1: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
2:
3: %===========================================================================
4: % NPH defined commands
5: \newcommand{\ii}{$i'$}
6: \newcommand{\iband}{$i_{775}$}
7: \newcommand{\zz}{$z'$}
8: \newcommand{\zband}{$z_{850}$}
9: \newcommand{\uu}{$U$}
10: \newcommand{\bb}{$B$}
11: \newcommand{\vv}{$V$}
12: \newcommand{\jj}{$J$}
13: \newcommand{\iz}{\ensuremath{(i'\!-\!z')}}
14: \newcommand{\gi}{\ensuremath{(g\!-\!i')}}
15: \newcommand{\zj}{\ensuremath{(z'-J)}}
16: \newcommand{\cge}{$\gtrsim$}
17: \newcommand{\cle}{$\lesssim$}
18: \newcommand{\etal}{{et\thinspace al.}}
19: \newcommand{\cg}{c.\thinspace g.}
20: \newcommand{\Ang}{\AA\thinspace}
21: \newcommand{\SN}{$S/N$}
22: \newcommand{\Ho}{$H_{0}$}
23: \newcommand{\super}[1]{$^{#1}$}
24: \newcommand{\sub}[1]{$_{#1}$}
25: \newcommand{\tabref}[1]{Table~\ref{#1}}
26: \newcommand{\figref}[1]{Figure~\ref{#1}}
27: \newcommand{\secref}[1]{\S~\ref{#1}}
28: \newcommand\arcspt {{$\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over .$}}
29: \newcommand\Msun {{\ $M_{\odot}$} }
30:
31: %===========================================================================
32:
33: \begin{document}
34:
35: \title{Surface Brightness Profiles of Composite Images of Compact \\
36: Galaxies at \boldmath{$\lowercase{z}\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$} in the HUDF}
37:
38: \shorttitle{Composite Surface Brightness Profiles at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$}
39:
40: \author{N. P. Hathi\altaffilmark{1}, R. A. Jansen\altaffilmark{2,1},
41: R. A. Windhorst\altaffilmark{2,1}, S. H. Cohen\altaffilmark{2}, \\
42: W. C. Keel\altaffilmark{3}, M. R. Corbin\altaffilmark{4} and
43: R. E. Ryan Jr.\altaffilmark{1}}
44:
45: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, Arizona State University,
46: Tempe, AZ 85287-1504, USA}
47:
48: \altaffiltext{2}{School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State
49: University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404, USA}
50:
51: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
52: Alabama, Box 870324, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA}
53:
54: \altaffiltext{4}{U. S. Naval Observatory, 10391 W. Naval Observatory
55: Road, Flagstaff, AZ 86001-8521, USA}
56:
57: \email{Nimish.Hathi@asu.edu}
58: \shortauthors{Hathi et al}
59:
60: %--------------------------------------------------
61:
62: \begin{abstract}
63:
64: The Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) contains a significant number of
65: \bb-, \vv- and \ii-band dropout objects, many of which were recently
66: confirmed to be young star-forming galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$.
67: These galaxies are too faint individually to accurately measure their
68: radial surface brightness profiles. Their average light profiles are
69: potentially of great interest, since they may contain clues to the
70: time since the onset of significant galaxy assembly. We separately
71: co-add \vv, \ii- and \zz-band HUDF images of sets of $z\!\simeq\!4,5$
72: and $6$ objects, pre-selected to have nearly identical compact sizes
73: and the roundest shapes. From these stacked images, we are able to
74: study the average(d) radial structure of these objects at much higher
75: signal-to-noise ratio than possible for an individual faint object.
76: Here we explore the reliability and usefulness of a stacking technique
77: of compact objects at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ in the HUDF. Our results
78: are: (1) image stacking provides reliable and reproducible average
79: surface brightness profiles; (2) the shape of the average surface
80: brightness profile shows that even the faintest $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$
81: objects are \emph{resolved}; and (3) if late-type galaxies dominate
82: the population of galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$, as previous
83: \emph{HST} studies have shown for $z\!\lesssim\!4$, then limits to
84: dynamical age estimates for these galaxies from their profile shapes
85: are comparable with the SED ages obtained from the broadband colors.
86: We also present accurate measurements of the sky-background in the
87: HUDF and its associated 1$\sigma$ uncertainties.
88:
89: \end{abstract}
90:
91: \keywords{galaxies: high-redshift --- galaxies: structure --- galaxies: formation}
92:
93: %--------------------------------------------------
94:
95: \section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
96:
97: In the last decade, ground and space based observations of high
98: redshift galaxies have begun to outline the process of galaxy
99: assembly. The details of that process at high redshifts, however,
100: remain poorly constrained. There is increasing support for the model
101: of galaxy formation, in which the most massive galaxies assemble
102: earlier than their less massive counterparts
103: \citep[e.g.][]{cowi96,guzm97,koda04,mcca04}. A detailed analysis of
104: the `fossil record' of the current stellar populations in nearby
105: galaxies selected from the \emph{Sloan Digital Sky Survey}
106: \citep[SDSS;][]{york00} provides strong evidence for this downsizing
107: picture \citep{heav04,pant07}. The increasing number of luminous
108: galaxies spectroscopically confirmed to be at $z\!\simeq\!6.5$
109: \citep[e.g.][]{hu02, kodi03, kurk04, rhoa04, ster05, tani05}, or
110: \cle0.9 Gyr after the Big Bang, also supports this general picture.
111: In an alternate hierarchical scenario, arguments have been made that
112: significant number of low luminosity dwarf galaxies were present at
113: these times, and were the main contributor to finish the process of
114: reionization of the intergalactic medium \citep{yan04a,yan04b}.
115: However, there is presently little information on the dynamical
116: structure of these or other galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!6$. It is not
117: clear whether these objects represent isolated disk systems, or
118: collapsing spheroids, mergers or other dynamically young objects.
119:
120: \citet{ravi06} used deep, multi-wavelength images obtained with the
121: \emph{Hubble Space Telescope} (\emph{HST}) Advanced Camera for Surveys
122: (ACS) as part of the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS)
123: to analyze 2-D surface brightness distributions of the brightest Lyman
124: Break Galaxies (LBGs) at $2.5\!<\!z\!<\!5$. They distinguish various
125: morphologies based on the S\'{e}rsic index $n$, which measures the
126: shape of the azimuthally averaged surface brightness profile (where
127: $n$=1 for exponential disks and $n$=4 for a de Vaucouleurs law).
128: \citet{ravi06} find that 40\% of the LBGs have light profiles close to
129: exponential, as seen for disk galaxies, and only $\sim$30\% have high
130: $n$, as seen in nearby spheroids. They also find a significant
131: fraction ($\sim$30\%) of galaxies with light profiles \emph{shallower}
132: than exponential, which appear to have multiple cores or disturbed
133: morphologies, suggestive of close pairs or on-going galaxy mergers.
134: Distinction between these possible morphologies and, therefore, a
135: better estimate of the formation redshifts of the systems observed at
136: $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ in particular, is important for testing the
137: galaxy assembly picture, and for the refinement of galaxy formation
138: models.
139:
140: One possible technique involves the radial surface brightness profiles
141: of the most massive objects --- those that will likely evolve to
142: become the massive elliptical galaxies, which we see in place at
143: redshifts $z\!\lesssim\!2$ \citep{driv98,vand03,vand04}. This can be
144: analytically understood in the context of the \citet{lynd67}
145: relaxation formalism and the numerical galaxy formation simulations of
146: \citet{vana82}, which describe collisionless collapse and violent
147: relaxation as the formation mechanism for elliptical galaxies. As the
148: time-scale for relaxation is shorter in the inner than in the outer
149: parts of a galaxy, convergence toward a $r^{1/n}$-profile will proceed
150: from the inside to progressively larger radii at later times.
151: Moreover, \citet{korm77} has shown that tidal perturbations due to
152: neighbors can cause the radial surface brightness profile to deviate
153: from a pure de~Vaucouleurs profile in the outer parts of a galaxy.
154: This implies that the radius where surface brightness profiles start
155: to deviate significantly from an $r^{1/n}$ profile \emph{might} serve
156: as a ``\emph{virial clock}'' that traces the time since the onset of
157: the last major merger, accretion events or global starburst in these
158: objects.
159:
160: Image stacking methods have been used extensively on X-ray
161: \citep{nand02,bran01} and radio \citep{geor03,whit07} data to study
162: the mean properties (e.g. flux, luminosity) of well-defined samples of
163: sources that are otherwise too faint to be detected individually.
164: \citet{pasc96} applied such a stacking method to a large number of
165: optically very faint, compact objects at $z\!=\!2.39$ to trace their
166: ``average'' structure. This approach was also applied by
167: \citet{zibe04} to detect the presence of faint stellar halos around
168: disk galaxies selected from the SDSS. An attempt to apply this
169: technique to high redshift galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field
170: \citep[HDF;][]{will96} was not conclusive (H. Ferguson; private
171: communication) due to the poorer spatial sampling and shallower depth
172: of the HDF compared to the Hubble Ultra Deep Field
173: \citep[HUDF;][]{beck06}.
174:
175: In this paper, we use the exceptional depth and fine spatial sampling
176: of the HUDF to study the potential of this image stacking technique,
177: and will estimate limits to dynamical ages of faint, young galaxies at
178: $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$. The HUDF reaches $\sim$1.5~mag deeper than the
179: equivalent HDF exposure in the \ii-band, and has better spatial
180: sampling than the HDF. The HUDF depth also allows us to characterize
181: the sky background very accurately, which is critical for successfully
182: using a stacking method to measure the mean surface-brightness
183: profiles for these faint young galaxies.
184:
185: This paper is organized as follows: In \secref{observations} we
186: summarize the HUDF observations, and in \secref{sample} we discuss the
187: selection of our $z\!\simeq\!4,5$ and $6$ samples. In
188: \secref{analysis} we describe our data analysis, which includes
189: accurately measuring the 1$\sigma$ sky-subtraction error, the image
190: stacking method to generate mean surface-brightness profiles, and our
191: test of its reliability. In \secref{results} we present and discuss
192: our results in terms of the average surface-brightness profiles of
193: $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ galaxies, and in \secref{conclusion} we conclude
194: with a summary of our results.
195:
196: Throughout this paper we refer to the \emph{HST}/ACS F435W, F606W,
197: F775W, and F850LP filters as the \bb-, \vv-, \ii-, and \zz-bands,
198: respectively. We assume a \emph{Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe}
199: (WMAP) cosmology of $\Omega_m$=0.24, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.76 and
200: \Ho=73~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$, in accord with the most recent 3-year
201: WMAP results of \citet{sper07}. This implies a current age for the
202: Universe of 13.65~Gyr. All magnitudes are given in the AB system
203: \citep{oke83}.
204:
205: %--------------------------------------------------
206:
207: \section{Observations}\label{observations}
208:
209: The HUDF contains \cge100 objects that are \ii-band dropouts, making
210: them candidates for galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!6$ \citep{bouw04, bouw06,
211: bunk04, yan04b}. Similarly, there are larger numbers of objects in
212: the HUDF that are \bb-band dropouts (415 in total) or \vv-band
213: dropouts (265 in total), and are candidates for galaxies at
214: $z\!\simeq\!4$ and $z\!\simeq\!5$, respectively. \citet{beck06} and
215: \citet{bouw07} find similar number of \bb- and \vv-band dropouts in
216: the HUDF. A significant fraction of these objects to AB\cle27~mag
217: have recently been spectroscopically confirmed to have redshifts
218: $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ through the detection of Ly$\alpha$ emission or
219: identifying their Lyman break \citep{ malh05,dow07}. We discuss our
220: detailed drop-out selection criteria below. Despite the depth
221: (AB\cle29.5~mag) of the HUDF images, however, these objects appear
222: very faint and with little, if any, discernible structural detail.
223: Visual inspection of all these objects shows their morphologies to
224: divide into four broad categories: symmetric, compact, elongated, and
225: amorphous.
226:
227: %--------------------------------------------------
228:
229: \section{Sample Selection}\label{sample}
230:
231: We construct three separate catalogs for these $z\!\simeq\!4,5,6$
232: galaxy candidates, selecting only the \emph{isolated}, \emph{compact}
233: and \emph{symmetric} galaxies. We exclude objects with obvious nearby
234: neighbors, to avoid a bias due to dynamically disturbed objects and
235: complications due to chance superpositions. \figref{fig1}
236: demonstrates that our completeness limit for $z\!\simeq\!4$ and
237: $z\!\simeq\!5$ objects is AB\cle29.3~mag, and for $z\!\simeq\!6$
238: objects it is AB\cle29.0~mag. Therefore, all three catalogs are
239: complete to AB\cle29.0~mag, which is equivalent to at least a
240: 10$\sigma$ detection for objects that are nearly point sources. For
241: each object in our $z\!\simeq\!4,5,6$ samples, we extracted
242: 51$\times$51 pixel postage stamps (which at 0\farcs03 pix$^{-1}$ span
243: $1\farcs53$ on a side) from the HUDF \vv, \ii\thinspace and \zz-band
244: images, respectively. Each postage stamp was extracted from the full
245: HUDF, such that the centroid of an object (usually coincident with the
246: brightest pixel) was at the center of that stamp.
247:
248: %--------------------------------------------------
249: \begin{figure}
250: \epsscale{1.0}
251: \plotone{f1.eps}
252: \caption{The HUDF number counts for all $z\!\simeq\!4, 5, 6$ objects
253: before the sub-selection of compact isolated $z\!\simeq\!4, 5, 6$
254: objects was made. The vertical dotted line shows the magnitude to
255: which the number counts of all these redshifts are complete. The area
256: of the HUDF is 3.15$\times$10$^{-3}$ deg$^2$.}\label{fig1}
257: \end{figure}
258: %--------------------------------------------------
259:
260: \subsection{\boldmath {The $z\!\simeq\!4$ and $z\!\simeq\!5$ Objects (\bb-, \vv-band dropouts)}}
261:
262: We used the \ii-band selected $BVi'z'$ HUDF catalog \citep{beck06} to
263: select the $z\!\simeq\!4$ and $z\!\simeq\!5$ objects. With the
264: \texttt{HyperZ} code \citep{bolz00}, we computed photometric redshift
265: estimates, using the magnitudes and associated uncertainties tabulated
266: in the HUDF catalog. All objects with 3.5$\leq\!z_{\rm
267: phot}\!\leq$4.5 were assigned to the bin of $z\!\simeq\!4$ candidates,
268: and all objects with 4.5$\leq\!z_{\rm phot}\!\leq$5.5 to the bin of
269: $z\!\simeq\!5$ candidates.
270:
271: We then applied color criteria, similar to those adopted by
272: \citet{giav04}, to select the \bb ($z\!\simeq\!4$) and \vv
273: ($z\!\simeq\!5$) dropout samples. For \bb-band dropouts, we require:
274: \begin{displaymath}
275: \left\{ \begin{array} {ll}
276: (B-V) \ge 1.2 + 1.4 \times (V-z') \quad \hbox{mag} \\
277: \hbox{and}\quad (B-V) \ge 1.2 \quad \hbox{mag} \\
278: \hbox{and}\quad (V-z') \le 1.2 \quad \hbox{mag}
279: \end{array} \right.
280: \end{displaymath}
281: For \vv-band dropouts, the following color selection was applied:
282: \begin{displaymath}
283: \left\{ \begin{array} {ll}
284: (V-i') > 1.5 + 0.9 \times (i'-z') \; \; \hbox{or} \; \; (V-i') > 2.0 \quad \hbox{mag} \\
285: \hbox{and}\quad (V-i') \ge 1.2 \quad \hbox{mag} \\
286: \hbox{and}\quad (i'-z') \le 1.3 \quad \hbox{mag}
287: \end{array} \right.
288: \end{displaymath}
289: We note, that only objects satisfying \emph{both} color \emph{and}
290: photometric redshift criteria were selected in our samples.
291: \citet{vanz06} using VLT/FORS2 observed $\sim$100 \bb-, \vv- and
292: \ii-band dropout objects in the Chandra Deep Field South (CDFS)
293: selected based on above mentioned color criteria \citep{giav04}. They
294: have spectroscopically confirmed $>$90\% of their high redshift galaxy
295: candidates. Therefore, we expect only a small number ($<$10\%) of
296: contaminants in our sample of dropouts. One or two objects in our
297: final sample could be such contaminants, but because we have 3
298: different realizations of 10 objects (3$\times$10), each showing
299: similar profiles, they do not appear to affect our results.
300:
301: The $z\!\simeq\!4$ sample has 415 objects, while the $z\!\simeq\!5$
302: sample has 265 objects. In \figref{fig2}ab, we show the distribution
303: of the FWHM and ellipticity, $\epsilon=(1-b/a)$, measured in each of
304: the two samples using \texttt{SExtractor} \citep{bert96}. We further
305: constrained our samples by imposing limits on compactness and on
306: roundness of FWHM $\le 0\farcs3$ and $\epsilon \le 0.3$. Again, this
307: is to minimize the probability that the $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!5$
308: candidates are significantly dynamically disturbed, and to maximize
309: the probability of selecting physically similar objects. Our goal is
310: to find the visibly most symmetric, least disturbed systems for the
311: current study. This sub-selection leaves 204 objects in the
312: $z\!\simeq\!4$ sample and 102 objects in the $z\!\simeq\!5$ sample.
313: Most of these objects are faint, and are only a few pixels across in
314: size, and, hence, have larger uncertainties in their measurements of
315: FWHM and ellipticity. Therefore, we also checked our objects visually
316: to eliminate any possibility of our selected objects being
317: contaminated by unrelated nearby objects, being clearly extended, or
318: objects with complex morphologies.
319:
320: %--------------------------------------------------
321: \begin{figure}
322: \epsscale{1.0}
323: \plotone{f2.eps}
324: \caption{Ellipticity, ($1-b/a$), versus object FWHM, for all
325: $z\!\simeq\!4$ {\bf {(a)}}, $z\!\simeq\!5$ {\bf {(b)}} and
326: $z\!\simeq\!6$ {\bf {(c)}} objects selected in the HUDF. Measurements
327: were performed in \ii-band for $z\!\simeq\!4$ and $z\!\simeq\!5$
328: objects, while we used the \zz-band for $z\!\simeq\!6$ objects. The
329: FWHM of a stellar image/PSF is $\sim$3 pixels or 0\farcs09, indicated
330: by the leftmost hatched area in each panel. Objects within the shaded
331: area meet our additional selection criteria on roundness ($\epsilon
332: \le 0.3$) and compactness (FWHM $\le 0\farcs3$ or 10
333: pixels).}\label{fig2}
334: \end{figure}
335: %--------------------------------------------------
336:
337: \subsection{\boldmath {$z\!\simeq\!6$ Objects (\ii-band dropouts)}}
338:
339: \citet{yan04b} found 108 possible 5.5$\leq\!z\!\leq$6.5 candidates in
340: the HUDF to $m_{AB}$($z_{850}$)=30.0~mag. \citet{bunk04} independently
341: found the brightest 54 of these 108 $z\!\simeq\!6$ candidates to
342: AB=28.5~mag. Similarly, deep \emph{HST}/ACS grism spectra of the HUDF
343: \ii-band dropouts confirm \cge90\% of these objects at AB\cle27.5 mag
344: to be at $z\!\simeq\!6$ \citep{malh05,hath07}. Using the catalog of
345: \citet{yan04b}, we extracted 108 postage stamps, each 51$\times$51
346: pixels in size, from the HUDF \zz-band image.
347:
348: Like for the $z\!\simeq\!4$ and $z\!\simeq\!5$ objects, for each
349: $z\!\simeq\!6$ object we measured its \zz-band FWHM and ellipticity
350: using \texttt{SExtractor}. \figref{fig2}c shows the measured
351: ellipticity versus FWHM for all 108 $z\!\simeq\!6$ candidates. A
352: smaller sample of 67 objects satisfies our constraints on the FWHM and
353: ellipticity. Further visual inspection, to make sure that our sample
354: has only isolated, compact and round objects, leaves 30 objects in our
355: $z\!\simeq\!6$ sample. We therefore imposed a sample size of 30
356: objects also on the two lower redshift bins after visual inspection.
357:
358: The results in this paper are therefore based on approximately
359: (30/415)$\sim$7\%, (30/265)$\sim$11\%, and (30/108)$\sim$28\% of the
360: total $z\!\simeq\!4,5$ and $6$ galaxy populations.
361:
362: %--------------------------------------------------
363:
364: \section{Results}\label{analysis}
365:
366: \subsection{The HUDF Sky Surface-Brightness Level and its rms Variation}\label{skyerror}
367:
368: For the present work, it is \emph{critical} that we accurately
369: characterize the sky-background, and correctly propagate the true
370: 1$\sigma$ errors due to the subtraction of this sky-background. In the
371: following, we will pursue two complimentary approaches to determine
372: the sky surface-brightness, and compare the results. Here, we discuss
373: the \zz-band measurements in detail.
374:
375: We first measured the sky-background in each of the 415 $z\!\simeq\!4$
376: object stamps (`local' sky measurements). The Interactive Data
377: Language (IDL\footnote{IDL Website http://www.ittvis.com/index.asp})
378: procedure \texttt{SKY/MMM.pro}\footnote{Part of the IDL Astronomy
379: User's Library, see: http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/homepage.html} was
380: used to measure the sky-background. This procedure is adapted from
381: the \texttt{DAOPHOT} \citep{stet87} routine of the same name and works
382: as follows. First, the average and sigma are obtained from the sky
383: pixels. Second, these values are used to eliminate outliers with a
384: low probability. Third, the values are then recomputed and the
385: process is repeated up to 20 iterations. If there is a contamination
386: due to an object, then the contamination is estimated by comparing the
387: mean and median of the remaining sky pixels to get the true sky value.
388: The output of this procedure is the modal sky-level in the image.
389:
390: \figref{fig3}c shows a histogram of the \zz-band modal sky values
391: obtained from all 415 object stamps extracted from the drizzled HUDF
392: images. The 1$\sigma$ uncertainty in the sky, $\sigma_{\rm sky}$,
393: determined from a Gaussian fit to the histogram, is
394: $2.19\times10^{-5}$ electrons sec$^{-1}$ in the \zz-band. The
395: sky-background level within the HUDF was obtained from the original
396: flat-fielded ACS images, because the final co-added HUDF data products
397: are sky-subtracted. The header parameters MDRIZSKY and EXPTIME were
398: used to obtain the actually observed sky-value. MDRIZSKY is the sky
399: value in electrons ($e^-$) computed by the MultiDrizzle code
400: \citep{koek02}, while EXPTIME is the total exposure time for the image
401: in seconds, so that the average sky-value in the HUDF has the units of
402: $e^-$ sec$^{-1}$. \figref{fig4}d shows the histogram of the
403: sky-values obtained from 288 HUDF \zz-band flat-fielded exposures.
404: The average value of the sky background, I$_{\rm sky}$, is 0.02051
405: $e^-$ sec$^{-1}$ pix$^{-1}$. That sky-value is measured from the
406: flat-fielded individual ACS images with pixel sizes of 0\farcs05
407: pix$^{-1}$ and hence, in the following calculations, the average
408: sky-value is multiplied by a factor of (0.030/0.05)$^2$=0.60$^2$ to
409: obtain the corresponding average sky-value for the HUDF drizzled pixel
410: size of 0\farcs030 pix$^{-1}$. Using these values, we estimate the
411: relative rms random sky-subtraction error as follows:
412: \[
413: \Sigma_{\rm ss,ran} = \frac{\sigma_{\rm sky,ran}}{{\rm I}_{\rm sky}} = \frac{2.19\times10^{-5}}{2.05\times10^{-2}\ \cdot\ 0.60^2} = 2.97\times10^{-3}
414: \]
415:
416: %--------------------------------------------------
417: \begin{figure}
418: \epsscale{1.0}
419: \plotone{f3.eps}
420: \caption{Distribution of the modal sky background level used to
421: estimate the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty in that level, as measured in the
422: 415 $z\!\simeq\!4$ \emph{object stamps} extracted from the drizzled
423: HUDF images {\bf {(a)}} for \vv-band, {\bf {(b)}} for \ii-band and
424: {\bf {(c)}} for \zz-band. The mean ($\mu$) and the sigma ($\sigma$)
425: of the best-fit Gaussian to these distributions are also shown in
426: each panel.}\label{fig3}
427: \end{figure}
428: %--------------------------------------------------
429: \begin{figure}
430: \epsscale{1.0}
431: \plotone{f4.eps}
432: \caption{The \emph{actual sky values} measured using header parameters
433: MDRIZSKY and EXPTIME from flat-fielded HUDF exposures. {\bf (a)} for
434: \bb-band using 112 exposures. {\bf (b)} for \vv-band using 112
435: exposures. {\bf (c)} for \ii-band using 288 exposures. {\bf (d)} for
436: \zz-band using 288 exposures. The mean ($\mu$) and the sigma
437: ($\sigma$) of the best-fit Gaussian to these distributions are shown
438: in each panel.}\label{fig4}
439: \end{figure}
440: %--------------------------------------------------
441:
442: The measured average sky background level can then be expressed as the \zz-band
443: sky surface brightness as follows:
444: \begin{eqnarray*}
445: \mu_{z'} &=& 24.862 - 2.5 \cdot \log\left(\frac{0.0205\ \cdot\ 0.60^2}{0.030^2} \right) \\
446: &=& 22.577 \pm 0.003 \ \hbox{mag arcsec}^{-2} \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\null
447: \end{eqnarray*}
448: where 24.862 is the ACS/WFC \zz-band AB zero-point, and 0\farcs030
449: pixel$^{-1}$ is the drizzled pixel scale. This is consistent with the
450: values obtained by extrapolating the on-orbit $BVI$ sky surface
451: brightness of \citet{wind94,wind98} to \zz, with the sky-background
452: estimates from the ACS Instrument Handbook \citep{gonz05}, and with
453: the colors obtained by convolving the filter transmission curves with
454: the solar spectrum. \tabref{table1} gives the measured electron
455: detection rate, surface brightness and colors of the sky background
456: with their corresponding errors for the HUDF $BVi'z'$ bands as
457: calculated from \figref{fig3} and \figref{fig4}. The contribution of
458: the zodiacal background dominates the total sky-background, which we
459: find to be only $\sim$10\% redder in (\vv--\ii) and (\ii--\zz) than
460: the Sun. The \zz-band surface brightness corresponding to the
461: 1$\sigma$ sky-subtraction uncertainty is therefore:
462: \begin{eqnarray*}
463: \mu_{z'} - 2.5\cdot \log (\Sigma_{\rm ss,ran}) &=& 22.577 - 2.5\cdot \log (2.97\times10^{-3}) \\
464: &=& 28.895\ \hbox{mag arcsec}^{-2}
465: \end{eqnarray*}
466:
467: Next, we measure the sky-background from 415 `\emph{blank}' sky stamps
468: (51$\times$51 pixel) distributed throughout the HUDF (`global' sky
469: measurements). We measure the sky background using the same IDL
470: algorithm as used above.
471:
472: \figref{fig5}c shows the histogram of the measured \zz-band modal sky
473: values. A Gaussian distribution was fit to this histogram, giving a
474: sky-sigma of $2.00\times10^{-5}$ $e^-$ sec$^{-1}$. The average value
475: of the sky remains 0.02051 $e^-$ sec$^{-1}$ (\figref{fig4}d). Using
476: these values, we can estimate a relative rms systematic
477: sky-subtraction error as follows:
478: \[
479: \Sigma_{\rm ss,sys} = \frac{\sigma_{\rm sky,sys}}{{\rm I}_{\rm sky}} = \frac{2.00\times10^{-5}}{2.05\times10^{-2}\ \cdot\ 0.60^2} = 2.71\times10^{-3}
480: \]
481: Since the \zz-band sky surface brightness remains 22.577 mag
482: arcsec$^{-2}$, this gives us for the surface brightness corresponding
483: to the 1$\sigma$ sky subtraction uncertainty:
484: \begin{eqnarray*}
485: \mu_{z'} - 2.5\cdot \log (\Sigma_{\rm ss,sys}) &=& 22.577 - 2.5\cdot \log (2.71\times10^{-3}) \\
486: &=& 28.995\ \hbox{mag arcsec}^{-2}
487: \end{eqnarray*}
488:
489: %--------------------------------------------------
490: \begin{figure}
491: \epsscale{1.0}
492: \plotone{f5.eps}
493: \caption{Distribution of the modal sky background level used to
494: estimate the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty in that level, as measured in 415
495: \emph{`blank' 51$\times$51 pixel sky stamps} extracted from the
496: drizzled HUDF images {\bf (a)} for \vv-band, {\bf (b)} for \ii-band
497: and {\bf (c)} for \zz-band. The mean ($\mu$) and the sigma ($\sigma$)
498: of to the best-fit Gaussian to these distributions are shown in each
499: panel.}\label{fig5}
500: \end{figure}
501: %--------------------------------------------------
502:
503: From these two complementary approaches, we can conclude that all
504: surface brightness measurements become unreliable for
505: surface-brightness levels fainter than 28.95$\pm$0.05~mag
506: arcsec$^{-2}$ in the \zz-band. We have also experimented with slightly
507: larger cutouts (75$\times$75 pixels instead of 51$\times$51 pixels) to
508: estimate the sky-subtraction error. We find that with the larger
509: cutouts, the surface brightness corresponding to the 1$\sigma$
510: sky-subtraction error is $\sim$0.1--0.2 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ fainter.
511: For larger cutouts we expect this surface brightness to be $\sim$0.4
512: mag fainter but we find about 0.1--0.2 mag fainter. This might be
513: because of residual systematic errors in the HUDF images. Therefore,
514: we are at the limit of accurately measuring this surface brightness
515: and hence, we will here quote the conservative brighter limit of the
516: surface brightness corresponding to this 1$\sigma$ sky-subtraction
517: error. Expected contributions to this surface brightness due to
518: uncertainties in the bias level determinations, which correspond to
519: $\sim$0.001 counts sec$^{-1}$ for typical HUDF exposures (A. M.
520: Koekemoer; private communication), are less than 1\%.
521:
522: \figref{fig5} clearly shows that the distribution of the modal
523: sky-values is not as symmetric around zero as in \figref{fig3}, and
524: hence, the use of a `global' sky value for the HUDF is not as reliable
525: as `local' sky measurements. Therefore, for the surface brightness
526: profiles and the following discussion, we will adopt the \emph{local}
527: 1$\sigma$ random sky-subtraction error for all objects in our study.
528:
529: The average modal sky values and their 1$\sigma$ errors in the \vv-
530: and \ii-bands were calculated in exactly the same way as for the
531: \zz-band, as shown in \figref{fig3}, 4 and 5. The resulting $BVi'z'$
532: sky values and the sky surface-brightness levels are all given in
533: \tabref{table1}.
534:
535: %--------------------------------------------------
536: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccc}
537: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
538: \tablewidth{0pt}
539: \tablecaption{Measured sky values in $BVi'z'$ (filters) for the HUDF \label{table1}}
540: \tablenum{1}
541: \tablehead{\colhead{HUDF} & \colhead{Number of} & \colhead{Mean Sky Value$^a$} & \colhead{Sky SB$^c$} &
542: \colhead{Sky Color$^c$} & \colhead{1$\sigma$ Sky-Subtraction} \\
543: \colhead{Filter} & \colhead{Exposures} & \colhead{($e^-$/s) and rms error$^b$} & \colhead{(AB mag arcsec$^{-\
544: 2}$)} & \colhead{(AB mag)} & \colhead{error (AB mag arcsec$^{-2}$)} }
545:
546: \startdata
547: $B$ & 112 & 0.015909 $\pm$ 0.000065 & 23.664 $\pm$ 0.003 & ($B-V$)$_{\rm sky}$=0.800 & 29.85 $\pm$ 0.05 \\
548: $V$ & 112 & 0.070276 $\pm$ 0.000297 & 22.864 $\pm$ 0.002 & ($V-i'$)$_{\rm sky}$=0.222 & 30.15 $\pm$ 0.15 \\
549: $i'$ & 288 & 0.040075 $\pm$ 0.000088 & 22.642 $\pm$ 0.002 & ($i'-z'$)$_{\rm sky}$=0.065 & 29.77 $\pm$ 0.20 \\
550: $z'$ & 288 & 0.020511 $\pm$ 0.000047 & 22.577 $\pm$ 0.003 & ($V-z'$)$_{\rm sky}$=0.287 & 28.95 $\pm$ 0.05 \\
551: \enddata
552:
553: \tablenotetext{a}{From \figref{fig4}}
554: \tablenotetext{b}{Error is standard deviation of the mean ($\sigma$/$\surd{N}$)}
555: \tablenotetext{c}{Sky surface brightness values and colors are consistent with the solar colors in AB mag of
556: (\vv-\ii)=0.19, (\vv-\zz)=0.21 and (\ii-\zz)=0.01 [except for bluest color (\bb-\vv)], and is dominated by
557: the zodiacal background.}
558: \end{deluxetable*}
559: %--------------------------------------------------
560:
561: \subsection{Composite Images and Surface Brightness Profiles}
562:
563: For each redshift bin ($z\!\simeq\!4,5,6$), we generated three
564: ``stacked'' composite images from subsets of 10 postage stamps that
565: were selected as follows. After placing all 30 image stamps per
566: redshift bin into a $30\times$ (51$\times$51) pixel IDL array, 10
567: stamps were randomly drawn without selecting any object more than
568: once. An output image was generated, in which the values at each
569: pixel are the average of the corresponding pixels in the 10 selected
570: input stamps. From the remaining 20 stamps, we again randomly select
571: 10, from which we generated a second composite image, after which the
572: final 10 images were averaged into the third composite image. The
573: three composite images per redshift bin are therefore independent of
574: each other. In none of our realizations did we produce composite
575: images that were essentially unresolved. Even the faintest
576: $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ galaxies are clearly resolved. The
577: $z\!\simeq\!4,5,6$ objects used to generate the composite images have
578: an apparent magnitude range of approximately 27.5$\pm$1.0 AB mag.
579: Because the magnitude range is relatively small and the S/N per pixel
580: is low even in their central pixel, we have given all objects equal
581: weight. To test whether this range in magnitude will affect our
582: stacks and hence, our profiles, we created 3 stacks depending on the
583: apparent magnitude, i.e. one stack of the 10 brightest objects in the
584: sample, a second stack of the 10 next brightest objects in the sample
585: and a third stack of the 10 faintest objects in the sample. This is
586: summarized in \figref{fig6}d. We found that the profiles were very
587: similar except that the profiles of the fainter stacks fall-off more
588: quickly at larger radius compared to the profile of the brightest
589: stack, but the inner profile and the deviation in the profiles are
590: clearly visible in all 3 stacks. Therefore, we conclude that for our
591: range in apparent magnitudes, our stacks/profiles are not
592: affected. Perhaps most surprisingly, \figref{fig6}d shows that $r_e$
593: value of all 3 flux ranges ($\sim$26.0--27.0, $\sim$27.0--28.0 \&
594: $\sim$28.0--29.0 mag) are all about the same over $\sim$3-4 mag in
595: flux, so the primary parameter that distinguishes the brighter from
596: the fainter $z\!\simeq\!6$ dropouts is their central surface
597: brightness (which thus also varies by $\sim$3--4 mag).
598:
599: %--------------------------------------------------
600: \begin{figure}
601: \epsscale{1.0}
602: \plotone{f6.eps}
603: \caption{Composite surface brightness profiles for three independent
604: sets of 10 objects at {\bf (a)} $z\!\simeq\!4$, {\bf (b)}
605: $z\!\simeq\!5$ and {\bf (c)} $z\!\simeq\!6$, respectively. The thin
606: solid curve represents the ACS \vv, \ii\thinspace and \zz-band PSFs,
607: respectively, while the horizontal dashed line indicates the surface
608: brightness level corresponding to the 1$\sigma$ sky--subtraction error
609: in the HUDF images. The vertical dotted line marks the radius at which
610: the profile starts to deviate significantly from the extrapolation of
611: the inner $r^{1/n}$ profile observed at smaller radii. Note that at
612: $z\!\simeq\!6$, this deviation is still well above the red \zz-band
613: PSF halo at $r$\cge0\farcs30. The panel {\bf (d)} shows 3
614: $z\!\simeq\!6$ composite profiles (each with a set of 10 objects)
615: divided by apparent magnitudes. The brightest composite profile
616: (dotted) has an average \zz-band magnitude of $\sim$26.8 mag. The
617: next brightest composite profile (short dash) has an average \zz-band
618: magnitude of $\sim$27.9 mag, and the faintest composite profile
619: (dot-dash) has an average \zz-band magnitude of $\sim$28.9
620: mag.}\label{fig6}
621: \end{figure}
622: %--------------------------------------------------
623:
624: We used the IRAF\footnote{IRAF (http://iraf.net) is distributed by the
625: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the
626: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under
627: cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.}
628: procedure \texttt{ELLIPSE} to fit surface brightness profiles shown in
629: \figref{fig6} to each of the three independent composite images per
630: redshift bin. We also computed a mean surface-brightness profile from
631: the three composite surface brightness profiles generated from the
632: three independent composite images for each redshift bin.
633: \figref{fig7} shows composite images for $z\!\simeq\!4,5,6$ objects.
634: Here each composite image is a stack of 30 objects.
635: \figref{fig8} shows the average surface brightness profiles for each
636: of the redshift intervals $z\!\simeq\!4,5,6$. The thin solid curves
637: in \figref{fig6} and the dot-dash curves in \figref{fig8} represent
638: the observed ACS \vv, \ii\thinspace and \zz-band Point Spread
639: Functions (PSFs), while the horizontal dashed lines indicate the
640: surface brightness level corresponding to the 1$\sigma$
641: sky--subtraction error in each of the HUDF images as discussed in
642: \secref{skyerror}. It is important to note that we scaled the ACS
643: PSFs to match the surface brightness of the central data point in our
644: mean surface-brightness profile, to determine how extended the mean
645: surface-brightness profile is with respect to the PSFs.
646:
647: In \figref{fig8}, we fitted all possible combinations of the
648: Sers\'{i}c profiles (convolved with the ACS PSF) to the observed
649: profiles and using $\chi^2$ minimization, found the best fits for
650: galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4,5,6$. The best fit S\'{e}rsic index ($n$)
651: for all three profiles ($z\!\simeq\!4,5,6$) is $n\!<\!2$, meaning
652: these galaxies follow mostly exponential disk-type profiles in their
653: central regions. We find that the observed profiles start to deviate
654: from the best-fit profiles at $r\!\gtrsim$0\arcspt 27, somewhat
655: depending on the redshift. From \figref{fig8}, we also see that in
656: each of $V$ ($z\!\simeq\!4$), $i'$ ($z\!\simeq\!5$) and $z'$
657: ($z\!\simeq\!6$), the PSF declines more rapidly with radius than the
658: composite radial surface brightness profile for $r\!\gtrsim$0\arcspt
659: 27. It is therefore unlikely that the observed `breaks' result from
660: the halos and structure of the ACS PSFs. Specifically, at
661: $z\!\simeq\!6$ the most significant deviations in the light-profiles
662: are seen at levels 1.5--2.0 mag above the 1$\sigma$ sky-subtraction
663: error, and well above the PSF wings. Each of the mean surface
664: brightness profiles display a well-defined break, the radius of which
665: appears to change somewhat with redshift. The vertical dotted lines
666: (in \figref{fig6} and \figref{fig8}) mark the radius at which the mean
667: surface brightness profiles start to deviate significantly from the
668: extrapolation of the $r^{1/n}$ profile observed at smaller radii.
669:
670: %--------------------------------------------------
671: \begin{figure}
672: \epsscale{1.0}
673: \plotone{f7.eps}
674: \caption{Composite images for {\bf Left} $z\!\simeq\!4$, {\bf Center}
675: $z\!\simeq\!5$ and {\bf Right} $z\!\simeq\!6$ objects. Here each
676: composite image is a stack of 30 objects. Each stamp is $1\farcs53$ on
677: a side.}\label{fig7}
678: \end{figure}
679: %--------------------------------------------------
680: \begin{figure}
681: \epsscale{1.1}
682: \plottwo{f8a.eps}{f8b.eps}
683: \epsscale{0.5}
684: \plotone{f8c.eps}
685: \caption{Mean surface brightness profiles with a best fit S\'{e}rsic
686: profiles for 30 composite images at {\bf (a)} $z\!\simeq\!4$, {\bf
687: (b)} $z\!\simeq\!5$ and {\bf (c)} $z\!\simeq\!6$, respectively. The
688: thin dot-dash curve represents the ACS \vv, \ii\thinspace and \zz-band
689: PSFs, respectively, while the horizontal dashed line indicates the
690: surface brightness level corresponding to the 1$\sigma$
691: sky--subtraction error in the HUDF images. The vertical dotted line
692: marks the radius at which the profile starts to deviate significantly
693: from the extrapolation of the inner $r^{1/n}$ profile observed at
694: smaller radii. The $n$ and r$_c$ are the best fit S\'{e}rsic
695: parameters. }\label{fig8}
696: \end{figure}
697: %--------------------------------------------------
698:
699: \subsection{Test of the Stacking Technique on Nearby Galaxies}
700:
701: To test the general validity of the stacking technique itself on a
702: local galaxy sample, we used surface photometry from the Nearby Field
703: Galaxy Survey \citep[NFGS:][]{jans00a,jans00b}. The NFGS sample
704: contains 196 nearby galaxies, that were objectively selected from the
705: CfA redshift catalog \citep[CfA\,I;][]{davi83,huch83} to span the full
706: range in absolute $B$ magnitude present in the CfA\,I ($-14.7\lesssim
707: \!M_B\!\lesssim -22.7$ mag). The absolute magnitude distribution in
708: the NFGS sample approximates the local galaxy luminosity function
709: \citep[e.g.,][]{marz94}, while the distribution over Hubble type
710: follows the changing mix of morphological types as a function of
711: luminosity in the local galaxy population. The NFGS sample \citep[as
712: detailed in][]{jans00a} minimizes biases, and yields a sample that,
713: with very few caveats, is representative of the local galaxy
714: population. As part of the NFGS, $UBR$ surface photometry, both
715: integrated (global) and nuclear spectrophotometry, as well as internal
716: kinematics were obtained \citep[see][]{jans01}. Here, we will
717: concentrate on the $U$-band surface photometry, since it is closest in
718: wavelength to the rest-frame wavelengths observed at
719: $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$. Although, ideally, we would want a filter
720: further into the UV, \citet{tayl07} and \citet{wind02} show that for
721: the majority of late-type nearby galaxies, the apparent structure of
722: galaxies does not change dramatically once one observes shortward of
723: the Balmer break. Early-type galaxies, however, are a clear exception
724: to this, but these are not believed to dominate the galaxy population
725: at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$, as discussed before.
726:
727: \figref{fig9} shows stacked profiles for relatively luminous early-,
728: spiral-, and late-type galaxies drawn from the NFGS. Vertical dotted
729: lines indicate the half-light radii and their intersection with the
730: profiles, the surface brightness at that radius. Dashed lines
731: indicate exponential fits to the outer portion of each profile.
732: \figref{fig9} also shows that co-adding profiles for disparate
733: morphological types and for mid-type spiral galaxies with a range in
734: bulge-to-disk ratios can produce breaks in the composite profile. No
735: such breaks are seen when the profiles of either early-type galaxies
736: (E, S0) or late-type galaxies (Sd--Irr) are co-added. This figure
737: shows that, \emph{if} galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ had similar
738: morphological types as local galaxies, then it would be possible to
739: produce a break in the profiles (as shown in \figref{fig6} and
740: \figref{fig8}), merely by mixing different types of galaxies. We do
741: not believe that the galaxy populations at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$
742: morphologically resemble those at low redshift. Hence, for primarily
743: late-type galaxies, which dominate the faint blue galaxy population at
744: AB$\ge$24 mag \citep{driv98}, and which likely dominate the fainter
745: end of the luminosity function at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ that we sample
746: here \citep{yan04a,yan04b}, the image stacking is likely a valid
747: exercise.
748:
749: %--------------------------------------------------
750: \begin{figure}
751: \epsscale{1.0}
752: \plotone{f9.eps}
753: \caption{Stacked radial surface brightness profiles for relatively
754: luminous early-, spiral- and late-type nearby galaxies drawn from the
755: Nearby Field Galaxy Survey \citep{jans00a,jans00b}. The vertical
756: dotted line indicates the half-light radius, while the dashed line
757: represents an exponential fit to the outer portions of each composite
758: profile. Co-adding profiles for disparate morphological types and for
759: spiral galaxies with a range in bulge-to-disk ratios can produce
760: breaks in the composite profile. No significant breaks are seen in the
761: \emph{outer} light profiles, when the profiles of either early-type
762: galaxies (E, S0) or late-type galaxies (Sd--Irr) are
763: co-added.}\label{fig9}
764: \end{figure}
765: %--------------------------------------------------
766:
767: The primary goal of this section was to show that the profile stacking
768: technique is valid and can be used to get meaningful surface
769: brightness profiles. We are not comparing our nearby sample with
770: galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$. These nearby galaxies are unlikely
771: to be local analogues of high redshift galaxies. If we apply surface
772: brightness dimming to UV light-profiles of these nearby galaxies, they
773: would be mostly invisible to \emph{HST}, and in some cases visible to
774: \emph{JWST} in long integration \citep[see e.g.][]{wind06}. This is
775: another way of saying that the $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ objects are truly
776: different from $z\!\simeq\!0$ objects.
777:
778: %--------------------------------------------------
779:
780: \section{Discussions}\label{results}
781:
782: \figref{fig8} shows that the mean surface brightness profiles deviate
783: significantly from an inner $r^{1/n}$ profile at radii
784: $r\!\gtrsim$0\arcspt 27--0\arcspt 35, depending somewhat on the
785: redshift bin. These deviations appear real, with the break/point of
786: departure located \cge 1.5--2~mag above the 1$\sigma$ sky-subtraction
787: error and above the PSF-wings. In the following, we discuss several
788: possible explanations for the observed shapes of our composite surface
789: brightness profiles.
790:
791: \subsection{Galaxies with Different Morphologies}
792:
793: Our test on nearby galaxies (\figref{fig9}) shows that, if we stack
794: many galaxies with different morphologies (early-type, late-type or
795: spiral galaxies), it is possible to get a slope-change (`break') in
796: the average surface brightness profile. \citet{ravi06} find that 40\%
797: of the brighter LBGs at $2.5\!<\!z\!<\!5$ have light profiles close to
798: exponential, as seen for disk galaxies, and only $\sim$30\% have high
799: $n$, as seen in nearby spheroids. They also find a significant
800: fraction ($\sim$30\%) of galaxies with light profiles \emph{shallower}
801: than exponential, which appear to have multiple cores or disturbed
802: morphologies, suggestive of close pairs or on-going galaxy mergers.
803: Therefore, if galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ have a variety of
804: morphological types, then the shape of the average surface brightness
805: profile that we see may be due to the stacking of different types of
806: galaxies. Therefore, we find that the exponential and the flatter
807: profiles found by \citet{ravi06} for galaxies at $2.5\!<\!z\!<\!5$
808: also apply to higher redshifts ($z\!\ge\!5$).
809:
810: Also, we believe that it is more likely that the high redshift, faint
811: galaxy population consists primarily of small galaxies with late-type
812: morphologies and with sub-L$^{*}$ luminosities, as seen at
813: $z\!\simeq\!2\!-\!3$ \citep{driv95,driv98}. So if the
814: $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ population consists of such a late-type galaxy
815: population, then the slope-change in the light profiles is likely not
816: the result of co-adding images of objects with disparate morphological
817: types.
818:
819: \subsection{Central Star Formation/Starburst}
820:
821: \emph{HST} optical images of galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ sample
822: their rest-frame UV ($\sim$1200 \Ang), where the contribution from the
823: actively star-forming regions (very young, massive stars) dominates
824: the UV-light. \citet{hath07} have shown that galaxies at
825: $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ are high redshift starbursts and these galaxies
826: have similar starburst intensity limit as local starbursting galaxies.
827: Therefore, it is possible that galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ have
828: centrally concentrated star formation or starburst. This possibility
829: is based on three key assumptions: (1) most of the galaxies at
830: $z\!\simeq\!4,5,6$ are intrinsically later-type galaxies
831: \citep{driv98,stei99}; (2) the Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) of
832: these galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4,5,6$ are dominated by early A- to late
833: O-type stars, respectively; and (3) there are no old stars with ages
834: at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ greater than 2-1 Gyr in WMAP cosmology,
835: respectively.
836:
837: \citet{hunt06} studied azimuthally averaged surface photometry
838: profiles for large sample of nearby irregular galaxies. They find some
839: galaxies have double exponentials that are steeper (and bluer) in the
840: inner parts compared to outer parts of the galaxy. \citet{hunt06}
841: discuss that this type of behavior is expected in galaxies where the
842: centrally concentrated star formation or starburst steepens the
843: surface brightness profiles in the center. If that is the case, then
844: one might expect a better correlation between the break in the surface
845: brightness profiles and changes in color profiles. Unfortunately, for
846: our sample of galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$, we don't have high-
847: resolution restframe \uu\bb\vv color information. The objects are
848: generally too faint for \emph{Spitzer Space Telescope}, and hence we
849: cannot confirm or reject this possibility for the shape of our
850: composite surface brightness profiles.
851:
852: \subsection{\boldmath {Limits to Dynamical Ages for $z\!\simeq\!4,5,6$ Objects}}\label{ages}
853:
854: The average compact $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ galaxy is clearly extended
855: with respect to the ACS PSFs (\figref{fig8}), and is best fit by an
856: exponential profile ($n\!<\!2$) out to a radius of about
857: $r\!\simeq$0\arcspt 35, 0\arcspt 31, and 0\arcspt 27 at
858: $z\!\simeq\!4,5$ and $6$, respectively. The apparent progression with
859: redshift is noteworthy. The radius at which the profile starts to
860: deviate from $r^{1/n}$ (in this case at radius $r$\cge 0\arcspt
861: 35--0\arcspt 27) may be an important constraint to the dynamical time
862: scale of the system, as discussed in \secref{introduction}. If this
863: argument is valid, then we can estimate limits to the dynamical ages
864: of $z\!\simeq\!4,5,6$ galaxies as follows.
865:
866: In WMAP cosmology, a radius of $r$\cge 0\arcspt 35 at $z\!\simeq\!4$
867: corresponds to $r$\cge 2.5 kpc. The dynamical time scale
868: \citep[e.g.,][]{binn87}, $\tau_{dyn}$, goes as $\tau_{dyn}$ = $C
869: r^{3/2} \!/\!\sqrt{G\,M}$, where the constant $C=\pi/2$. For a typical
870: dwarf galaxy mass range of $\sim10^9\!-\!10^8$\Msun inside $r$=2.5
871: kpc, we infer that the limits to the dynamical age would be
872: $\tau_{dyn}\simeq$ 90--290 Myr, which is the lifespan expected for a
873: late-type B-star. This means that the last major merger that affected
874: this surface brightness profile and that triggered its associated
875: starburst may have occurred $\sim$0.20 Gyr before $z\!\simeq\!4$,
876: ---assuming that the star-formation wasn't spontaneous, but associated
877: with some accretion or a merging event.
878:
879: Table 2 shows the break-radius and inferred limits to dynamical ages
880: for the $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ objects. At $z\!\simeq\!5$, we find that
881: the limits to dynamical age at the break radius would be
882: $\tau_{dyn}\simeq$ 70--210 Myr, which is the lifespan expected for a
883: mid B-star, while at $z\!\simeq\!6$, $\tau_{dyn}\simeq$ 50--150 Myr,
884: which is the lifespan expected for a late O--early B-star. This means
885: that the last major merger that affected these surface brightness
886: profiles at $z\!\simeq\!5$ and $6$ and that triggered its associated
887: starburst may have occurred $\sim$0.14 and $\sim$0.10 Gyr before
888: $z\!\simeq\!5$ and $6$, respectively.
889:
890: %--------------------------------------------------
891: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
892: \tablewidth{0pt}
893: \tablecaption{Dynamical Ages for $z\!\simeq\!4-6$ objects in the HUDF\label{table2}}
894: \tablenum{2}
895: \tablehead{\colhead{Redshift} & \colhead{``Break'' Radius$^a$} & \colhead{``Break'' Radius$^b$} &
896: \colhead{Dynamical Age$^c$} \\
897: \colhead{$z$} & \colhead{(arcsec)} & \colhead{(kpc)} & \colhead{($\tau_{dyn}$)} }
898:
899: \startdata
900: 4 & 0.35 & 2.5 & 0.09--0.29 Gyr \\
901: 5 & 0.31 & 2.0 & 0.07--0.21 Gyr \\
902: 6 & 0.27 & 1.6 & 0.05--0.15 Gyr \\
903: \enddata
904:
905: \tablenotetext{a}{From composite surface brightness profiles (\figref{fig6} and \figref{fig8}).}
906: \tablenotetext{b}{Radius in kpc corresponding to radius in arcsec at given redshift.}
907: \tablenotetext{c}{If ``break radius'' interpreted as indicator of dynamical age.}
908: \end{deluxetable}
909: %--------------------------------------------------
910:
911: The dynamical time is a lower limit to the actual time available,
912: since it assumes matter starts from rest. Any angular momentum at
913: start will increase the available time. The best-fit SED age from the
914: GOODS \emph{HST} and \emph{Spitzer} photometry on some of the brighter
915: of these objects --- using \citet{bruz03} templates --- is in the
916: range of about $\sim$150--650 Myr \citep{yan05,eyle05,eyle07}, the
917: lower end of which is consistent with our limits to their dynamical
918: age estimates, while the somewhat larger SED ages could also be
919: affected by the onset of the AGB in the stellar population increasing
920: the observed \emph{Spitzer} fluxes and hence possibly overestimating
921: ages \citep{mara05}. Our age estimates for $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ are
922: consistent with the trend of SED ages suggested for $z\!\simeq\!7$
923: \citep{labb06}. It is noteworthy that, given the uncertainties, the
924: two independent age estimates are consistent. If our limits to
925: dynamical age estimates for the image \emph{stacks} are thus valid,
926: they are consistent with the SED ages, and point to a consistent young
927: age for these objects.
928:
929: Furthermore, the presence of young, massive late O--early B-stars at
930: $z\!\simeq\!6$ has implications for the reionization of the universe.
931: From observations of the appearance of complete Gunn-Peterson troughs
932: in the spectra of $z\!\ga\!5.8$ quasars \citep{fan06}, we know that
933: the epoch of reionization had ended by $z\!\simeq\!6$. From the steep
934: ($\alpha$=--1.8) faint-end slope of the luminosity function of
935: $z\!\simeq\!6$ galaxies, \citet{yan04a,yan04b} concluded that dwarf
936: galaxies, and not quasars, likely finished reionization by
937: $z\!\simeq\!6$. Should the present interpretation of their light
938: profiles be correct, then it would appear to add support to this
939: picture, in the sense that such objects are dominated by B-stars and
940: did not start their most recent major starburst long before
941: $z\!\simeq\!6$.
942:
943: \section{Summary}\label{conclusion}
944:
945: We used the stacked HUDF images to analyze the average surface
946: brightness profiles of $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ galaxies. Our analysis
947: shows that even the faintest galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$ are
948: resolved. This may have implications on the stellar density and its
949: relation to the stellar density in present-day galaxies. We also find
950: that the average surface brightness profiles display breaks at a
951: radius that progresses toward lower redshift from $r\simeq$0\arcspt 27
952: (1.6 kpc) at $z\!\simeq\!6$ to $r\simeq$0\arcspt 35 (2.5 kpc) at
953: $z\!\simeq\!4$.
954:
955: The shape of the radial surface brightness profile that we observe
956: could result from a mixture of different morphological types of
957: galaxies, if they exist at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$, because we can
958: produce similar breaks in the surface brightness profiles when we mix
959: different types of nearby galaxies. Alternatively, if these galaxies
960: are dominated by a central starburst then they could show such double
961: exponential-type profiles, as discussed by \citet{hunt06}. In a third
962: scenario, if the galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!4-6$ are truly young and
963: mostly late-type, the outer profiles seen in our mean radial surface
964: brightness profiles at $z\!\simeq\!4-6$ bear the imprint of the
965: hierarchical build-up process, and are still dominated by infalling
966: material, which is \emph{not} detectable in the individual HUDF images
967: of these faint objects. We have estimated limits to dynamical ages
968: from the break radius at $z\!\simeq\!4, 5, 6$, very roughly as
969: $\sim$0.20, 0.14 and 0.10 Gyr, respectively, and those ages are
970: similar to the SED ages inferred at $z\!\simeq\!4\!-\!6$
971: \citep{yan05,eyle05,eyle07}, and consistent with SED ages suggested
972: for $z\!\simeq\!7$ \citep{labb06}. Hence, at $z\!\simeq\!4, 5, 6$,
973: the last major merger that affected the surface brightness profiles
974: that we observe, and that triggered the observed star-burst, may have
975: occurred respectively $\sim$0.20, 0.14 and 0.10 Gyr earlier, or very
976: approximately at $z\!\simeq\!4.5, 5.5, 6.5$. This would be consistent
977: with the hierarchical assembly of galaxies and with the end of
978: reionization, since it would imply that from $z\!\simeq\!4$ to
979: $z\!\simeq\!6$, the SEDs become progressively more dominated by
980: late-B--late-O stars. This implies that the sub-$L^*$ (i.e. dwarf)
981: galaxies may have produced sufficient numbers of energetic UV photons
982: to complete the reionization process by $z\!\simeq\!6$, as
983: \citet{yan04a,yan04b} suggested. It will be imperative to study with
984: future instruments like \emph{HST}/WFC3 and \emph{JWST}
985: \citep{wind06,wind07} whether the dominant stellar population indeed
986: changes from late-O--early-B at $z\!\simeq\!6$ (i.e. capable of
987: reionizing) to mid- to late-B at $z\!\simeq\!4-5$ (i.e. capable of
988: maintaining reionization), and to what extent the intrinsic sizes of
989: these faint objects will ultimately limit deep \emph{JWST} surveys.
990:
991: %--------------------------------------------------
992:
993: \acknowledgments This work was partially supported by HST grants AR
994: 10298 and GO 9780 from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is
995: operated by AURA under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. The authors thank
996: Deidre Hunter, Alan Dressler, Henry Ferguson, Anton Koekemoer, Robert
997: Morgan for their helpful discussions. RAW acknowledges support from
998: NASA JWST Interdisciplinary Scientist grant NAG5-12460 from GSFC, that
999: supported an investigation of the implications of this work for JWST.
1000: We specially thank our referee, Dr. Patrick McCarthy, for his helpful
1001: comments that have improved this paper.
1002:
1003: Facilities: \facility{HST(ACS)}
1004: %--------------------------------------------------
1005:
1006: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1007: \bibitem[Beckwith \etal(2006)]{beck06} Beckwith, S., Stiavelli, M.,
1008: Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1729
1009: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{bert96} Bertin, E., \& Arnouts,
1010: S. 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393
1011: \bibitem[Binney \& Tremaine(1987)]{binn87} Binney, J. J., \& Tremaine,
1012: S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press)
1013: \bibitem[Bolzonella \etal(2000)]{bolz00} Bolzonella, M., Miralles,
1014: J. M., \& Pell\'{o}, R. 2000, A\&A, 363, 476
1015: \bibitem[Bouwens \etal(2004)]{bouw04} Bouwens, R., Illingworth, G. D.,
1016: Thompson, R. I., et al. 2004, ApJ, 606, L25
1017: \bibitem[Bouwens \etal(2006)]{bouw06} Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth,
1018: G. D., Blakeslee, J. P., \& Franx, M. 2006, ApJ, 653, 53
1019: \bibitem[Bouwens \etal(2007)]{bouw07} Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth,
1020: G. D., Franx, M., \& Ford, H. 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0707.2080)
1021: \bibitem[Brandt \etal(2001)]{bran01} Brandt, W. N., Hornschemeier,
1022: A. E., Schneider, D. P., Alexander, D. M., Bauer, F. E., Garmire,
1023: G. P., \& Vignali, C. 2001, ApJ, 558, L5
1024: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bruz03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot,
1025: S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
1026: \bibitem[Bunker \& Stanway(2004)]{bunk04} Bunker, A. J., \& Stanway,
1027: E. R. 2004, (astro-ph/0407562)
1028: \bibitem[Cowie \etal(1996)]{cowi96} Cowie, L. L., Songaila, A., Hu,
1029: E. M., \& Cohen, J. G. 1996, AJ, 112, 839
1030: \bibitem[Davis \& Peebles(1983)]{davi83} Davis, M., \& Peebles,
1031: P. J. M. 1983, ApJ, 267, 465
1032: \bibitem[Dow-Hygelund \etal(2007)]{dow07} Dow-Hygelund, C.,
1033: Holden, B., Bouwens, R., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, 47
1034: \bibitem[Driver \etal(1995)]{driv95} Driver, S. P., Windhorst, R. A.,
1035: \& Griffiths, R. E. 1995, ApJ, 453, 48
1036: \bibitem[Driver \etal(1998)]{driv98} Driver, S. P., Fernandez-Soto,
1037: A., Couch, W. J., Odewahn, S. C., Windhorst, R. A., Phillips, S.,
1038: Lanzetta, K., \& Yahil, A. 1998, ApJ, 496, L93
1039: \bibitem[Eyles \etal(2005)]{eyle05} Eyles, L. P., Bunker, A. J.,
1040: Stanway, E. R., Lacy, M., Ellis R. S., \& Doherty, M. 2005, MNRAS,
1041: 364, 443
1042: \bibitem[Eyles \etal(2007)]{eyle07} Eyles, L. P., Bunker, A. J., Ellis
1043: R. S., Lacy, M., Stanway, E. R., Stark, D., \& Chiu, K. 2007, MNRAS,
1044: 374, 910
1045: \bibitem[Fan \etal(2006)]{fan06} Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Becker,
1046: R. H., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 117
1047: \bibitem[Georgakakis \etal(2003)]{geor03} Georgakakis, A., Hopkins,
1048: A. M., Sullivan, M., Afonso, J., Georgantopoulos, I., Mobasher, B., \&
1049: Cram, L. E. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 939
1050: \bibitem[Giavalisco \etal(2004)]{giav04} Giavalisco, M., Dickinson,
1051: M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, L103
1052: \bibitem[Gonzaga \etal(2005)]{gonz05} Gonzaga, S., et al. 2005, ``ACS
1053: Instrument Handbook", Version 6.0, (Baltimore:STScI)
1054: \bibitem[Guzman \etal(1997)]{guzm97} Guzman, R., Gallego, J., Koo,
1055: D. C., Phillips, A. C., Lowenthal, J. D., Faber, S. M., Illingworth,
1056: G. D., \& Vogt, N. P. 1997 ApJ, 489, 559
1057: \bibitem[Hathi \etal(2007)]{hath07} Hathi, N. P., Malhotra, S., \&
1058: Rhoads, J. E. 2007, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0709.0520)
1059: \bibitem[Heavens \etal(2004)]{heav04} Heavens, A., Panter, B.,
1060: Jimenez, R., \& Dunlop, J. 2004, Nature, 428, 625
1061: \bibitem[Hu \etal(2002)]{hu02} Hu, E. M., Cowie, L. L., McMahon,
1062: R. G., Capak, P., Iwamuro, F., Kneib, J.-P., Maihara, T., \& Motohara,
1063: K. 2002, ApJ, 568, L75
1064: \bibitem[Huchra \etal(1983)]{huch83} Huchra, J. P., Davis, M., Latham,
1065: D., \& Tonry, J. 1983, ApJS, 52, 89
1066: \bibitem[Hunter \& Elmegreen(2006)]{hunt06} Hunter, D. A., \&
1067: Elmegreen, B. G. 2006, ApJS, 162, 49
1068: \bibitem[Jansen \etal(2000a)]{jans00a} Jansen, R. A., Franx, M.,
1069: Fabricant, D., \& Caldwell, N. 2000a, ApJS, 126, 271
1070: \bibitem[Jansen \etal(2000b)]{jans00b} Jansen, R. A., Fabricant, D.,
1071: Franx, M., \& Caldwell, N. 2000b, ApJS, 126, 331
1072: \bibitem[Jansen \& Kannappan(2001)]{jans01} Jansen, R. A. \&
1073: Kannappan, S. J. 2001, Ap\&SS, 276, 1151
1074: \bibitem[Kodaira \etal(2003)]{kodi03} Kodaira, K., Taniguchi, Y.,
1075: Kashikawa, N., et al. 2003, PASJ, 55, L17
1076: \bibitem[Kodama \etal(2004)]{koda04} Kodama, T., Yamada, T., Akiyama,
1077: M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1005
1078: \bibitem[Koekemoer \etal(2002)]{koek02} Koekemoer, A. M., Fruchter,
1079: A. S., Hook, R. N., \& Hack, W. 2002, The 2002 \emph{HST} Calibration
1080: Workshop, ed. S. Arribas, A. Koekemoer, and B. Whitmore
1081: (Baltimore:STScI), 337
1082: \bibitem[Kormendy(1977)]{korm77} Kormendy, J. 1977, ApJ, 218, 333
1083: \bibitem[Kurk \etal(2004)]{kurk04} Kurk, J. D., Cimatti, A., di Serego
1084: A, S., Vernet, J., Daddi, E., Ferrara, A., \& Ciardi, B. 2004, A\&A,
1085: 422, L13
1086: \bibitem[Labb\'{e} \etal(2006)]{labb06} Labb\'{e}, I., Bouwens, R.,
1087: Illingworth, G. D., \& Franx, M. 2006, ApJ, 649, L67
1088: \bibitem[Lynden-Bell(1967)]{lynd67} Lynden-Bell, D. 1967, MNRAS, 136,
1089: 101
1090: \bibitem[Maraston(2005)]{mara05} Maraston, C. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799
1091: \bibitem[Malhotra \etal(2005)]{malh05} Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E.,
1092: Pirzkal, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 666
1093: \bibitem[Marzke \etal(1994)]{marz94} Marzke, R. O., Huchra, J. P. \&
1094: Geller, M. J. 1994, ApJ, 428, 43
1095: \bibitem[McCarthy \etal(2004)]{mcca04} McCarthy, P. J. 2004, BAAS, 36,
1096: 1555
1097: \bibitem[Nandra \etal(2002)]{nand02} Nandra, K., Mushotzky, R. F.,
1098: Arnaud, K., Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Gardner, J. P.,
1099: Teplitz, H. I., \& Windhorst, R. A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 625
1100: \bibitem[Oke \& Gunn(1983)]{oke83} Oke, J. B., \& Gunn, J. E. 1983,
1101: ApJ, 266, 713
1102: \bibitem[Panter \etal(2007)]{pant07} Panter, B., Jimenez, R., Heavens,
1103: A. F., \& Charlot, S. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 1550
1104: \bibitem[Pascarelle \etal(1996)]{pasc96} Pascarelle, S. M., Windhorst,
1105: R. A., Keel, W. C., \& Odewahn, S. C. 1996, Nature, 383, 45
1106: \bibitem[Ravindranath \etal(2006)]{ravi06} Ravindranath, S.,
1107: Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 963
1108: \bibitem[Rhoads \etal(2004)]{rhoa04} Rhoads, J. E., Xu, C., Dawson,
1109: S., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 59
1110: \bibitem[Spergel \etal(2007)]{sper07} Spergel, D. N., Bean, R.,
1111: Dor\'{e}, O., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 377
1112: \bibitem[Steidel \etal(1999)]{stei99} Steidel, C. C., Adelberger,
1113: K. L., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M., \& Pettini, M. 1999, ApJ, 519, 1
1114: \bibitem[Stern \etal(2005)]{ster05} Stern, D., Yost, S. A., Eckart,
1115: M. E., Harrison, F. A., Helfand, D. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Malhotra,
1116: S., \& Rhoads, J. E. 2005, ApJ, 619, 12
1117: \bibitem[Stetson(1987)]{stet87} Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191
1118: \bibitem[Taniguchi \etal(2005)]{tani05} Taniguchi, Y., Ajiki, M.,
1119: Nagao, T., et al. 2005, PASJ, 57, 165
1120: \bibitem[Taylor \etal(2007)]{tayl07} Taylor, V. A., Conselice, C. J.,
1121: Windhorst, R. A., \& Jansen, R. A. 2007, ApJ, 659, 162
1122: \bibitem[van Albada(1982)]{vana82} van Albada, T. S. 1982, MNRAS, 201,
1123: 939
1124: \bibitem[van Dokkum \etal(2003)]{vand03} van Dokkum, P. G.,
1125: F\"{o}rster, S., Natascha, M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 587, L83
1126: \bibitem[van Dokkum \etal(2004)]{vand04} van Dokkum, P. G., Franx,
1127: M., F\"{o}rster, S., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 703
1128: \bibitem[Vanzella \etal(2006)]{vanz06} Vanzella, E., Cristiani, S.,
1129: Dickinson, M., et al. 2006, A\&A, 454, 423
1130: \bibitem[White \etal(2007)]{whit07} White, R. L., Helfand, D. J.,
1131: Becker, R. H., Glikman, E., \& de Vries, W. 2007, ApJ, 654, 99
1132: \bibitem[Williams \etal(1996)]{will96} Williams, R. E., Blacker, B.,
1133: Dickinson, M., et al. 1996, AJ, 112, 1335
1134: \bibitem[Windhorst \etal(1994)]{wind94} Windhorst, R. A., Gordon,
1135: J. M., Pascarelle, S. M., Schmidtke, P. C., Keel, W. C., Burkey,
1136: J. M., \& Dunlop, J. S. 1994, ApJ, 435, 577
1137: \bibitem[Windhorst \etal(1998)]{wind98} Windhorst, R. A., Keel, W. C.,
1138: \& Pascarelle, S. M. 1998, ApJ, 494, 27
1139: \bibitem[Windhorst \etal(2002)]{wind02} Windhorst, R. A., Taylor,
1140: V. A., Jansen, R. A., et al. 2002, ApJS, 143, 113
1141: \bibitem[Windhorst \etal(2006)]{wind06} Windhorst, R. A., Cohen, S. H.,
1142: Jansen, R. A., Conselice, C., \& Yan, H. 2006, NewAR, 50, 113
1143: \bibitem[Windhorst \etal(2007)]{wind07} Windhorst, R. A., Hathi,
1144: N. P., Cohen, S. H., \& Jansen, R. A. 2007, \emph{Advances in Space
1145: Research}, in press (astro-ph/0703171)
1146: \bibitem[Yan \& Windhorst(2004a)]{yan04a} Yan, H. \& Windhorst,
1147: R. 2004a, ApJ, 600, L1
1148: \bibitem[Yan \& Windhorst(2004b)]{yan04b} Yan, H. \& Windhorst,
1149: R. 2004b, ApJ, 612, L93
1150: \bibitem[Yan \etal(2005)]{yan05} Yan, H., Dickinson, M., Stern, D., et
1151: al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 109
1152: \bibitem[York \etal(2000)]{york00} York, D. G., et al. 2000, 120, 1579
1153: \bibitem[Zibetti \etal(2004)]{zibe04} Zibetti, S., White, S. D. M., \&
1154: Brinkmann, J. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 556
1155: \end{thebibliography}
1156:
1157: %--------------------------------------------------
1158:
1159: \end{document}
1160: