 3600 & --   & 0.06\\

2005: \enddata 

2006: \tablenotetext{a}{Spectroscopic redshifts from SDSS.}

2007: \end{deluxetable*} 

2008: 

2009: 

2010: 

2011: 

2012: \begin{deluxetable*}{llcll}[t]

2013: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2014: \tablecolumns{5} 

2015: \tablewidth{0pc} 

2016: \tablewidth{0pc} 

2017: \tablecaption{\label{tab:sfrs}Star formation rates and stellar masses.} 

2018: \tablehead{\multicolumn{1}{c}{Galaxy}  &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{SFR$_{FUV}^a$}  &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{SFR$_{IR}^b$} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{SFR$_{1.4 GHz}^a$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$M_*^c$} \\

2019: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{($M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{($M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{($M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(10$^{10}$ $M_\odot$)}}

2020: \startdata 

2021: J005527.46--002148.7 &  $4.2\pm0.8$ & 28    &  14.9$\pm$2.0  & 1.17 \\

2022: J032845.99+011150.8  &  $3.2\pm1.1$ & $<$3.4  &   $<$4.6       & 0.55 \\

2023: J040208.86--050642.0 &  $3.7\pm0.6$ & $<$2.8  &   $<$4.1       & 0.25 \\

2024: J080844.26+394852.3  &  $3.1\pm0.4$ & 7.3   &   $<$3.7       & 2.14 \\

2025: J092600.40+442736.1  &  $6.8\pm0.4$ & 3.7    &   7.8$\pm$1.4  & 0.16 \\

2026: J102613.97+484458.9  &  $3.4\pm0.1$ & 6.6    &   9.2$\pm$1.3  & 0.81 \\

2027: J135355.90+664800.5  &  $7.1\pm0.9$ & 14.6    &  22.5$\pm$2.7  & 0.98 \\

2028: J214500.25+011157.3  &  $3.4\pm0.8$ & 7.5    &  14.5$\pm$2.9  & 1.32 

2029: \enddata

2030: \tablenotetext{a}{UV SFR derived from the FUV luminosity (uncorrected for dust). Adapted from \citet{basuzych07}.}

2031: \tablenotetext{b}{IR SFR derived from the bolometric dust luminosity (given in Table \ref{tab:ir}), and calculated using the formula 

2032: $\mathrm{log}_{10}L_{dust}=9.75+\mathrm{log}_{10}SFR_{IR}$ and assuming a 100 Myr old constant SFR model with Salpeter IMF as given in \citet{takeuchi05}.}

2033: \tablenotetext{c}{Stellar mass based on SED model fitting. Adapted from H07 \citep[see also][]{salim07}.}

2034: %\tablenotetext{$^c$}{These measurements correspond to the WFPC2 F606W data, instead of ACS/WFC F850LP.}

2035: \end{deluxetable*} 

2036: 

2037: 

2038: 

2039: \begin{deluxetable*}{lrrrrrr}[h]

2040: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2041: \tablecolumns{7} 

2042: \tablewidth{0pc} 

2043: \tablecaption{\label{tab:phot}Photometry and UV spectral slope.} 

2044: \tablehead{\multicolumn{1}{c}{Galaxy}  &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{$m_{FUV}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$m_{NUV}$}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$m_{330}$}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$m_{u}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$m_{850}$} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\beta_{FUV-NUV}$} \\%&  \multicolumn{1}{c}{$E(B-V)_{int}$} \\%\multicolumn{1}{c}{($U-z$)$_{total}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{($U-z$)$_{inner}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{($U-z$)$_{outer}$} \\

2045: \colhead{} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)}  & \colhead{(mag)}& \colhead{(mag)}    & }\\%& \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mag)}}

2046: \startdata 

2047: J005527.46--002148.7 & 19.23$^{+0.15}_{-0.17}$ & 18.85$^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & 18.78 & $18.65\pm0.02$ & 18.25 &  $-1.13\pm0.22$  \\%& 0.08\\%& 0.53 & 0.52 & 0.67\\

2048: J032845.99+011150.8  & 19.42$^{+0.24}_{-0.31}$ & 19.23$^{+0.14}_{-0.16}$ & 18.97 & $18.68\pm0.04$ & 18.15 &  $-1.56\pm0.39$  \\%& 0.11\\%& 0.82 & 0.73 & 1.16\\

2049: J040208.86--050642.0 & 18.90$^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & 18.70$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & 18.81 & $18.67\pm0.03$ & 18.08 &  $-1.54\pm0.09$  \\%& 0.13\\%& 0.73 & 0.67 & 1.09\\

2050: J080844.26+394852.3  & 18.22$^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$ & 17.59$^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & 17.62 & $17.48\pm0.01$ & 17.05 &  $-0.54\pm0.15$  \\%& 0.08\\%& 0.73 & 0.35 & 2.10\\

2051: J092600.40+442736.1  & 18.83$^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$ & 18.89$^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & --$^a$& $19.04\pm0.03$ & 19.28 &  $-2.12\pm0.18$  \\%& 0.01\\%& --$^a$   & --$^a$   & --$^a$  \\

2052: J102613.97+484458.9  & 19.27$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & 19.00$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & 18.86 & $18.85\pm0.02$ & 18.23 &  $-1.38\pm0.05$  \\%& 0.05\\%& 0.63 & 0.64 & 0.39\\

2053: J135355.90+664800.5  & 18.99$^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & 18.57$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & 18.42 & $18.35\pm0.02$ & 17.67 &  $-1.03\pm0.06$  \\%& 0.03\\%& 0.76 & 0.71 & 1.26\\

2054: J214500.25+011157.3  & 19.94$^{+0.25}_{-0.32}$ & 19.22$^{+0.12}_{-0.13}$ &19.61$^b$&$19.24\pm0.04$& 18.62$^c$ &$-0.35\pm0.41$\\%& 0.14\\%&      &      &

2055: \enddata 

2056: %\tablenotetext{a}{Measured in 0\farcs45 diameter square apertures.}

2057: \tablenotetext{a}{We did not obtain data in F330W.}

2058: \tablenotetext{b}{These measurements correspond to the ACS/SBC F150LP data, instead of ACS/HRC F330W.}

2059: \tablenotetext{c}{These measurements correspond to the WFPC2 F606W data, instead of ACS/WFC F850LP.}

2060: \end{deluxetable*} 

2061: 

2062: \clearpage

2063: 

2064: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccccc}[t]

2065: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2066: \tablecolumns{10} 

2067: \tablewidth{0pc} 

2068: \tablecaption{\label{tab:sizes}Size measurements and colors} 

2069: \tablehead{\multicolumn{1}{c}{Galaxy}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{50,u}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{50,330}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{90,330}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{50,850}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{90,850}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{50,H\alpha}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{90,H\alpha}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(\up--\zp)$_\mathrm{inner}^e$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(\up--\zp)$_\mathrm{outer}^f$} \\

2070: \colhead{}  & \colhead{(kpc)}  & \colhead{(kpc)}  & \colhead{(kpc)} & \colhead{(kpc)}   & \colhead{(kpc)} & \colhead{(kpc)} & \colhead{(kpc)} & \colhead{(mag)}  & \colhead{(mag)} }

2071: \startdata 

2072: J005527.46--002148.7 & 0.77  & 0.37    & 1.26    & 0.78    & 2.13     &  0.50  & 1.69   & 0.03 & 0.89  \\

2073: J032845.99+011150.8  & 1.66  & 0.87    & 1.96    & 1.79    & 4.93     &  0.93  & 2.49   & 0.24 & 1.32 \\

2074: J040208.86--050642.0 & 1.16  & 0.84    & 1.94    & 1.44    & 4.26     &  1.23  & 2.81   & 0.48 & 0.84  \\

2075: J080844.26+394852.3  & 0.47  & 0.16    & 1.41    & 0.57    & 2.77     &   0.47    &  2.94& --0.58 & 1.52 \\

2076: J092600.40+442736.1  & 0.97  & --$^a$  & --$^a$  & 1.10    & 3.33     &   0.87 & 2.67   & --$^a$ & --$^a$ \\

2077: J102613.97+484458.9  & 2.07  & 1.89    & 3.86    & 1.99    & 4.48     &   2.13 & 4.22   & 0.53 & 0.67  \\

2078: J135355.90+664800.5  & 1.81  & 1.46    & 3.19    & 3.56    & 9.06     &   2.74 & 7.23   & 0.48 & 0.81   \\

2079: J214500.25+011157.3  & 0.74  & 1.10$^b$& 3.55$^b$& 1.30$^c$& 4.64$^c$  & --$^d$ & --$^d$ & 0.93 & 1.00 \\

2080: \enddata 

2081: \tablenotetext{a}{We did not obtain data in F330W.}

2082: \tablenotetext{b}{These measurements correspond to the ACS/SBC F150LP data, instead of ACS/HRC F330W.}

2083: \tablenotetext{c}{These measurements correspond to the WFPC2 F606W data, instead of ACS/WFC F850LP.}

2084: \tablenotetext{d}{We did not obtain data in \ha.}

2085: \tablenotetext{e}{Inner color measured within $r_{50,330}$ (not corrected for internal reddening).}

2086: \tablenotetext{f}{Outer color measured between $r_{50,850}$ and $r_{90,850}$ (not corrected for internal reddening).}

2087: \end{deluxetable*} 

2088: 

2089: \begin{deluxetable*}{lrrrrrcccc}[t]

2090: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2091: \tablecolumns{10} 

2092: \tablewidth{0pc} 

2093: \tablecaption{\label{tab:ir}Infrared photometry and extinction.} 

2094: \tablehead{\multicolumn{1}{c}{Galaxy}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{3.6}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{8}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{24}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{70}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$f_{160}^a$} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{$L_{TIR}^b$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$L_{FUV}^c$} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{$A_{FUV}^d$} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{$E(B-V)_{int}^e$} \\

2095: \colhead{} & \colhead{($\mu$Jy)}  & \colhead{($\mu$Jy)} & \colhead{(mJy)}    & \colhead{(mJy)} & \colhead{(mJy)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{($10^{10}$ $L_\odot$)}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{($10^{10}$ $L_\odot$)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mag)} &  \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mag)}}

2096: \startdata 

2097: J005527.46--002148.7 &  725.8$\pm$33.2 &   4280.5$\pm$80.8 & 33.2$\pm$0.4 & 163.4$\pm$6.4 & 115.4 & 16   & 3.2  & 1.48  & 0.14\\%  & 0.08\\

2098: J032845.99+011150.8  &  218.3$\pm$39.0 &    972.0$\pm$71.9 &  3.4$\pm$0.4 & $<$23.4$^f$    &  25.9 & $<$1.9  & 1.8  & 0.56  & 0.05\\%  & 0.11\\

2099: J040208.86--050642.0 &  131.6$\pm$34.8 &    415.3$\pm$66.6 &  1.1$\pm$0.1 & $<$19.8$^f$    &  25.5 & $<$1.6  & 2.8  & 0.31  & 0.03\\% & 0.13\\

2100: J080844.26+394852.3  & 1048.6$\pm$39.8 &   5786.5$\pm$66.2 & 39.9$\pm$0.6 & 156.0$\pm$6.8 & 117.0 & 4.1  & 2.0  & 0.91  & 0.08\\%  & 0.08\\

2101: J092600.40+442736.1  &   90.7$\pm$4.2  &    229.4$\pm$24.0 &  3.4$\pm$0.4 &  20.7$\pm$3.7 &  10.2 & 2.1  & 5.5  & 0.16  & 0.01\\%  & 0.01\\

2102: J102613.97+484458.9  &  176.6$\pm$36.2 &    614.5$\pm$56.8 &  4.2$\pm$0.3 &  42.5$\pm$4.2 &  31.6 & 3.7  & 2.7  & 0.70  & 0.06\\%  & 0.05\\

2103: J135355.90+664800.5  &  369.2$\pm$32.4 &   1660.3$\pm$53.1 & 44.4$\pm$0.4 &  70.1$\pm$4.3 &  27.2 & 8.2  & 6.0  & 0.71  & 0.07\\%  & 0.03\\

2104: J214500.25+011157.3  &  200.4$\pm$31.5 &   1617.5$\pm$64.2 &  5.0$\pm$0.4 &  23.0$\pm$5.5 &  27.7 & 4.2  & 2.6  & 0.79  & 0.07\\%  & 0.14\\

2105: \enddata 

2106: \tablenotetext{a}{Estimated using the observed flux densities at 3.6, 8.0, 24 and 70$\mu$m and the dust models of \citet{dale02}.}

2107: \tablenotetext{b}{Bolometric dust luminosity.}

2108: \tablenotetext{c}{Bolometric FUV luminosity.}

2109: \tablenotetext{d}{FUV attentuation calculated from $L_{TIR}/L_{FUV}$ and using the fitting formula of \citet{burgarella05}.}

2110: \tablenotetext{e}{Internal (stellar) extinction $E(B-V)_{int}=A_{FUV}/k(\lambda)$ \citep{calzetti01}.}

2111: \tablenotetext{f}{Indicates a 3$\sigma$ upper limit.}

2112: \end{deluxetable*} 

2113: 

2114: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccc|cccc}[t]

2115: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

2116: \tablecolumns{14} 

2117: \tablewidth{0pc} 

2118: \tablecaption{\label{tab:morphologies}Morphological parameters} 

2119: \tablehead{\multicolumn{1}{c}{Galaxy}  & $r_{P,330}$ & $G_{330}$ & $M_{20,330}$ & $C_{330}$ & $r_{P,850}$ & $G_{850}$ & $M_{20,850}$ & $C_{850}$\\

2120: \colhead{} & \colhead{(\arcsec)} & & & & \colhead{(\arcsec)} & & &}

2121: \startdata 

2122: J005527.46--002148.7 &  0.55    & 0.63 & -2.41 & 4.73  & 0.83 & 0.58 & -1.98 & 3.53\\

2123: J032845.99+011150.8  &  1.66    & 0.66 & -1.48 & 3.97  & 2.62 & 0.58 & -1.55 & 3.34\\

2124: J040208.86--050642.0 &  1.02    & 0.56 & -1.60 & 3.29  & 1.92 & 0.60 & -1.98 & 3.92\\

2125: J080844.26+394852.3  &  0.13    & $>$0.57 & $<$-2.55 & $>$3.01 & 2.97 & 0.66 & -3.23 & 7.11\\

2126: J092600.40+442736.1  &  --$^a$  & --$^a$   & --$^a$    & --$^a$    & 1.29 & 0.73 & -1.60 & 3.27\\

2127: J102613.97+484458.9  &  2.21    & 0.60 & -1.31 & 3.28 & 1.92 & 0.58 & -1.48 & 2.93\\

2128: J135355.90+664800.5  &  1.26    & 0.60 & -1.27 & 2.88 & 1.29 & 0.53 & -1.57 & 2.88\\

2129: J214500.25+011157.3  &  0.75$^b$ & 0.56$^b$ & -1.47$^b$ & 2.95$^b$ & 1.40$^c$ & 0.61$^c$ & -1.80$^c$ & 3.56$^c$\\

2130: \enddata 

2131: \tablenotetext{a}{We did not obtain data in F330W.}

2132: \tablenotetext{b}{These measurements correspond to the ACS/SBC F150LP data, instead of ACS/HRC F330W.}

2133: \tablenotetext{c}{These measurements correspond to the WFPC2 F606W data, instead of ACS/WFC F850LP.}

2134: \end{deluxetable*} 

2135: \end{comment}

2136: 

2137: \clearpage

2138: 

2139: \begin{figure*}[t]

2140: \begin{center}

2141: \includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{f1.ps}

2142: \end{center}

2143: \caption{\label{fig:uv}Panels show Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) in the far-UV (FUV) and near-UV (NUV) of the 8 objects in our sample. Bars in the 

2144: lower right of each panel measure 5\arcsec, and are comparable to the full-width-at-half-maximum of the GALEX point spread function. North is up, East is to the left.}  

2145: \end{figure*}

2146: 

2147: \begin{figure*}[ht]

2148: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f2a.ps}

2149: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f2b.ps}

2150: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f2c.ps}

2151: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f2d.ps}

2152: \caption{\label{fig:stamps}Panels indicate the HST morphologies in the UV ({\it left}), optical ({\it middle}), and H$\alpha$ ({\it right}). 

2153: The images were smoothed using a Gaussian filter of 1.5 pixels (FWHM) to reduce some of the noise at the sub-PSF level, 

2154: and shown using a logarithmic stretch. The physical scales range from 1.6 kpc per arcsec at $z=0.09$ to 3.2 kpc per arcsec at $z=0.20$. 

2155: The F330W image of 092600 and H$\alpha$ image of 214500 are not available. 

2156: The H$\alpha$ image of 080844 suffers from poor PSF subtraction. North is up, East is to the left.}

2157: \end{figure*}

2158: \begin{figure*}

2159: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f2e.ps}

2160: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f2f.ps}

2161: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f2g.ps}

2162: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f2h.ps}

2163: Fig. 1.-- Cont.

2164: \end{figure*}

2165: 

2166: \begin{figure*}[t]

2167: \begin{center}

2168: \mbox{

2169: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{f3a.ps}

2170: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{f3b.ps}

2171: \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{f3c.ps}}

2172: \end{center}

2173: \caption{\label{fig:bpt}Optical emission line diagnostic diagrams

2174:   log([OIII]/H$\beta$) vs. log([NII]/H$\alpha$) ({\it left panel}),

2175:   log([OI]/H$\alpha$) ({\it middle panel}), and log([SII]/H$\alpha$)

2176:   ({\it right panel}). Points indicate all objects in the GALEX Medium

2177:   Imaging Survey (MIS) Galex Release 2 (GR2) sample cross-matched with

2178:   the SDSS DR4 sample. The objects that are the subject of the current

2179:   paper are indicated by the large filled circles.  Small filled

2180:   circles indicates the other objects in our main sample of compact

2181:   UVLGs that have HST, Spitzer and radio data either taken or

2182:   scheduled. The solid line indicates the boundary between regions

2183:   typically populated by starbursts and Seyferts from \citet{kauffmann03}.

2184:   Dashed lines indicates the boundary between objects of starburst

2185:   spectral type and pure AGN from \citet{kewley06}. Objects between

2186:   the solid and dashed lines in the left panel have typically

2187:   composite spectra consisting of a metal rich stellar population and

2188:   an AGN. Note that, based on these diagnostics, object

2189:   J080844.26+394852.3 is peculiar. The standard diagnostics

2190:   diagram (left panel) indicates it could be of composite type, while

2191:   it lies well on the starburst side in the other diagrams (middle and

2192:   right panels). This behavior is typical for galaxies with very high ionization parameters \citep{kewley01}. 

2193: The remainder of our HST objects lies in the starburst dominated region, albeit offset towards relatively high values of log([OIII]/H$\beta$. A similar offset 

2194: has been found for LBGs at high redshift \citep{shapley05,erb06a}.}

2195: \end{figure*}

2196: 

2197: \begin{figure}[t]

2198: \begin{center}

2199: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f4.ps}

2200: \end{center}

2201: \caption{\label{fig:radial}UV-optical radial color profiles of the UVLGs shown in Fig. \ref{fig:stamps}. 

2202: Lines indicate the (cumulative) color determined in circular apertures measured from the 

2203: centroids of the object detected in the optical image out to the 90\% flux radius (dashed colored lines),  

2204: and with respect to the object centroids defined in the UV image (dotted colored lines).  

2205: The UVLGs are generally very blue within approximately the half light radius, and become  

2206: redder at larger radii. The objects often have steeper inner color gradients when then UV image is used for object detection (dotted lines), 

2207: compared to when the optical image is used (dashed lines) due to the 

2208: different positions of the object centroids in the UV and optical. 

2209: For 214500, the UV-optical color corresponds to $FUV_{150}$--\vp, 

2210: whereas for the other objects the colors measured are \up--\zp. Errors are 3$\sigma$.}  

2211: \end{figure}

2212: 

2213: \begin{figure*}[t]

2214: \begin{center}

2215: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{f5a.ps}\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{f5b.ps}

2216: \end{center}

2217: \caption{\label{fig:morphologies}Distribution of morphological parameters $M_{20}$ vs. $G$ (left panel) and $G$ vs. $C$ (right panel) for the sample of $z\sim0.15$ UVLGs. 

2218: Morphologies measured from the UV images are indicated by stars, morphologies measured from the optical images by filled circles. Dotted lines connect the UV and optical morphologies measured for each source. For comparison, we have indicated the following (all adapted from \citet{lotz06}): 

2219: regions populated by likely mergers having multiple nuclei (left hatched area) and by bulge-dominated objects (right hatched area), regions occupied by simulated de Vaucouleurs and exponential profiles (top and bottom boxes, resp.), the median values found for star-forming galaxies at $z\sim1.5$ and LBGs at $z\sim4$ in GOODS (encircled crosses), and 

2220: the typical errors for the high redshift samples (large crosses).}

2221: \end{figure*}

2222: 

2223: \begin{figure}[t]

2224: \begin{center}

2225: \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{f6a.ps}\hspace{5mm}\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{f6b.ps}\\

2226: \vspace{5mm}

2227: \includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{f6c.ps}\hspace{5mm}\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{f6d.ps}

2228: \end{center}

2229: \caption{\label{fig:haro11vv114sims}{\it Top panels:} NUV archival images of the local starburst galaxies Haro 11 and VV 114, both at $z=0.02$. 

2230: The image of Haro 11 was taken with the ACS/HRC (Program 10575, PI: G\"oran \"Ostlin). 

2231: The image of VV 114 was taken with STIS (Program 8201, PI: Gerhardt Meurer). See Sect. \ref{sec:archival} for details. 

2232: {\it Bottom panels:} Simulated F330W images of Haro 11 (left) and VV 114 (right) at $z=0.15$ 

2233: for comparison with our UVLG sample. The images measure 3\arcsec$\times$3\arcsec. See Sect. \ref{sec:sims} for details.}  

2234: \end{figure}

2235: 

2236: \begin{figure}[t]

2237: \begin{center}

2238: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f7a.ps}\\

2239: \vspace{10mm}

2240: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f7b.ps}

2241: \end{center}

2242: \caption{\label{fig:sims_goods_uvlgs}Redshift simulations of the UVLG sample at the depth of GOODS (Sect. \ref{sec:sims}). 

2243: Panels ($3\arcsec\times3\arcsec$) show the original, unredshifted HRC/F330W or SBC/F150LP images (left), and GOODS \bp\ or \vp+\ip\ 

2244: simulations at $z=1.5$, $z=3.0$ and $z=4.0$. The last two rows show the redshift simulations of Haro 11 and VV 114 (Sect. \ref{sec:sims}) for comparison.}  

2245: \end{figure}

2246: 

2247: \begin{figure}[t]

2248: \begin{center}

2249: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f8a.ps}\\

2250: \vspace{10mm}

2251: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f8b.ps}

2252: \end{center}

2253: \caption{\label{fig:sims_udf_uvlgs}Redshift simulations at the depth of the UDF. See Sect. \ref{sec:sims} and the caption of Fig. \ref{fig:sims_goods_uvlgs} for details.}

2254: \end{figure}

2255: 

2256: \begin{figure}[t]

2257: \begin{center}

2258: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f9a.ps}\\

2259: \vspace{10mm}

2260: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f9b.ps}

2261: \end{center}

2262: \caption{\label{fig:sims_cosmos_uvlgs}Redshift simulations at the depth of COSMOS. See Sect. \ref{sec:sims} and the caption of Fig. \ref{fig:sims_goods_uvlgs} for details.}

2263: \end{figure}

2264: 

2265: \begin{figure}[t]

2266: \begin{center}

2267: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{f10.ps}

2268: \end{center}

2269: \caption{\label{fig:morphologies_redshift}Morphological parameters of the UVLGs measured from the simulated images at different redshift. 

2270: Objects were redshifted to $z=1.5$, $z=3$ and $z=4$, and simulated at the depths of COSMOS (red dashed lines), GOODS (green dotted lines) and the UDF (blue solid lines).}

2271: \end{figure}

2272: 

2273: \begin{figure}[t]

2274: \begin{center}

2275: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{f11a.ps}\\

2276: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{f11b.ps}\\

2277: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{f11c.ps}

2278: \end{center}

2279: \caption{\label{fig:morphologies_lotz}Comparison of the morphologies

2280:   of Lyman break galaxies at $\sim4$ and starburst galaxies at

2281:   $z\sim1.5$ from the samples of \citet{lotz06} (plusses) with the

2282:   morphologies of the UVLGs (stars). The UVLGs were artificially

2283:   redshifted to the mean redshift of the comparison samples, and

2284:   simulated at a similar depth. Top panels show the results for LBGs

2285:   and UVLGs at the UDF depth at $z\sim4$, middle panels show LBGs and

2286:   UVLGs at the GOODS depth at $z\sim4$, and bottom panels show star

2287:   forming galaxies and UVLGs at the GOODS depth at $z\sim1.5$. Haro 11 ('H') 

2288:   and VV 114 ('V') were simulated at the same redshift and depth as the

2289:   UVLGs.  For comparison, we have indicated the

2290:   following (all adapted from \citet{lotz06}): regions populated by

2291:   likely mergers having multiple nuclei (left hatched area) and by

2292:   bulge-dominated objects (right hatched area), and the typical errors

2293:   for the high redshift samples (large crosses). In all panels, the

2294:   UVLGs span a very similar range in parameter space compared to the

2295:   comparison samples, indicating that UVLGs and LBGs have very similar

2296:   quantitative morphologies.}

2297: \end{figure}

2298: 

2299: \begin{figure*}[t]

2300: \begin{center}

2301: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f12.ps}

2302: \end{center}

2303: \caption{\label{fig:ssc_apertures}Panels show the \up\ images indicating the apertures placed around the unresolved starburst regions identified by eye 

2304: in each of the sources (small circles). Apertures measure 0\farcs3 in diameter, and are numbered for identification of each region in Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_cm}.  

2305: Larger apertures were chosen to measure the average color of the regions in which the unresolved starbursts are situated (large circles). 

2306: For object 214500 the image shown is $FUV_{150}$. For completeness, we show the \zp\ image for 092600 as no \up\ image is available.}

2307: \end{figure*}

2308: 

2309: \begin{figure}[t]

2310: \begin{center}

2311: \mbox{

2312: \includegraphics[width=0.49\columnwidth]{f13a.ps}\hspace{0.02\columnwidth}

2313: \includegraphics[width=0.49\columnwidth]{f13b.ps}}

2314: \end{center}

2315: \caption{\label{fig:ssc_maghist}Apparent ({\it left panel}) and absolute ({\it right panel}) magnitude distributions in \up\ (solid lines) and \zp\ (dotted lines) 

2316: of the unresolved starburst regions identified in Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_apertures}. The magnitudes were extinction-corrected using a global reddening value 

2317: derived from the bolometric dust to FUV luminosity ratio  (see Table \ref{tab:phot}).}

2318: \end{figure}

2319: 

2320: \begin{figure*}[t]

2321: \begin{center}

2322: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f14a.ps}

2323: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f14b.ps}

2324: \end{center}

2325: \caption{\label{fig:ssc_cm}Color magnitude diagram of the individual

2326:   starburst regions identified in

2327:   Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_apertures}. Filled, numbered symbols correspond to

2328:   the unresolved regions identified in 005527 (circle), 032845 (star),

2329:   040208 (upward triangle), 080844 (downward triangle), 102613

2330:   (ellipse), and 135355 (square). The large, open symbols correspond

2331:   to the large apertures in Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_apertures} with the

2332:   point sources removed. Tracks indicate the color and magnitude

2333:   evolution of an instantaneous burst model ({\it left panel}) and a

2334:   continuous star formation model ({\it right panel}) simulated using

2335:   STARBURST99. Blue tracks are for LMC metallicity ($Z=0.008$), red

2336:   tracks for solar metallicity ($Z=0.02$). For instantaneous bursts we

2337:   plot tracks having a burst mass of $10^8$ $M_\odot$ and $10^7$

2338:   $M_\odot$. For continuous models we plot tracks having SFRs of 5, 1,

2339:   and 0.1 $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$.  Ages in Myr have been indicated along

2340:   the tracks (marked at

2341:   6,7,8,9,10,12,14,16,18,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90,100 Myr for the burst

2342:   models, and at 10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90,100,200,500,1000 Myr for

2343:   the continuous models). Dotted lines indicate the colors if we

2344:   include the contribution from the nebular continuum. The model

2345:   tracks are reddening-free, but the observed colors and magnitudes

2346:   were dereddened using a global reddening value derived from the

2347:   bolometric dust to FUV luminosity ratio (see Table \ref{tab:phot}).

2348:   The starburst regions of 214500 were omitted because of the

2349:   different filterset used during those observations. Object 092600

2350:   was omitted because no \up\ is available.}

2351: \end{figure*}

2352: 

2353: \begin{figure}[t]

2354: \begin{center}

2355: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f15.ps}

2356: \end{center}

2357: \caption{\label{fig:ew}Rest-frame equivalent width \ha\ vs. \up--\zp\ color for the super starburst regions. Tracks indicate the 

2358: age evolution of the \ha\ EW for instantaneous burst ({\it dashed lines}, with ages marked at 5,6,7,8,9,10 Myr) and continuous star formation ({\it solid lines}, with ages marged at 5,6,7,8,9,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90,100,200,500,1000 Myr) models from STARBURST99. 

2359: See text and the caption of Fig. \ref{fig:ssc_cm} for further details.}

2360: \end{figure}

2361: 

2362: 

2363: 

2364: \clearpage

2365: 

2366: \appendix

2367: 

2368: 

2369: \section{Scarpa et al. (2007) revisited}

2370: \label{sec:scarpa}

2371: 

2372: \noindent

2373: In a recent paper, \citet{scarpa07} have tried to argue that the

2374: sample of compact UVLGs selected by H05 and H07 are not true analogs

2375: of LBGs. \citet{scarpa07} claim that the sizes estimated from the SDSS

2376: {\it u}-band images grossly underestimate the actual size in the UV,

2377: and that the UVLGs therefore are much larger and lower in surface

2378: brightness than LBGs.  Here, we will briefly show that this claim is

2379: based on the combination of a faulty analysis and incorrect

2380: assumptions,

2381: that are easily refuted by the HST data presented in this paper.\\

2382: 

2383: \noindent

2384: $\bullet$ \citet{scarpa07} claim that it is only possible to detect

2385: central bulges in the SDSS {\it u}-band images, and that fainter,

2386: extended disks would be missed.  They reach this conclusion by fitting

2387: the SDSS {\it r}-band images with a two component model (point source

2388: plus disk) and then using the half-light radius of {\it only the disk}

2389: component to recompute the size of the UVLGs. In doing this, the

2390: authors made a serious mistake, because they

2391: ignore the fact that on average, half the light in their model fits comes from the central {\it ``point source''} (see their Table 1).\\

2392: 

2393: \noindent

2394: $\bullet$ The claim in the \citet{scarpa07} paper that most of the FUV

2395: flux in compact UVLGs should come from a large disk component relies

2396: on the observation that there exists a population of galaxies with

2397: relatively red bulges not visible in the FUV and very blue outer rings

2398: or disks that are only apparent in the UV

2399: \citep[e.g.][]{thilker05}. It should be clear both from the results

2400: presented in H05 and H07, and from the analysis of HST data presented

2401: here, that UVLGs are an entirely different class of objects. In fact,

2402: the UVLGs are clearly more extended in the optical than in the UV due

2403: to an underlying (older) component. The UVLGs have very blue inner

2404: colors, and become redder outwards (see Fig. \ref{fig:radial} and

2405: Table \ref{tab:sizes}).

2406: This is opposite to the assumption of \citet{scarpa07}.\\

2407: 

2408: \noindent

2409: $\bullet$ The HST \up\ images confirm that the UVLGs are indeed very

2410: compact objects. In fact, in most cases, the half light radius is even

2411: smaller than the seeing deconvolved SDSS {\it u}-band size (Table

2412: \ref{tab:sizes}). In the case of both J005527.46--002148.7 and

2413: J080844.26+394852.3 the UV flux is dominated by an unresolved

2414: component even at the HST resolution. Furthermore, when we extrapolate

2415: the slope of the UV continuum measured from the FUV--NUV color and

2416: predict the \up\ flux, we find good agreement with the measured \up\

2417: flux (Sect. \ref{sec:sizes}), indicating that the \up\ (and SDSS {\it

2418:   u}-band) image is a good tracer of the FUV morphology. In the case

2419: of J214500.25+011157.3 we have an ACS/SBC image taken through F150LP,

2420: a filter that is almost identical to the GALEX FUV filter

2421: \citep[see][]{teplitz06}.  The corresponding FUV surface brightness

2422: calculated solely from the ACS data,

2423: $\textrm{log}_{10}I_{FUV,ACS}=9.53$ $L_\odot$ kpc$^{-2}$, is slightly

2424: lower than the value of H07 based on GALEX and SDSS

2425: ($\textrm{log}_{10}I_{FUV}=9.82$ $L_\odot$ kpc$^{-2}$), but still well

2426: above our LBG selection threshold

2427: of $\textrm{log}_{10}I_{FUV}=9$ $L_\odot$ kpc$^{-2}$.\\

2428: 

2429: \noindent

2430: $\bullet$ As we have discussed above, the galaxy sizes defined by

2431: \citet{scarpa07} pertain only to the disk component and thus cannot be

2432: compared with the half-light radii quoted by H05 and

2433: H07. \citet{scarpa07} also did not apply their profile fitting

2434: methodology to the full sample in a uniform way.  They only applied

2435: their analysis to the objects that were marked as ``supercompact'' by

2436: H07 and not to the other UVLGs. As a result, their concluding Figure 5

2437: is misleading. It appears to show that the LBG analogs have a similar

2438: FUV surface brightness as the main sample. Had they applied their

2439: technique to all the objects in the sample, the compact UVLGs would

2440: still form an upper envelope to the $I_{FUV}$ distribution, with the

2441: overall $I_{FUV}$ distribution shifted downwards toward lower surface

2442: brightness due to the fact that the ``point source'' flux in their fits was ignored.\\

2443: 

2444: \noindent

2445: $\bullet$ Finally, we would like to remind the reader that the real

2446: test of whether or not a given sample of nearby galaxies are good

2447: analogs of LBGs is not the UV selection per s\'e (note that the LBG

2448: luminosity function extends over many orders of magnitude

2449: \citep[e.g.][]{bouwens07}), but whether their main physical properties

2450: are indeed similar. We firmly believe that our sample of LBG analogs

2451: have passed this test.

2452: 

2453: \end{document}

2454: 

2455: 

2456: 

2457: 

2458: \end{document}

2459: