1: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: %===========================================================================
4: % NPH defined commands
5: \newcommand{\ii}{$i'$}
6: \newcommand{\zz}{$z'$}
7: \newcommand{\uu}{$U$}
8: \newcommand{\bb}{$B$}
9: \newcommand{\vv}{$V$}
10: \newcommand{\jj}{$J$}
11: \newcommand{\hh}{$H$}
12: \newcommand{\zgal}{$z\!\simeq\!1$}
13: \newcommand{\sersic}{S\'{e}rsic}
14: \newcommand{\ts}{\thinspace}
15: \newcommand{\iz}{\ensuremath{(i'\!-\!z')}}
16: \newcommand{\zj}{\ensuremath{(z'-J)}}
17: \newcommand{\etal}{{et\thinspace al.}}
18: \newcommand{\cg}{c.\thinspace g.}
19: \newcommand{\SN}{$S/N$}
20: \newcommand{\Ho}{$H_{0}$}
21: \newcommand{\super}[1]{$^{#1}$}
22: \newcommand{\sub}[1]{$_{#1}$}
23: \newcommand{\tabref}[1]{Table~\ref{#1}}
24: \newcommand{\figref}[1]{Figure~\ref{#1}}
25: \newcommand{\secref}[1]{\S~\ref{#1}}
26:
27: %===========================================================================
28:
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: \title{Stellar Populations of Late-Type Bulges at \zgal\ in the HUDF}
32:
33: \shorttitle{Late-type Bulges at \zgal\ in the HUDF}
34:
35: \author{N. P. Hathi\altaffilmark{1,2}, I. Ferreras\altaffilmark{3},
36: A. Pasquali\altaffilmark{4}, S. Malhotra\altaffilmark{1,5},
37: J. E. Rhoads\altaffilmark{1,5}, N. Pirzkal\altaffilmark{6},
38: R. A. Windhorst\altaffilmark{1,5} and C. Xu\altaffilmark{7}}
39:
40: \email{Nimish.Hathi@ucr.edu}
41: \shortauthors{Hathi et al}
42:
43: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1504, USA}
44:
45: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA}
46:
47: \altaffiltext{3}{Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College
48: London, Holmbury St Mary, Dorking, Surrey RH5 6NT, England}
49:
50: \altaffiltext{4}{Max-Planck-Institut fuer Astronomie, Koenigstuhl 17,
51: D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany}
52:
53: \altaffiltext{5}{School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State
54: University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1404, USA}
55:
56: \altaffiltext{6}{STScI, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA}
57:
58: \altaffiltext{7}{Shanghai Institute of Technical Physics, Shanghai, China}
59:
60:
61: %--------------------------------------------------
62:
63: \begin{abstract}
64: We combine the exceptional depth of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field
65: (HUDF) images and the deep GRism ACS Program for Extragalactic
66: Science (GRAPES) grism spectroscopy to explore the stellar
67: populations of 34 bulges belonging to late-type galaxies at
68: $0.8\!\le\!z\!\le\!1.3$. The sample is selected based on the
69: presence of a noticeable 4000~\AA\ break in their GRAPES spectra,
70: and by visual inspection of the HUDF images. The HUDF images are
71: used to measure bulge color and \sersic\ index. The narrow
72: extraction of the GRAPES data around the galaxy center enables us to
73: study the spectrum of the bulges in these late-type galaxies,
74: minimizing the contamination from the disk of the galaxy. We use the
75: low resolution ($R\!\simeq\!50$) spectral energy distribution (SED)
76: around the 4000~\AA\ break to estimate redshifts and stellar
77: ages. The SEDs are compared with models of galactic chemical
78: evolution to determine the stellar mass, and to characterize the age
79: distribution. We find that, (1) the average age of late-type bulges
80: in our sample is $\sim$1.3 Gyr with stellar masses in the range
81: 10$^{6.5}$--10$^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$. (2) Late-type bulges are younger
82: than early-type galaxies at similar redshifts and lack a trend of
83: age with respect to redshift, suggesting a more extended period of
84: star formation. (3) Bulges and inner disks in these late-type
85: galaxies show similar stellar populations, and (4) late-type bulges
86: are better fitted by exponential surface brightness profiles. The
87: overall picture emerging from the GRAPES data is that, in late-type
88: galaxies at \zgal, bulges form through secular evolution and disks
89: via an inside-out process.
90: \end{abstract}
91:
92: \keywords{galaxies: spiral --- galaxies: bulges --- galaxies:
93: formation --- galaxies: evolution}
94:
95: %--------------------------------------------------
96:
97: \section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
98:
99: There are currently two alternative scenarios to explain bulge
100: formation in galaxies. First, semi-analytic models have traditionally
101: proposed early formation from mergers, generating a scaled-down
102: version of an elliptical galaxy \citep[e.g.,][]{kauf93}. Second,
103: dynamical instabilities can contribute to the formation of a bulge in
104: a primordial disk \citep{korm04}. These instabilities can be
105: triggered either internally, or by the accretion of small satellite
106: galaxies \citep{hern95}, and may result in later stages of star
107: formation. Hence, the stellar populations in galaxy bulges provide
108: valuable constraints to distinguish between these two scenarios.
109:
110: The ability of the \emph{Hubble Space Telescope (HST)} to resolve
111: distant galaxies enabled the study of bulges in galaxies out to
112: redshift \zgal\ \citep{bouw99,abra99,elli01,mena01,koo05,maca08}.
113: Simple phenomenological models --- such as the one presented in
114: \citet{bouw99} --- have, in the past, tried to determine whether bulge
115: formation happens before or after the formation of the disk. The
116: advantage of the lookback time probed out to \zgal\ allows us to
117: quantify the occurrence of merging vs. secular formation of bulges.
118: In the sample presented here we take advantage of the superb
119: capabilities of the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) to extract
120: (slitless) low resolution spectra of bulges from faint galaxies at
121: these redshifts.
122:
123: In their detailed review, \citet{korm04} discuss two distinct type of
124: bulges, classical bulges --- i.e., merger-built with \sersic\ index $n
125: \gtrsim 2$ --- and pseudo bulges --- built out of disk material having
126: \sersic\ index $n < 2$. Early-type galaxies tend to have classical
127: bulges, while late-type galaxies are more likely to host a pseudo
128: bulge. This scenario states that early- and late-type galaxies
129: generally form their bulges in different ways. Many studies have been
130: done at low and high redshifts to investigate properties of bulges and
131: their formation histories. Studies on local galaxies
132: \citep{dejo96,cour96,thom06,caro07} have shown through colors and
133: surface brightness profiles that later-type galaxies in the Hubble
134: sequence have more bulges best-fit by an exponential profile
135: (disk-like) compared to an $r^{1/4}$ profile. \citet{cour96} and
136: \citet{dejo96} carried out bulge-disk decompositions for $\gtrsim$80
137: galaxies, and found that 60--80\% of late-type galaxies are best-fit
138: by the double exponential profiles. More recently, \citet{caro07}
139: used \emph{HST} ACS and the Near Infrared Camera and Multi Object
140: Spectrometer (NICMOS) multi-band imaging to study the structure and
141: the inner optical and near-infrared colors of local ($z\!\simeq\!0$)
142: bulges in a sample of nine late-type spirals. Their analysis suggests
143: that half of the late-type bulges in their sample must have developed
144: after the formation of the disk, while for other half, the bulk of
145: stellar mass was produced at earlier epochs --- as is found in
146: early-type spheroids --- and hence must have developed before the
147: formation of the disk. \citet{thom06} analysed the central stellar
148: populations of bulges in spiral galaxies with Hubble types Sa to Sbc
149: by deriving luminosity-weighted ages and metallicities. They find
150: that bulges are generally younger than early-type galaxies, because of
151: their smaller masses. They suggest that bulges, like low-mass
152: ellipticals, are rejuvenated, but not by secular evolution processes
153: involving disk material.
154:
155: On the theoretical side, semi-analytical and $N$-body simulations of
156: galaxy formation have been mainly based on two basic assumptions. In
157: the first scenario, all bulges result from the merging of disk
158: galaxies \cite[e.g.,][]{kauf93}, whereas the second one is based on an
159: inside-out bulge formation scenario \cite[e.g.,][]{vand98}, in which
160: baryonic matter of a protogalaxy virializes and settles in an
161: inside-out process. \citet{atha08} argues that in order to adequately
162: describe the formation and evolution of disk-like bulges, simulations
163: should include gas, star formation and feedback. The author also
164: states the importance of cosmologically-motivated initial conditions
165: in the simulations, since the properties of pre-existing disks may
166: influence the properties of the disk-like bulges. When accounting for
167: these effects, \citet{atha08} simulated bulges that show properties
168: similar to the observed disk-like bulges.
169:
170: The initial studies of bulges at high redshift
171: \citep{abra99,elli01,mena01} were done by measuring optical colors in
172: galaxies to distinguish between bulge and disk colors. \citet{elli01}
173: analyzed the internal optical colors of early-type and spiral galaxies
174: from the Hubble Deep Fields \cite[HDF,][]{will96} for redshifts
175: $z\!\lesssim\!0.6$. They find that bulges are redder than the
176: surrounding disks, but bluer than pure ellipticals at the same
177: redshifts. In other work, \citet{mena01} find strong variations in
178: internal/central colors of more than 30\% of the faint spheroidals in
179: the HDF. They do not find such large variations in cluster galaxies,
180: and hence estimate that at \zgal, these strong color variations in
181: field bulges are due to more recent episodes of star-formation. Recent
182: studies \citep{koo05,maca08} have focused on bulge-disk decompositions
183: to investigate the colors and radial profiles of bulges at \zgal.
184: \citet{koo05} present a candidate sample of luminous high-redshift
185: ($0.73\!<\!z\!<\!1.04$) bulges ($I_{814}\! <\! 23.1$ mag) within the
186: Groth Strip Survey, and find that majority of luminous bulges at
187: \zgal\ are very red. Their data favors an early bulge-formation
188: scenario in which bulges and field E-S0's form prior to disks.
189: \citet{maca08} study bulges of spiral galaxies within the redshift
190: range $0.1\!<\!z\!<\!1.2$ in the Great Observatories Origins Deep
191: Survey (GOODS) fields, and find that bulges of similar mass follow
192: similar evolutionary patterns.
193:
194: In this paper, we use the extraordinary imaging depth of the Hubble
195: Ultra Deep Field \citep[HUDF,][]{beck06} and deep slitless grism
196: spectroscopy using ACS from the GRism ACS Program for Extragalactic
197: Science (GRAPES) project \citep[PI: S. Malhotra;][]{pirz04,malh05} to
198: explore the stellar ages of bulges in late-type galaxies at \zgal.
199: The exceptional angular resolution and depth of the GRAPES/HUDF data
200: combined with excellent grism sensitivity allows us to extract spectra
201: of the most central regions of faint galaxies at \zgal.
202:
203: This paper is organized as follows. The \emph{HST} ACS observational
204: data, sample selection and photometric properties of the selected
205: late-type galaxies are presented in \secref{data}. In
206: \secref{morpho}, we discuss morphological classification of these
207: galaxies. The non-parametric CAS measurements are shown in
208: \secref{cas}, while we use GALFIT in \secref{galfit} to analyze galaxy
209: morphologies in two dimensions. We study the bulges stellar
210: populations via Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) fitting of their
211: GRAPES spectra in \secref{models}. Our results are discussed in
212: \secref{results} together with the possible biases due to the
213: age-metallicity relation, and our conclusions are summarized in
214: \secref{summary}.
215:
216: Throughout this paper we refer to the \emph{HST} ACS F435W, F606W,
217: F775W, and F850LP filters as the \bb-, \vv-, \ii-, and \zz-bands,
218: respectively. We adopt a Hubble constant \Ho=70~km s$^{-1}$
219: Mpc$^{-1}$ and a flat cosmology with $\Omega_m$=0.3 and
220: $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.7. At redshift \zgal, this cosmology yields a
221: scale of 1\arcsec = 8.0 kpc. The lookback time is 7.7 Gyr for a
222: universe that is 13.5~Gyr old. Magnitudes are given in the AB system
223: \citep{oke83}.
224:
225: %--------------------------------------------------
226:
227: \section{Observational Data and Sample Properties}\label{data}
228:
229: \subsection{The \emph{HST}/ACS Data}
230:
231: The HUDF is a 400 orbit survey of a $3.4'\times3.4'$ field carried out
232: with the ACS in the \bb, \vv, \ii\ and \zz\ filters \citep{beck06}.
233: We have carried out deep slitless spectroscopy of this field with the
234: ACS grism as a part of the GRAPES project, which was awarded 40
235: \emph{HST} orbits during Cycle 12 (ID 9793; PI: S. Malhotra). The
236: grism observations were taken at five different orientations, in order
237: to minimize the effects of contamination and overlapping from nearby
238: objects. The details of the observations, data reduction and the
239: final GRAPES catalog are described in \citet{pirz04}, who extracted
240: the grism spectra for objects in the HUDF to a limiting magnitude of
241: $z'_{\rm AB}\!\simeq$27.5 mag. These spectra cover the wavelength
242: range between 6000 to 9500~\AA\ with a resolving power of
243: $R\!\simeq\!50\!-\!100$\footnote{Slitless spectroscopy produces a
244: variable spectral resolution, depending on the size of the object.
245: The details concerning this issue are described in \citet{pasq06a}}
246: and are characterized by a net significance $N\!>\!5$
247: \citep[see][]{pirz04}. We used the multi-band high-resolution HUDF
248: images to study each object at \zgal\ in the ACS band closest to the
249: \bb-band rest-frame, in order to minimize any effects of the
250: morphological K-correction \citep[e.g.,][]{wind02}.
251:
252: \subsection{Sample Selection and Properties}\label{sample}
253:
254: The ACS grism sensitivity peaks at $\sim$8000~\AA, and hence the
255: GRAPES spectra are sensitive in identifying galaxies at \zgal\ through
256: their 4000~\AA\ breaks, and galaxies at $z\!\simeq\!5\!-\!6$ through
257: their Lyman breaks. We selected objects with high signal-to-noise in
258: the one-dimensional (1D) GRAPES grism spectra ($\sim$1500 in the
259: HUDF). All these spectra were extracted using narrow extraction
260: windows (5 pixels wide --- the pixel-scale in the grism images is
261: 0.05\arcsec/pixel) around the center of each galaxy. We compared the
262: running average of flux in 10 data points between neighboring regions
263: on each 1D spectrum. If the difference between two neighboring,
264: average flux values was greater than 3$\sigma$, we considered that
265: change in flux level as a `break' in the spectrum. A large
266: ($\sim$150) number of objects that show continuum breaks were selected
267: using this technique. After visual selection procedure, many objects
268: were classified and studied as Lyman break galaxies at
269: $z\!\gtrsim\!4.5$ \citep{malh05,hath08a}, or as late-type stars
270: \citep{pirz05}, or as ellipticals at $z\!\simeq\!1$ \citep{pasq06b}.
271: During this visual classification, we also found that a number of
272: late-type galaxies (mostly spirals) showed a prominent 4000~\AA\ break
273: (at observed $\sim$8000~\AA), which is the major spectral feature due
274: to the presence of an old stellar population. This feature was in
275: general observed in all grism spectra obtained for each object at
276: different position angles and for which spectral contamination was
277: negligible. We selected 34 late-type galaxies (median redshift
278: \zgal), to study the properties of their central stellar populations.
279: We measure D4000 --- the amplitude of the 4000~\AA\ break
280: \citep[e.g.,][]{balo99} --- as the ratio of the average continuum flux
281: redward and blueward of the 4000~\AA\ break from the 1D grism spectra.
282: \figref{fig1} shows the distribution of D4000 for these galaxies at
283: \zgal. The average D4000 ($\sim$1.3) for the selected late-type
284: galaxies (grey histogram) is smaller than the D4000 observed for a
285: typical elliptical galaxy \citep[$>1.6$,][]{kauf03,padm04}. We also
286: show D4000 (hashed histogram) for elliptical galaxies
287: ($0.6\!\le\!z\!\le\!1.1$) from \citet{pasq06b}. \figref{fig2} shows
288: the color-composite images of 6 representative late-type spiral
289: galaxies at \zgal\ in our sample, which clearly demonstrates that all
290: have redder bulges in their centers.
291:
292: %--------------------------------------------------
293:
294: \begin{figure}
295: \epsscale{0.85}
296: \plotone{f1.eps}
297: \caption{Distribution of amplitude of 4000~\AA\ break
298: \citep[D4000;][]{balo99} for all galaxies in our sample (grey
299: histogram). D4000 was measured as a ratio of average continuum flux
300: redward and blueward of the 4000~\AA\ break from 1D GRAPES grism
301: spectra. The average value of the D4000 for our sample is $\sim$1.3
302: and for comparison, elliptical galaxies have D4000~$>$~1.6
303: \citep{kauf03,padm04}. We have also plotted D4000 (hashed histogram)
304: for GRAPES/HUDF early-type galaxies ($0.6\!\le\!z\!\le\!1.1$).
305: \citep{pasq06b}.}\label{fig1}
306: \end{figure}
307:
308: %--------------------------------------------------
309:
310: \begin{figure}
311: \epsscale{0.85}
312: \plotone{f2.eps}
313: \caption{Color composite images of a representative sample of
314: late-type spiral galaxies at \zgal. Axes show size of the stamp in
315: pixels (0.03\arcsec/pixel). Note that all have small central bulges
316: that are (in general) redder than their disks.}\label{fig2}
317: \end{figure}
318:
319: %--------------------------------------------------
320:
321: \tabref{table1} shows the optical ($BVi'z'$) magnitudes, the HUDF IDs,
322: and coordinates for each selected galaxy, as obtained from the
323: published HUDF catalog \citep{beck06}. The last column of
324: \tabref{table1} gives the observed (\vv--\zz) colors for these
325: galaxies, corresponding to roughly rest-frame (\uu--\bb) colors at
326: \zgal. \tabref{table2} gives all available redshifts for these
327: galaxies. The first 3 columns in \tabref{table2} show the published
328: HUDF IDs and coordinates, while the fourth column shows the
329: photometric redshifts from the GRAPES spectro-photometric redshift
330: catalog \citep[for description, see][]{ryan07} or the GOODS-MUSIC
331: (MUltiwavelength Southern Infrared Catalog) catalog \citep{graz06}.
332: The fifth column of \tabref{table2} gives the spectroscopic redshifts
333: from VLT \citep{graz06,vanz08}, when available. The last column of
334: \tabref{table2} gives the redshifts from GRAPES SED fitting as
335: described in \secref{models}. The latter are the redshifts used
336: throughout this paper. Notice that estimating the redshift of faint
337: spectra without emission lines can be challenging even for deep
338: surveys such as VVDS \citep{lefe05}. Our slitless grism data have an
339: optimal spectral resolution that maximises the S/N for populations
340: with a prominent 4000~\AA\ break. Comparisons of redshift estimates of
341: faint ($i_{\rm AB}\!\simeq$22--24 mag) early-type galaxies at \zgal\
342: from the Probing Evolution And Reionization Spectroscopically (PEARS)
343: survey show that ACS slitless grism data often fare {\sl better} than
344: publicly available spectroscopic redshifts (Ferreras et al. 2008, in
345: preparation).
346:
347: \subsection{Observed Color Profiles}\label{colors}
348:
349: We used the Interactive Data Language (IDL\footnote{IDL Website
350: http://www.ittvis.com/index.asp}) procedure
351: \texttt{APER}\footnote{IDL Astronomy User's Library Website
352: http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/homepage.html} to compute aperture
353: photometry using several aperture radii. We chose our starting
354: aperture radius to be 2.5 ACS pixels ($\sim$0\farcs1), because the
355: width of the narrow extraction window \citep[see][for extraction
356: details]{pirz04} of our GRAPES spectra is 5 pixels. We measured
357: aperture magnitudes for all galaxies in our sample in all four ACS
358: bands ($BVi'z'$) available from the HUDF with aperture radii ranging
359: from 2.5 pixels to 35 pixels. Using these aperture magnitudes, we
360: measured the (\vv--\zz) color profiles for our galaxies.
361: \figref{fig3} shows these color profiles for 6 sample galaxies. This
362: figure show that the inner disk in most of these galaxies is red, and
363: is dominated by the older stellar population. Our galaxies show that
364: for all apertures the (\vv--\zz) color is redder than 0.9, with redder
365: colors at smaller aperture sizes (the central bulge region).
366:
367: %--------------------------------------------------
368:
369: \begin{figure}
370: \epsscale{0.85}
371: \plotone{f3.eps}
372: \caption{Observed (\vv--\zz) colors measured using aperture magnitudes
373: in eight different size apertures. Here we show colors for six
374: sample galaxies. These are the same six galaxies shown in
375: \figref{fig2}. Note that with the exception of object ID 501, all
376: these galaxies become bluer from the inside outwards.}\label{fig3}
377: \end{figure}
378:
379: %--------------------------------------------------
380:
381: \figref{fig4} shows the observed (\vv--\ii) color as function of
382: redshift for bulges and spheroids. The black dots correspond to our
383: sample of HUDF/GRAPES bulges. The crosses are the GOODS/HDF-N
384: spheroids presented by \citet{maca08}, and the filled triangles are
385: the GOODS/CDF-S early-type galaxies from \citet{ferr05}. The lines
386: represent the expected color evolution for a set of star formation
387: histories using the population synthesis models of \citet{bruz03}.
388: The thick lines track the color evolution for a stellar population
389: with solar metallicity and an exponentially decaying star-formation
390: rate, starting at z$_F = 5$, with an exponential decay timescale of
391: 0.5 (solid), 1 (dashed) and 8 Gyr (dotted). The thin solid line shows
392: the expected color evolution for a decay timescale of 0.5 Gyr and 1/3
393: of solar metallicity. Most of the bulges in early-type galaxies in
394: GOODS/CDF-S \citep{ferr05,maca08} are consistent with short decay
395: timescales, while the bulges in our late-type spiral sample agree
396: better with a more extended star formation history. This figure shows
397: that the bulges explored in this paper belong to a similar population
398: as the ``blue early-types'' presented in \citet{ferr05}. This blue
399: population constitutes $\sim$20\% of the total sample of early-type
400: systems visually selected in GOODS/CDF-S. Because of the excellent
401: photometric depth of the HUDF, our sample extends the bulge redshift
402: distribution of \citet{maca08} to $z\simeq1.3$.
403:
404: %--------------------------------------------------
405:
406: \begin{figure}
407: \epsscale{0.85}
408: \plotone{f4.eps}
409: \caption{Color vs. redshift diagram of bulges and spheroids. The black
410: dots correspond to our sample of HUDF/GRAPES bulges. The crosses
411: are the GOODS/HDF-N spheroids presented by \citet{maca08}, and the
412: triangles are the GOODS/CDF-S early-type galaxies from
413: \citet{ferr05}. The lines represent the expected color evolution
414: for a set of star-formation histories from the population synthesis
415: models of \citet{bruz03}. The thick lines track the color evolution
416: of a stellar population with solar metallicity and an exponentially
417: decaying star-formation rate starting at z$_F = 5$, with an
418: exponential decay timescale of 0.5 (solid), 1 (dashed) and 8 Gyr
419: (dotted). The thin solid line shows the evolution with a timescale
420: of 0.5 Gyr at 1/3 of solar metallicity.}\label{fig4}
421: \end{figure}
422:
423: %--------------------------------------------------
424:
425: \section{Morphological Properties}\label{morpho}
426:
427: We performed a morphological analysis of the sample galaxies in two
428: steps: (a) a non-parametric analysis of the distribution of the galaxy
429: light, using the measures of asymmetry, concentration and clumpiness
430: (or smoothness) to confirm our visual inspection; (b) a two
431: dimensional (2D) decomposition performed with GALFIT \citep{peng02},
432: in order to quantify the galaxy morphology and in particular to
433: extract their \sersic\ indices.
434:
435: \subsection{CAS Measurements}\label{cas}
436:
437: We use the classical Concentration (C), Asymmetry (A) and clumpinesS
438: (or smoothness) --- the CAS parameters \citep{cons00,cons03} --- to
439: carry out the non-parametric approach to quantify morphology. We
440: computed the C and A values for our galaxies following the definitions
441: and methods as discussed in \citet{cons00}. The Concentration index
442: correlates with the \sersic\ index and the Bulge-to-Disk ratio: high
443: C-values correspond to early-type morphology, while lower C-values are
444: suggestive of a disk-dominated or later-type and irregular galaxies.
445: Asymmetry can distinguish irregular galaxies or perturbed spirals from
446: relaxed systems, such as E/S0 and normal spirals. Clumpiness
447: quantifies the degree of structure on small scale, and roughly
448: correlates with the rate of star-formation. We derived the
449: Concentration and Asymmetry indices using the images taken in the
450: \zz-band, which roughly corresponds to the rest-frame \bb-band at
451: \zgal. Our measurements of C and A are shown in \figref{fig5},
452: together with the mean loci for nearby early-, mid- and late-type
453: galaxies as derived by \citet{bers00}. A few perturbed galaxies show
454: higher asymmetry values. \figref{fig5} clearly shows that our sample
455: of galaxies consists of mostly late-type galaxies, and confirms our
456: visual morphological classification of late-type galaxies with bulges.
457:
458: %--------------------------------------------------
459:
460: \begin{figure}
461: \epsscale{0.85}
462: \plotone{f5.eps}
463: \caption{Asymmetry and Concentration values for the selected late-type
464: galaxies. The distinction between early-, mid- and late-type
465: galaxies is from \citet{bers00} and \citet{cons05}. According to
466: this classification scheme, our sample -- selected by the presence
467: of a prominent 4000~\AA\ break and removing the spheroidal galaxies
468: -- corresponds to late-type spirals.}\label{fig5}
469: \end{figure}
470:
471: %--------------------------------------------------
472:
473: \subsection{2D Galaxy Fitting using GALFIT}\label{galfit}
474:
475: GALFIT \citep{peng02} is an automated algorithm to extract structural
476: parameters from galaxy images by fitting/decomposing these with one or
477: more analytic 2D functions. It offers different parametric models
478: (the ``Nuker'' law, the generalized \sersic--de Vaucouleurs profile,
479: the exponential disk, and Gaussian or Moffat functions), and allows
480: multi-component fitting, which is useful to measure Bulge-to-Disk
481: (B/D) or Bulge-to-Total (B/T) light ratios.
482:
483: \subsubsection{Thumbnail Image Extraction}\label{stamps}
484:
485: The GALFIT disk+bulge decompositions were performed on thumbnail (or
486: ``postage stamp'') images extracted around the objects in our sample,
487: rather than on the entire science image itself. Three thumbnail
488: images for each object were extracted from the original HUDF images.
489: All thumbnail images are 201$\times$201 pixels ($\sim$
490: 6\farcs0$\times$6\farcs0) in size. The first thumbnail was extracted
491: from the science image itself. The second thumbnail was extracted
492: from the comprehensive segmentation image generated by \citet{coe06},
493: which was used as the ``bad pixel map/mask'' image used in GALFIT.
494: GALFIT uses this ``mask'' image so that all non-zero valued pixels are
495: ignored in the fit. Hence, the extracted segmentation stamps were
496: modified, so that only pixels belonging to the galaxy had zero value,
497: while any pixels belonging to another object are set to a non-zero
498: value. We tested this GALFIT decomposition with and without bad pixel
499: maps for comparison, and obtained very similar fitting results. The
500: third thumbnail was extracted from the drizzle-generated weight image
501: \citep{koek02}. These weight images were modified for GALFIT (C.
502: Peng, private communication) as follows. First, the science image was
503: smoothed by a few pixels to get rid of some of the random
504: pixel-to-pixel variations. Second, a variance image $S$, was
505: calculated using $S=(1/wht) + data/exptime$, where, $wht$ is the
506: drizzle-generated weight image, $data$ is the science image in
507: counts/sec and $exptime$ is the total exposure time of the image.
508: Finally, a sigma image is generated using $\sigma = \sqrt{S}$. These
509: modified weight images were used as the input ``sigma'' image (noise
510: maps) in the GALFIT, which is necessary for proper error-propagation.
511:
512: \subsubsection{Sky Background}\label{sky}
513:
514: The drizzled HUDF images are sky subtracted and therefore, to
515: understand the effects of sky-subtraction, we used the following
516: procedure. A careful analysis of the HUDF sky-background and its
517: corresponding uncertainties was performed by \citet{hath08b}. We used
518: the sky-background values from \citet{hath08b}, and allowed GALFIT to
519: either vary this sky-level during the fitting process, or keep it
520: fixed. For comparison, we also used the sky-background measured from
521: each individual object stamp, and repeated the process. We also
522: tested our GALFIT decomposition by comparing the results from GALFIT
523: with and without the addition of the sky-background. We found very
524: consistent and similar fitting parameters from all these tests.
525: Therefore, we adopted the sky-background levels measured by
526: \citet{hath08b} in our final GALFIT decomposition.
527:
528: \subsubsection{Using GALFIT}
529:
530: GALFIT produces model images of galaxies based on initial input
531: parameters. These images are convolved with the ACS Point Spread
532: Function (PSF) image before comparing with the actual galaxy image.
533: Fitting proceeds iteratively until convergence is achieved, which
534: normally occurs when the $\chi^2$ does not change by more than 5 parts
535: in 10$^4$ for successive five iterations \citep[see][for
536: details]{peng02}.
537:
538: GALFIT requires initial guesses for the fitting parameters. Following
539: \citet{dong06} and \citet{simi86}, we used the output parameters from
540: the published HUDF SExtractor catalogs \citep{beck06} as input values
541: for the magnitude, the half-light radius, the position angle, and the
542: ellipticity of each object. The initial value for the \sersic\ index,
543: $n$, was taken to be 1.5 \citep{coe06}. Tests based on an adopted
544: initial value of $n$=4 showed similar results.
545:
546: All GALFIT measurements were obtained from the \vv- and \zz-band
547: images (approximately rest-frame \uu- and \bb-band at $z\!\simeq\!1$,
548: respectively). First, we fitted only an one-component \sersic\
549: profile to our galaxies to improve the initial estimates for the
550: \sersic\ index, the axis ratio and the position angle of each
551: galaxy. The distribution of \sersic\ indices for our galaxies in the
552: \vv- and \zz-band is shown in \figref{fig6}. Our measurements of the
553: \sersic\ index in \vv- and \zz-band are comparable to \ii-band values
554: of the galaxies in \citet{coe06}. \figref{fig6} confirms that most of
555: the galaxies in our sample have a \sersic\ index $n<2$ in both \vv-
556: and \zz-bands, which implies that our galaxies are disk-dominated, as
557: \figref{fig2} and \figref{fig3} clearly suggest.
558:
559: %--------------------------------------------------
560:
561: \begin{figure}
562: \epsscale{0.85}
563: \plotone{f6.eps}
564: \caption{The distribution of \sersic\ indices ($n$) for the galaxy
565: retrieved from GALFIT single component \sersic\ fit to galaxies in
566: \vv- and \zz-band. The mean values of $n$ is reported in top right
567: corner. Using a two-sided K-S test on these distributions, we cannot
568: reject the hypothesis that the \vv- and \zz-band distributions are
569: drawn from the same population. }\label{fig6}
570: \end{figure}
571:
572: %--------------------------------------------------
573:
574: Next, we simultaneously fitted two components: a \sersic\ profile plus
575: an exponential disk profile, to get better estimates of the bulge and
576: disk magnitudes, respectively. For this simultaneous fit, we kept the
577: coordinates of the galactic center (within $\pm$1 pixel constraint),
578: the axial ratio and the position angle fixed, while we allowed GALFIT
579: to fit $m_{bulge}$, $m_{disk}$, $R_e$, $R_s$ and the the \sersic\
580: index ($n$). For all galaxies in our sample, we obtained better fits
581: for \emph{bulge} \sersic\ indices of $n \lesssim 1.0$. We also tested
582: our runs by fixing initial value of $n$=1 for all galaxies and found
583: that GALFIT converged to similar solutions in the end. The bulge and
584: disk models obtained from these best fits were then used to estimate
585: the B/D ratio. We used an aperture of 5 pixels diameter to measure
586: the B/D and B/T ratios, which used the same aperture size as for
587: extracting the GRAPES SEDs. The majority of our galaxies show a B/D
588: value $<$1 within this aperture. For larger apertures encompassing
589: the galaxies' total light, B/D appears to be $<<$ 1, in agreement with
590: our galaxies being disk-dominated (i.e., late-type galaxies).
591:
592: \section{Stellar Population Models - Bulge Properties}\label{models}
593:
594: The GRAPES grism spectra were taken at five different position angles
595: (PAs) to remove any contamination and overlap from nearby objects. We
596: generated one final spectrum for each galaxy by combining all of the
597: GRAPES spectra obtained at the 5 different PAs. The combination was
598: performed as a simple averaging operation, after resampling the
599: spectra onto a common wavelength grid. Portions of spectra which were
600: contaminated more than 25\% \citep[see][for a description]{pirz04}
601: were not used, unless absolutely necessary. The Poisson errors were
602: propagated, and the standard deviation of the mean between the 5
603: individual PAs was computed. The larger of either the Poisson noise
604: or the standard deviation of the mean was used in the subsequent
605: analysis. Our goal is to fit stellar population models to the
606: age-sensitive 4000~\AA\ break observed in the GRAPES spectra of these
607: galaxies.
608:
609: \subsection{Star-Formation Histories (SFH)}
610:
611: We fit our ACS grism spectra to a grid of models obtained by combining
612: the simple stellar populations of \citet{bruz03}. A standard $\chi^2$
613: method is used. We explore a wide volume of parameter space in order
614: to infer robust constraints on the possible ages and metallicities of
615: the stellar populations in the central bulges of these galaxies. This
616: comparison requires a careful process of degrading the synthetic SED
617: (resolution $R\sim 2000$) to the (variable) resolution of the GRAPES
618: spectra. Special care must be taken with respect to the change of the
619: Line Spread Function (LSF) with wavelength, which results in both an
620: effective degradation of the spectral resolution as a function of
621: wavelength, and a different net spectral resolution with respect to
622: the size of the galaxy. After exploring a range of values $R\!=30-80$,
623: we find that an effective resolution of $R=50$ is suitable for all the
624: spectra in our sample. The ACS grism spectral resolution is not
625: degenerate with respect to parameters describing the star-formation
626: history, and mostly results in a global shift of the likelihood.
627:
628: In order to determine the redshift as accurately as possible, we start
629: with some guessing values obtained from three sources: a photometric
630: redshift; a VLT spectroscopic redshift --- where available --- and a
631: redshift estimate taken from an automated method (as discussed in
632: \secref{sample}) to search for a prominent 4000~\AA\ break in GRAPES
633: data. A small set of templates at the GRAPES resolution were used to
634: determine the best redshift for each galaxy, using the guessing values
635: described above as a starting point, and performing a simple
636: cross-correlation for a range of redshifts until the best match is
637: found. This method generates the redshifts used throughout this paper,
638: shown in \tabref{table2} as ``SED Fit'' (last column).
639:
640: In order to make a robust assessment of the ages and metallicities of
641: the unresolved stellar populations, we use two different sets of
642: models to describe the build up of the stellar component. The models
643: depend on a reduced set of parameters, which can characterize a
644: star-formation history in a generic way.
645:
646: \noindent {\bf Model \#1 (EXP):} We take a simple exponentially
647: decaying star formation rate, so that each star-formation history is
648: well parametrized by a formation epoch, which can be described by a
649: formation epoch ($t(z_F)$); a star-formation timescale ($\tau_\star
650: =0.1\rightarrow 4$~Gyr); and a metallicity ($[m/H]=-1.5\rightarrow
651: +0.3$), which is kept fixed at all times. The numbers in brackets
652: give the range explored in the analysis of the model likelihood. The
653: range in formation epochs is chosen from $z_F=10$ to $t(z_F)=0.2$~Gyr
654: (this range depends on the observed redshift of the galaxy).
655:
656: \noindent {\bf Model \#2 (CSP):} We follow a consistent chemical
657: enrichment code as described in \citet{ferr00}. The model allows for
658: gas infall and outflow. The metallicity evolves according to these
659: parameters, using the stellar yields from \citet{thie96} for massive
660: stars ($>10M_\odot$), and \citet{van97} for intermediate mass stars.
661: The free parameters are the formation epoch (same range as the one
662: chosen for Model \#1), the timescale for the infall of gas
663: ($\tau_f=0.1\rightarrow 1$~Gyr), and the fraction of gas ejected in
664: outflows ($B_{\rm OUT}=0\rightarrow 1$). The star-formation
665: efficiency is kept at a high value $C_{\rm EFF}=20$ as expected for
666: early-type populations \citep[see][]{ferr00}.
667:
668: For each of the two sets of models we run a grid of SFHs, convolving
669: simple stellar populations from the models of \citet{bruz03}. The
670: grid spans $64\times 64\times 64$ SFHs (note that three free
671: parameters are chosen in each set) over a wide range of values as
672: shown above. Once the best fit is obtained within the grid, we run a
673: number of models with random values of the parameters with an
674: accept/reject criterion based on the likelihood -- analogous to the
675: Metropolis algorithm, e.g., \citet{saha03}. The process ends when
676: 10,000 models are accepted. The total number of accepted models
677: determine the median and confidence levels of the parameters. The
678: distribution of reduced $\chi^2$ values has an average of
679: $\chi^2$=0.74 and RMS $\sigma (\chi^2)=0.35$. The $\chi^2$ used
680: throughout includes a mild Gaussian prior on the metallicity with
681: average [m/H]$=-0.1$ and RMS $\sigma ([m/H])=0.5$. This prior allows
682: for a relatively wide range of average metallicities, and is
683: compatible with the values commonly found in these systems
684: \citep[e.g.,][]{caro07}. For the interested reader, we include an
685: appendix describing in detail the effect of the application of this
686: prior. We find no significant change in the estimates of the stellar
687: age distribution with or without priors.
688:
689: \figref{fig7} shows the best fit models and the observed SEDs for 10
690: galaxies in our sample. The error bars represent the observations,
691: and the solid line corresponds to the best fits for the CSP
692: model. The wavelength is shown in the observed frame, whereas the
693: wavelength range chosen for all galaxies is 3800--5000~\AA\ {\sl in
694: the rest-frame}. This choice ensures a consistency in the
695: comparison of the stellar populations in our sample. The chosen range
696: straddles the age-sensitive 4000~\AA\ break. To illustrate the
697: uncertainties of estimating stellar ages within the modelling, we
698: show in \figref{fig8} the likelihood distribution with respect to
699: average stellar age for each galaxy.
700:
701: %--------------------------------------------------
702:
703: \begin{figure}
704: \epsscale{0.85}
705: \plotone{f7b.eps}
706: \caption{Spectral energy distributions of 10 galaxies in our sample
707: (each one is labeled with the HUDF numbers and model redshifts).
708: The error bars are the observed ACS/G800L data and the lines are the
709: best fits according to the CSP models (see text for details). The
710: distribution of reduced $\chi^2$ values for all galaxies in our
711: sample has an average of
712: $\chi^2$=0.74 and RMS $\sigma (\chi^2)=0.35$.}\label{fig7}
713: \end{figure}
714:
715: %--------------------------------------------------
716:
717: \begin{figure}
718: \epsscale{0.85}
719: \plotone{f8.eps}
720: \caption{The likelihood distribution with respect to average age for
721: all 34 bulges.}\label{fig8}
722: \end{figure}
723:
724: %--------------------------------------------------
725:
726: \figref{fig9} shows the 4000~\AA\ break amplitude, D4000, as a
727: function of stellar age. The distribution of bulge ages is
728: overplotted as a histogram, which agrees very well with the observed
729: range in D4000 -- which is 1.2 to 1.5, as shown in \figref{fig1}.
730: Different curves show three simple stellar population models with
731: three different metallicities. For metallicity around solar
732: (thick-solid and dashed lines), representative of our bulges, the
733: variation in D4000 with age is very similar. For solar metallicity
734: with E(\bb--\vv)=0.2 dust reddening (thin-solid line) and for high
735: metallicity (dotted line), the relation is somewhat steeper.
736: \figref{fig9} shows that for the range in D4000 and metallicities of
737: our sample, the effect of metallicity on D4000 is small, hence D4000
738: is a good age indicator for this sample.
739:
740: %--------------------------------------------------
741:
742: \begin{figure}
743: \epsscale{0.85}
744: \plotone{f9.eps}
745: \caption{The 4000~\AA\ break amplitude, D4000, as a function of
746: stellar age. The distribution of bulge ages is overplotted as
747: histogram, which agrees very well with the range in D4000 (see
748: \figref{fig1}). Different curves show three simple stellar
749: populations model with three different metallicities, as labelled.
750: The effect of dust on a solar metallicity model is shown as a thin
751: solid line. The figure illustrates that for the range of ages found
752: in our sample, the degeneracy caused by dust and metallicity will
753: not result in a significant change of the average stellar ages.
754: Furthermore, if the bulges were dusty or more metal rich, the
755: resulting populations would become even younger, ruling out the
756: possibility of bulges as old as early-type galaxies at the same
757: redshift.}\label{fig9}
758: \end{figure}
759:
760: %--------------------------------------------------
761:
762: \figref{fig10} shows the ages and metallicities of the best SFHs for
763: each bulge. The average and RMS scatter for age and metallicity are
764: shown as dots and error bars, respectively. For the EXP models --
765: which have zero spread in metallicity -- the error bars in
766: metallicity represent the uncertainty estimated from the
767: likelihood. The solid lines in the lower panels correspond to the age
768: of the Universe as a function of redshift. The dashed lines show the
769: age that a {\sl simple stellar population} -- a population with a
770: single age -- would have if formed at redshifts (from top to bottom)
771: $z_F\!=\!\{5,3,2\}$. The median value of the stellar ages of our
772: bulges is 1.3~Gyr. The CSP models treat chemical enrichment in a more
773: consistent way than the EXP models and should therefore better
774: reflect the true populations. We use mass-weighted average ages for
775: these stellar populations from the SFHs because they better reflect
776: the formation process of bulges (or galaxies in general). A very
777: small amount of young stars -- something that may not reflect the
778: true formation process of the bulge -- can have a large effect on
779: luminosity-weighted ages. By using composite models such as EXP or
780: CSP we minimise this contamination by using the mass-weighted ages
781: instead.
782:
783: %--------------------------------------------------
784:
785: \begin{figure}
786: \epsscale{0.85}
787: \plotone{f10.eps}
788: \caption{Ages and metallicities corresponding to the best fit
789: according to a simple exponentially decaying model (EXP; {\bf
790: [Left]}) or a consistent chemical enrichment code (CSP; {\bf
791: [Right]}). The filled circles are the average values of age or
792: metallicity and the error bars represent the RMS of the
793: distribution. The solid lines in the bottom panel track the age of
794: the Universe at a given redshift for a concordance cosmology. The
795: dashed lines -- from top to bottom -- correspond to the ages that
796: {\sl simple stellar populations} would have if formed at redshifts
797: $z_F=\{5,3,2\}$. The grey triangles are the GRAPES/HUDF early-type
798: galaxies from \citet{pasq06b}, whose SEDs were analyzed the same way
799: as in this paper.}\label{fig10}
800: \end{figure}
801:
802: %--------------------------------------------------
803:
804: We would emphasize here that it is the {\sl average} stellar age that
805: can be reasonably constrained with the data. Therefore,
806: \figref{fig10} does not imply that all stars in these bulges are
807: $\sim$1.3 Gyr but many may be older. To clarify, the formation epoch
808: (characterized by a formation redshift) is the age when star
809: formation starts in the model. Comparing observations and models of
810: unresolved stellar populations can only give us robust average ages
811: (the first order moment of the age distribution) and, with higher
812: uncertainty, we can also determine the ``width'' of the age
813: distribution (the second order moment). We caution the reader that
814: the actual parameters used in the modelling (especially formation
815: redshift) constitute a way to characterise a generic set of star
816: formation histories, but the uncertainties in these parameters will
817: be larger than those in the average age, which we consider to be the
818: main physical property that can be extracted from the data. We would
819: also clarify here that we have used `Age' or `\textless
820: Age\textgreater' in various figures showing age distributions. When
821: figures are based on single stellar population models we use `Age',
822: and when figures are based on composite models (EXP, CSP) we use
823: `\textless Age\textgreater', as they cannot give a single age by
824: definition.
825:
826: \subsection{Bulge Mass Estimates}
827:
828: The photometry from \tabref{table1} can be combined with the M/L
829: ratios obtained from the best-fit SFH to constrain the stellar mass
830: (M$_s$) content of the bulges. This M/L is derived from the composite
831: model obtained by combining the simple stellar populations from
832: \citet{bruz03} using a \citet{chab03} Initial Mass Function (IMF). If
833: we change the IMF from \citet{chab03} to \citet{salp55}, the stellar
834: mass will increase by $\sim$0.3~dex in $\log$(M$_s$), which within
835: the other errors in data and models, does not change our overall
836: results. The photometry has to be corrected to take into account
837: contamination from the disk, as we discuss in \secref{contam}. We use
838: the B/D ratio obtained from the GALFIT (\secref{galfit}) to estimate
839: the bulge fraction of the light in the galaxy. The stellar mass
840: estimates for our bulges are in the range of $6.5\!\leq\!\log
841: ($M$_s/$M$_{\odot})\!\leq\!10.0$.
842:
843: \figref{fig11} shows the predicted average and RMS of the age
844: distribution as a function of stellar mass and redshift. Over the
845: stellar masses and redshifts probed in this sample we find a similar
846: average age and scatter. This similarity could be due to two possible
847: reasons. First, our sample spans a redshift range from
848: $z\!\simeq\!0.8$ to $1.3$, corresponding to a difference in lookback
849: time of $\sim 1.9$~Gyr. This is comparable both to the uncertainty in
850: the age estimate and to the RMS of the distribution. Secondly,
851: \citet{vanz06} found Large Scale Structure (LSS) in the CDF-S around
852: $z\!\simeq\!1.0$ from VLT spectroscopic redshifts. The redshift
853: distribution in the HUDF (smaller field in the CDF-S) also show a
854: strong peak around $z\!\simeq\!1.0$. So it is possible that we may be
855: looking at a smaller subset of this LSS at $z\!\simeq\!1.0$.
856:
857: %--------------------------------------------------
858:
859: \begin{figure}
860: \epsscale{0.85}
861: \plotone{f11.eps}
862: \caption{The average age {\bf [Bottom]} and RMS scatter {\bf [Top]} of
863: the age distribution is shown with respect to stellar mass ({\sl
864: left}) and redshift ({\sl right}). Typical error bars are shown.
865: The lookback time difference between redshifts $z=0.8$ and $1.3$ is
866: $1.9$~Gyr, i.e., comparable to the scatter in {\sl average ages},
867: which explains the lack of a trend of average age with
868: redshift.}\label{fig11}
869: \end{figure}
870:
871: %--------------------------------------------------
872:
873: \subsection{Disk Contamination in the GRAPES Grism Spectra}\label{contam}
874:
875: The best-fit stellar population models to the GRAPES SEDs suggests
876: that the late-type bulges at \zgal\ are young, with an average age of
877: $\sim$1.3 Gyr. To better understand this result, we first need to
878: quantify the effect of disk contamination in our measurements. The
879: GRAPES SEDS are extracted from an aperture of relatively narrow-width
880: aperture (5 pixels in diameter) around the center of each galaxy. The
881: narrow extraction of the grism spectra is dominated by the bulge and
882: the inner disk light; since we use its 4000~\AA\ break to date the
883: bulge, we need to investigate the spectral contamination due to inner
884: disk on the estimated bulge age. We perform following photometric
885: tests to understand the effect of the inner disk on the bulge ages.
886:
887: (1) We used the disk and bulge light profiles produced by GALFIT and
888: measured their flux in a strip 5 pixel wide and around their common
889: center, to estimate the disk and bulge light-fraction within this
890: aperture. We find that the light contributed by the disk to the total
891: flux in this aperture can be as high as 30\%. At the same time, we
892: measured the disk and bulge colors within the same aperture, to find
893: that the disk and the bulge are similar within the photometric errors,
894: so that the disk contamination in the bulge spectrum is not expected
895: to dominate our estimate of the bulge age (see Appendix B for further
896: discussion). This can be already be seen in \figref{fig3}, where the
897: bulge is in general 0.3--0.8 mag redder in (\vv--\zz) than the disk.
898:
899: (2) We compared the bulge age derived from the stellar population
900: models with the color difference between two apertures. We measure
901: the color difference between two apertures with 2.5 pixels and 5
902: pixels radii, equivalent to the narrow and wide GRAPES spectral
903: extractions, respectively. The top panel of \figref{fig12} shows the
904: comparison between the color difference and the bulge age. The points
905: on the plot are color-coded according to their B/D ratios, measured
906: from GALFIT as discussed in \secref{galfit}. Blue color stands for
907: B/D$\le$0.5, green means 0.5$<$B/D$\le$1 and red represents B/D$>$1.
908: The top panel of the \figref{fig12} does not show any major trends
909: among age, color difference, and B/D ratio. Secondly, we compared the
910: bulge age to the color difference between the 2.5 pixels aperture and
911: the annulus defined by the 2.5 and 5 pixels apertures. The bottom
912: panel of the \figref{fig12} shows this comparison. The points on the
913: plot are color-coded according to their B/D ratios, as in the top
914: panel. Like the top panel, the bottom panel of \figref{fig12} does
915: not show any major correlation among age, color difference, and B/D
916: ratio. Finally, we directly compared the B/D ratio with the age and
917: mass of the bulge. The top panel of \figref{fig13} shows the
918: comparison between the B/D ratios obtained from the GALFIT and the
919: bulge age from the stellar population models for all galaxies in the
920: sample. \figref{fig13} does not show any correlation between the age
921: and the B/D ratio. Similarly, the bottom panel of \figref{fig13} shows
922: at best a very mild correlation between the bulge stellar mass and the
923: B/D ratio.
924:
925: %--------------------------------------------------
926:
927: \begin{figure}
928: \epsscale{0.85}
929: \plotone{f12a.eps}
930: \plotone{f12b.eps}
931: \caption{Comparison between aperture colors and the best-fit bulge
932: age. {\bf [Top]} shows the bulge age as a function of the color
933: difference between the 2.5 pixels aperture and the 5 pixels
934: aperture. {\bf [Bottom]} shows the bulge age as a function of the
935: color difference between the 2.5 pixels aperture and the annulus
936: defined by the 2.5 and 5 pixels apertures. A blue colored circle
937: stands for B/D$\le$0.5, green means 0.5$<$B/D$\le$1 and red
938: represents B/D$>$1. Here B/D is measured in the \ii-band as
939: discussed in \secref{galfit}. Both panels does not show any
940: correlation among the age, color difference, and B/D
941: ratio.}\label{fig12}
942: \end{figure}
943:
944: %--------------------------------------------------
945:
946: \begin{figure}
947: \epsscale{0.85}
948: \plotone{f13.eps}
949: \caption{The Bulge-to-Disk (B/D) ratio measured with GALFIT is compared
950: with average age {\bf [Top]} and stellar mass {[\bf Bottom]}. Similar
951: to the trend in \figref{fig11}, average age does not correlate with
952: B/D either. However, the bottom panel suggests a correlation with
953: stellar mass.}\label{fig13}
954: \end{figure}
955:
956: %--------------------------------------------------
957:
958: (3) For a few sample galaxies, we extracted the spectrum of their disk
959: above and below the bulge aperture used to extract the bulge spectrum,
960: at a distance of approximately 10 pixels from the galaxy center.
961: Similarly to its bulge, the inner disk also exhibits a 4000~\AA\ break
962: in the spectrum whose amplitude is only slightly smaller (within few
963: percents) than the bulge. This test shows that both bulges and inner
964: disks are equally red/old, as expected from an inside-out formation
965: scenario. We also fitted stellar population models using both the
966: bulge and disk spectra, and analyzed how the bulge-age and metallicity
967: change as a function of disk contamination, i.e., the fraction of disk
968: light added to the bulge spectrum. Our simulations (discussed in
969: Appendix B) show that the determination of the bulge age is not
970: dominated by disk contamination. Even when disk contamination is
971: completely ignored -- or fully subtracted -- the bulge ages do not
972: change much.
973:
974: In summary, we do not detect any significant correlation between the
975: bulge age, B/D ratio and the aperture color difference. We thus
976: conclude that our estimate of the bulge ages is fairly robust, and
977: that the younger age of the sample bulges is likely real and not due
978: to disk contamination.
979:
980:
981: \section{Discussion}\label{results}
982:
983: The ages and masses of late-type bulges are estimated by fitting our
984: GRAPES SEDs with stellar population models. Our analysis shows that
985: bulges in late-type galaxies at higher redshift (\zgal) appear to be
986: relatively young, with an average age $\sim$1.3 Gyr ($6.5\!\leq\!\log
987: ($M$_s/$M$_{\odot})\!\leq\!10.0$) compared to early-type galaxies at
988: the same redshift. This finding appears to be independent of the
989: relative amount of disk-light present, or the color of the underlying
990: disk.
991:
992: \figref{fig14} shows the stellar masses of our bulges (filled and open
993: circles) compared with the best-fit average ages from the CSP models
994: discussed in \secref{models}. We also include the sample of early-type
995: galaxies from GRAPES/HUDF \citep[grey triangles;][]{pasq06b}, whose
996: GRAPES spectra were analyzed in a similar way. The early-types sample
997: covers a wider range of redshifts ($0.5 \le z \le 1.1$). Hence, for a
998: proper comparison, we divide both bulges and early-type galaxies with
999: respect to redshift roughly about the median value for each subsample
1000: $z\sim 1$ for bulges and $z\sim 0.65$ for early-types. The solid
1001: (hollow) symbols correspond to the lower (higher) redshift bin,
1002: respectively. The bulges in our late-type spirals span a much lower
1003: range of ages, and, obviously, have lower stellar masses, compared to
1004: those of early-type galaxies.
1005:
1006: %--------------------------------------------------
1007:
1008: \begin{figure}
1009: \epsscale{0.85}
1010: \plotone{f14.eps}
1011: \caption{Comparison between the ages of the bulges in this sample
1012: (black circles/lines) and early-type galaxies in GRAPES/HUDF
1013: \citep[grey triangles/dashed lines; ][]{pasq06b}. The inset shows
1014: the histogram of redshifts for both samples with ellipticals peaking
1015: around $z\!\simeq\!0.65$. Both samples are split with respect to
1016: redshift, with solid symbols representing the lower redshift
1017: subsample. There is a very significant difference between the
1018: average age of early-type galaxies and galaxy bulges. Furthermore,
1019: the age difference is better defined for early-types, suggesting
1020: passive evolution for these galaxies and a more extended star
1021: formation history for the bulges.}\label{fig14}
1022: \end{figure}
1023:
1024: %--------------------------------------------------
1025:
1026: \citet{elme05} have classified $\sim$900 galaxies (larger than 10
1027: pixels or 0.3\arcsec) in the HUDF according to morphology and their
1028: photometric properties. They find 269 spiral galaxies in the HUDF.
1029: Using the \citet{elme05} morphological classifications, and accurate
1030: spectro-photometric redshifts from \citet{ryan07}, we estimate that
1031: the results in this paper represent approximately $\sim$40--50\% of
1032: the total late-type/spirals HUDF galaxy population within the
1033: magnitude and redshift range used in this paper.
1034:
1035: Our analysis of the central and the inner disk colors of these
1036: galaxies (\figref{fig3}) and their grism spectra (as discussed in the
1037: Appendix B) shows that the inner disk and the bulge components have
1038: similar colors, and that the bulge ages are not significantly affected
1039: by the light (and stellar populations) of the underlying disk. This
1040: result is consistent with the idea that the inner disk of galaxies in
1041: general has similar colors and age as the bulge
1042: \citep[e.g.,][]{pele96}. The effect of dust on these measurements
1043: should not be significant, since our bulge ages are based on the
1044: amplitude of the 4000~\AA\ observed in the GRAPES grism spectra, which
1045: is mostly sensitive to age and has a weak dependence on dust (see
1046: \figref{fig9}). Also, \citet{maca04} argue that dust is generally not
1047: a significant contributor to galaxy colors in low-mass/low-luminosity
1048: spiral galaxies, but is likely important in more massive/brighter
1049: galaxies. On the other hand, even if it plays an important role in
1050: this analysis, the inclusion of dust will make our ages even younger,
1051: and our result that bulges and inner-disks have similar dominant
1052: stellar population with an average age of $\sim$1.3 Gyr should then be
1053: viewed as an upper limit.
1054:
1055: We performed GALFIT decomposition on the sample galaxies by
1056: simultaneously fitting the bulge to a \sersic\ profile and the disk to
1057: an exponential profile. For all bulges in our sample, we obtained
1058: better fits using \sersic\ indices of $n \lesssim 1.0$. Therefore,
1059: these bulges are disk-like \citep{korm04,atha05} and have radial
1060: surface brightness profiles similar to disks. Similar analyses for
1061: local spirals by \citet{dejo96} and \citet{cour96} have shown that the
1062: majority of bulges in late-type galaxies are better fit by exponential
1063: profile. Our results show that a similar trend also exists at \zgal.
1064: The similarities we find in the bulge and the inner-disk properties
1065: (4000~\AA\ break, colors and profiles) could imply that these less
1066: massive, younger bulges at \zgal\ grow through secular evolution
1067: processes \citep{korm04}. At \zgal, it is possible that we are seeing
1068: these galaxies still forming, and these ``disk-like'' bulges might
1069: grow from disk material or minor mergers to become more massive bulges
1070: observed at present day. Disk-like pseudo-bulges can also grow by gas
1071: inflow and star-formation. Bars can drive central gas inflows
1072: \citep{shet05}, and therefore, there could be a correlation between
1073: these disky bulges and central bars. \citet{shet08} find that the bar
1074: fraction in very massive, luminous spirals is constant from
1075: $z\!\simeq\!0$ to $z\!\simeq\!0.84$, whereas for low-mass, blue
1076: spirals it declines significantly with redshift to about $\sim$20\% at
1077: $z\sim0.84$, indicating that some bars do form early enough.
1078: \citet{elme05} has morphologically classified few ($\sim$10\%) of our
1079: sample galaxies as barred galaxies, so it will be interesting to
1080: investigate these late-type galaxies in future studies to understand
1081: this relation.
1082:
1083: Aperture color analysis by \citet{elli01} for bulges at
1084: $z\!\lesssim\!0.6$ in early-type and spiral galaxies with $I_{AB} <
1085: 24$ mag found that their central colors are redder than the
1086: surrounding outer disk colors, but that these central colors are bluer
1087: than those of pure ellipticals at the same redshifts. As shown in
1088: \figref{fig10}, our results agree with \citet{elli01}. This is not
1089: perhaps surprising, since we also select our sample based on galaxy
1090: total-magnitudes, with no constraints on its bulge magnitude. In
1091: comparison, \citet{koo05} select their sample based on bulge
1092: luminosity, and they find that luminous, high-redshift
1093: ($0.73\!<\!z\!<\!1.04$) bulges ($I_{AB} < 24$ mag) within the Groth
1094: Strip Survey are very red/old. They clearly show that if the bulge
1095: sample is luminous, then all bulges are equally red and old. In
1096: contrast, we show that if the bulge sample is selected without any
1097: constraint on the bulge magnitude, then late-type bulges are younger
1098: than bulges in early-type galaxies at similar redshifts.
1099:
1100: Galaxy colors and structural properties show a bimodal distribution,
1101: separating into a red sequence, populated by early-type galaxies, and
1102: a blue ``cloud'', populated by late-type galaxies
1103: \citep{balo04,driv06}. Whether a galaxy resides in a red sequence or a
1104: blue cloud is also related to the type of bulge in a galaxy
1105: \citep{dror07}. \figref{fig4} shows this bimodal distribution. Our
1106: late-type galaxies with pseudo bulges lie in the bluer cloud compared
1107: to early-type galaxies that lie on the red color sequence. This shows
1108: that the processes involved in the formation of galactic bulges and
1109: their host galaxies are very similar. Observations indicate that
1110: these formation mechanisms depend strongly on the bulge (as well as
1111: galaxy) mass, and that they were active at $z\!\simeq\!1.3$. This
1112: evidence is strengthened by the results of \citet{thom06} and
1113: \citet{maca08}, who find that bulges of similar mass have a similar
1114: evolutionary path. Possibly because of cosmic variance, we do not
1115: detect early-type spirals at \zgal\ in the HUDF. Comparing our sample
1116: of late-type bulges with the massive early-type galaxies at similar
1117: redshifts studied by \citet{pasq06b}, we confirm the existence of
1118: different evolutionary patterns for bulges in early- and late-type
1119: galaxies (see \figref{fig4}).
1120:
1121: Our analysis of the deepest optical survey, the HUDF, along with the
1122: deep unique ACS grism spectroscopy provides the best spatial
1123: resolution at \zgal, and yields more detailed insight in the process
1124: of galaxy formation. Massive and luminous bulges
1125: \citep[e.g.,][]{koo05}, which mostly reside in early-type galaxies and
1126: in earlier-type spiral galaxies, are old and formed at
1127: $z\!\gtrsim\!2$. The secular evolution suggested by \citet{korm04}
1128: does not play any role in their formation. Our ACS grism study of the
1129: HUDF here has shown that lower-mass bulges, which are mostly
1130: associated with later-type galaxies, are on average younger than one
1131: would expect by letting their stellar populations passively evolve
1132: since their formation redshift $z\!\sim\!2$. This result would point
1133: to secular evolution as a likely mechanism to support prolonged star
1134: formation in low-mass bulges, which is very different from
1135: \citet{pasq06b} ellipticals, for which a quick SFH plus passive
1136: evolution can explain their observed SEDs.
1137:
1138: \section{Summary}\label{summary}
1139:
1140: We estimated the stellar ages and masses of 34 bulges of late-type
1141: galaxies from the HUDF by fitting stellar population models to the
1142: 4000~\AA\ break observed in deep ACS GRAPES grism spectra. This study
1143: takes advantage of the exceptional angular resolution and depth of the
1144: GRAPES/HUDF data, which allow us to identify the small bulge
1145: components of this sample of galaxies at \zgal, \emph{both} on the
1146: direct \emph{and} on the grism images, and to extract its
1147: corresponding spectrum, a method currently unfeasible with
1148: ground-based spectroscopy. We find that bulges in late-type galaxies
1149: at higher redshift (\zgal) appear to be significantly younger (with an
1150: average age of $\sim$1.3 Gyr) than early-type galaxies at similar
1151: redshifts. This finding is robust against the amount of disk-light
1152: that may contaminate in part the bulge spectrum. The lack of a trend
1153: between average age and redshift (see \figref{fig14}) suggests star
1154: formation in bulges is extended over much longer times compared to
1155: early-type galaxies. Our results support the scenario where low-mass
1156: late-type bulges form through secular evolution processes.
1157:
1158: \acknowledgments
1159: This work was supported by \emph{HST} grants GO 9793 and GO 10530 from
1160: the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA under
1161: NASA contract NAS5-26555. We would like to thank Seth Cohen for his
1162: help generating color images and Chien Peng for his prompt replies on
1163: our GALFIT questions. NPH would like to thank Graduate Professional
1164: Student Association (GPSA) at Arizona State University for their
1165: conference travel grant to present this work at the AAS meeting. IF
1166: thanks the School of Earth and Space Exploration (SESE) at Arizona
1167: State University for hospitality and financial support, and also
1168: acknowledges support from the Nuffield Foundation. We thank the
1169: referee for helpful comments and suggestions that improved the paper.
1170:
1171: Facilities: \facility{HST(ACS)}
1172: %--------------------------------------------------
1173:
1174: \appendix
1175:
1176: \section{Effect of Metallicity Priors on Bulge Ages}
1177:
1178: The modelling of stellar populations in this paper includes a mild
1179: prior on the distribution of bulge metallicities. For each choice of a
1180: star formation history (characterized by the parameters discussed in
1181: \secref{models}) we multiply the likelihood from the $\chi^2$
1182: distribution by a Gaussian prior with mean $\log (Z/Z_\odot)=-0.1$ and
1183: RMS $\sigma (\log Z/Z_\odot)=0.5$. The effect of this prior is
1184: illustrated in \figref{fig15} for one of the bulges (ID 501). The
1185: marginalised distribution in metallicity, average age and age width
1186: (RMS) is shown for the modelling without ({\sl top}) and with ({\sl
1187: bottom}) the metallicity prior. The Gaussian prior is also shown as
1188: a dashed line in the leftmost panels. The main effect of this prior
1189: (and the motivation to our inclusion of this term in this paper) is
1190: that the metallicity likelihood has a monotonic increase for high
1191: metallicities, above solar. Hence, we decided to reduce weight for
1192: those models with very high metallicities by the inclusion of the
1193: prior. This decision is justified by the fact that population
1194: synthesis models are not as accurate at super solar metallicities due
1195: to the lack of proper calibrators \citep{bruz03}. Furthermore, the
1196: range of metallicities for which the prior has a mild effect
1197: corresponds to the range commonly found in these systems from
1198: ground-based spectroscopic observations
1199: \citep[e.g.,][]{shap05,schi06,liu08}. The effect of the prior on the
1200: age distributions is negligible (middle and rightmost panels of
1201: \figref{fig15}). For those reasons we believe the inclusion of the
1202: prior does not bias in a significant way our conclusions regarding
1203: stellar ages.
1204:
1205: %--------------------------------------------------
1206:
1207: \begin{figure}
1208: \epsscale{0.6}
1209: \plotone{f15.eps}
1210: \caption{One typical example (ID 501) of the likelihoods obtained for
1211: metallicity, average age and RMS of the age distribution for a set
1212: of EXP models with and without metallicity prior. This figure shows
1213: that without the prior we get a slightly higher metallicity but the
1214: average stellar age and scatter remains very similar to the
1215: modelling with a prior.}\label{fig15}
1216: \end{figure}
1217:
1218: %--------------------------------------------------
1219:
1220: But we can also show that the prior should not have a strong effect on
1221: the distribution of metallicities either. \figref{fig16} compares the
1222: predicted metallicities of our sample (histogram). The filled circle
1223: and error bar represents the mean and RMS of the metallicity
1224: distribution. In comparison, the Gaussian prior (solid line) is much
1225: wider.
1226: %The hollow circle and its error bar give the mean and RMS of
1227: %the prior.
1228: Only when the prior and the predicted values have the same
1229: distribution one could suspect of strong biasing.
1230:
1231: %--------------------------------------------------
1232:
1233: \begin{figure}
1234: \epsscale{0.6}
1235: \plotone{f16.eps}
1236: \caption{The distribution of bulge metallicities estimated from the
1237: stellar population models. The data point shows the average value
1238: and RMS scatter of the distribution. We overplot a mild Gaussian
1239: prior used on the metallicity with average $\log (Z/Z_\odot) =-0.1$
1240: and RMS=$0.5$~dex. This prior allows for a wide range of average
1241: metallicities, and is compatible with the values obtained at \zgal\
1242: from ground-based spectroscopic observations
1243: \citep[e.g.,][]{shap05,schi06,liu08}.}\label{fig16}
1244: \end{figure}
1245:
1246: %--------------------------------------------------
1247:
1248: Finally, in order to quantify the effect of metallicity priors on the
1249: predicted ages and metallicities for our sample, we show a comparison
1250: for EXP models with (black dots) and without priors (grey dots) in
1251: \figref{fig17}. The rightmost panels show histograms of the predicted
1252: ages and metallicities. As expected, the metallicities obtained
1253: without a prior are higher compared to models with no prior. However,
1254: taken into account reasonable uncertainties for the metallicity
1255: estimates extracted from unresolved spectra (of order 0.3~dex), one
1256: can say that our methodology is acceptable within the expected error
1257: bars.
1258:
1259: %--------------------------------------------------
1260:
1261: \begin{figure}
1262: \epsscale{0.6}
1263: \plotone{f17.eps}
1264: \caption{Comparison of bulge age distribution and bulge metallicity
1265: for EXP models with and without a metallicity prior. The age
1266: histogram does not show any appreciable change. The metallicity
1267: histogram without a prior (grey) peak at slightly higher
1268: metallicities -- as illustrated in \figref{fig15} -- compared to the
1269: metallicity histogram (black) with prior, but it is nevertheless
1270: compatible given the typical uncertainty (of order 0.3~dex) in
1271: estimates of metallicity from unresolved stellar
1272: populations.}\label{fig17}
1273: \end{figure}
1274:
1275: %--------------------------------------------------
1276:
1277: \section{Effect of Disk Contamination on Bulge Ages}
1278:
1279: In order to assess the effect of disk contamination on the age and
1280: metallicity estimates, we performed an extraction of the SED of the
1281: disk component for a small sub-sample of galaxies. This corresponds to
1282: the stacking of two strips (5 pixels wide) at an approximate distance
1283: of 10 pixels on either side of the center of the galaxy. When
1284: comparing the observed spectra with synthetic models, we assume that a
1285: fraction of the flux in each galaxy comes from the disk. Hence, for
1286: each choice of parameters, a synthetic SED is obtained, and a fraction
1287: $f_D$ of the disk SED is added to this spectrum, before performing a
1288: maximum likelihood analysis. This fraction is measured in the
1289: \ii-band (F775W). \figref{fig18} shows the resulting ages and
1290: metallicities for four galaxies from our sample as a function of disk
1291: contamination. The 95\% confidence levels are shown as error bars.
1292: The ages and metallicities are shown in the same plot, as solid and
1293: open dots, respectively. One can see that the effect of disk
1294: contamination is small, as expected from the weak color gradients
1295: found in the images. This result is consistent with the idea that the
1296: inner disk of galaxies is as old as the bulge \citep[e.g.,][]{pele96}.
1297:
1298: %--------------------------------------------------
1299:
1300: \begin{figure}
1301: \epsscale{0.6}
1302: \plotone{f18.eps}
1303: \caption{Effect of disk contamination on the predictions of age and
1304: metallicity. The solid (empty) dots show the estimated average age
1305: (metallicity) for a grid of exponentially-decaying star-formation
1306: histories. The 95\% confidence levels are shown as error bars. The
1307: result is presented as a function of the contamination of the disk,
1308: as measured in the F775W band (see text for details).}\label{fig18}
1309: \end{figure}
1310:
1311: %--------------------------------------------------
1312: \clearpage
1313: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1314: \bibitem[Abraham \etal(1999)]{abra99} Abraham, R. G., Ellis, R. S.,
1315: Fabian, A. C., Tanvir, N. R., \& Glazebrook, K. 1999, MNRAS, 303,
1316: 641
1317: \bibitem[Athanassoula(2005)]{atha05} Athanassoula, E. 2005, MNRAS,
1318: 358, 1477
1319: \bibitem[Athanassoula(2008)]{atha08} Athanassoula, E. 2008, IAU
1320: Symposium 245 ``Galactic bulges'', M. Bureau et al. eds
1321: (arXiv:0802.0151)
1322: \bibitem[Balogh \etal(1999)]{balo99} Balogh, M.L., et al. 1999, ApJ,
1323: 527, 54
1324: \bibitem[Balogh \etal(2004)]{balo04} Balogh, M.L., Baldry, I. K.,
1325: Nichol, R., Miller, C., Bower, R., \& Glazebrook, K. 2004, ApJ, 615,
1326: L101
1327: \bibitem[Baugh \etal(1996)]{baug96} Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., \& Frenk,
1328: C. S. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1361
1329: \bibitem[Beckwith \etal(2006)]{beck06} Beckwith, S., et al. 2006, AJ,
1330: 132, 1729
1331: \bibitem[Bershady \etal(2000)]{bers00} Bershady, M. A., Jangren, A.,
1332: \& Conselice, C. J. 2000, AJ, 119, 2645
1333: \bibitem[Bouwens \etal(1999)]{bouw99} Bouwens, R., Cay\'{o}n, L., \&
1334: Silk, J. 1999, ApJ, 516, 77
1335: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bruz03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot,
1336: S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
1337: \bibitem[Carollo \etal(2007)]{caro07} Carollo, C. M., Scarlata, C.,
1338: Stiavelli, M., Wyse, R. F. G., \& Mayer, L. 2007, ApJ, 658, 960
1339: \bibitem[Chabrier(2003)]{chab03} Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763
1340: \bibitem[Coe \etal(2006)]{coe06} Coe, D., Ben\'{i}tez, N.,
1341: S\'{a}nchez, S. F., Jee, M., Bouwens, R., \& Ford, H. 2006, AJ, 132,
1342: 926
1343: \bibitem[Conselice \etal(2000)]{cons00} Conselice, C. J., Bershady,
1344: M. A., \& Jangren, A. 2000, ApJ, 529, 886
1345: \bibitem[Conselice(2003)]{cons03} Conselice, C. J. 2003, ApJS, 147, 1
1346: \bibitem[Conselice \etal(2005)]{cons05} Conselice, C. J., Blackburne,
1347: J. A., \& Papovich, C. 2005, ApJ, 620, 564
1348: \bibitem[Courteau \etal(1996)]{cour96} Courteau, S., de Jong, R. S.,
1349: \& Broeils, A. H. 1996, ApJ, 457, L73
1350: \bibitem[de Jong(1996)]{dejo96} de Jong, R. S. 1996, A\&AS, 118, 557
1351: \bibitem[Dong \& De Robertis(2006)]{dong06} Dong, X. Y. \& De
1352: Robertis, M. M. 2006, AJ, 131, 1236
1353: \bibitem[Driver \etal(2006)]{driv06} Driver, S. P., et al. 2006,
1354: MNRAS, 368, 414
1355: \bibitem[Drory \& Fisher(2007)]{dror07} Drory, N. \& Fisher,
1356: D. B. 2007, ApJ, 664, 640
1357: \bibitem[Ellis \etal(2001)]{elli01} Ellis, R. S., Abraham, R. G., \&
1358: Dickinson, M. 2001, ApJ, 551, 111
1359: \bibitem[Elmegreen \etal(2005)]{elme05} Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen,
1360: B. G., Rubin, D. S., \& Schaffer, M. A. 2005, ApJ, 631, 85
1361: \bibitem[Ferreras \& Silk(2000)]{ferr00} Ferreras, I., \& Silk,
1362: J. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 786
1363: \bibitem[Ferreras \etal(2005)]{ferr05} Ferreras, I., Lisker, T.,
1364: Carollo, C. M., Lilly, S. J., \& Mobasher, B. 2005, ApJ, 635, 243
1365: \bibitem[Grazian \etal(2006)]{graz06} Grazian, A., et al. 2006, A\&A,
1366: 449, 951
1367: \bibitem[Hathi \etal(2008a)]{hath08a} Hathi, N. P., Malhotra, S., \&
1368: Rhoads, J. 2008a, ApJ, 673, 686
1369: \bibitem[Hathi \etal(2008b)]{hath08b} Hathi, N. P., Jansen, R. A.,
1370: Windhorst, R. A., Cohen, S. H., Keel, W. C., Corbin, M. R., \& Ryan,
1371: R. E., Jr. 2008b, AJ, 135, 156
1372: \bibitem[Hernquist \& Mihos(1995)]{hern95} Hernquist, L. \& Mihos,
1373: J. C. 1995, ApJ, 448, 41
1374: \bibitem[Kauffmann \etal(1993)]{kauf93} Kauffmann, G., White,
1375: S. D. M., \& Guiderdoni, B. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 201
1376: \bibitem[Kauffmann \etal(2003)]{kauf03} Kauffmann, G., et al. 2003,
1377: MNRAS, 341, 33
1378: \bibitem[Koekemoer \etal(2002)]{koek02} Koekemoer, A. M., Fruchter,
1379: A. S., Hook, R. N., \& Hack, W. 2002, The 2002 \emph{HST}
1380: Calibration Workshop, ed. S. Arribas, A. Koekemoer, and B.
1381: Whitmore (Baltimore:STScI), 337
1382: \bibitem[Koo \etal(2005)]{koo05} Koo, D. C., et al. 2005, ApJS, 157,
1383: 175
1384: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Kennicutt(2004)]{korm04} Kormendy, J. \&
1385: Kennicutt, R. C. 2004, ARA\&A, 42, 603
1386: \bibitem[Le F\`{e}vre \etal(2005)]{lefe05} Le F\`{e}vre, O., et
1387: al. 2005, A\&A, 439, 845
1388: \bibitem[Liu \etal(2008)]{liu08} Liu, X., Shapley, A., Coil, A.,
1389: Brinchmann, J., \& Ma, C-P. 2008, ApJ, 678, 758
1390: \bibitem[MacArthur \etal(2004)]{maca04} MacArthur, L. A., Courteau,
1391: S., Bell, E., \& Holtzman, J. A. 2004, ApJS, 152, 175
1392: \bibitem[MacArthur \etal(2008)]{maca08} MacArthur, L. A., Ellis,
1393: R. S., Treu, T., Vivian, V., Bundy, K., Moran, S. M. 2008, ApJ,
1394: 680, 70
1395: \bibitem[Malhotra \etal(2005)]{malh05} Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E.,
1396: Pirzkal, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 666
1397: \bibitem[Menanteau \etal(2001)]{mena01} Menanteau, F., Abraham, R. G.,
1398: \& Ellis, R. S. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 1
1399: \bibitem[Oke \& Gunn(1983)]{oke83} Oke, J. B., \& Gunn, J.E. 1983,
1400: ApJ, 266, 713
1401: \bibitem[Padmanabhan \etal(2004)]{padm04} Padmanabhan, N., et
1402: al. 2004, New Astronomy, 9, 329
1403: \bibitem[Pasquali \etal(2006a)]{pasq06a} Pasquali, A., Pirzkal, N.,
1404: Larsen, S., Walsh, J. R., \& K\"{u}mmel, M. 2006a, PASP, 118, 270
1405: \bibitem[Pasquali \etal(2006b)]{pasq06b} Pasquali, A., et al. 2006b,
1406: ApJ, 636, 115
1407: \bibitem[Peletier \& Balcells(1996)]{pele96} Peletier, R. F. \&
1408: Balcells, M. 1996, AJ, 111, 2238
1409: \bibitem[Peng \etal(2002)]{peng02} Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey,
1410: C. D., \& Rix, H-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266
1411: \bibitem[Pirzkal \etal(2004)]{pirz04} Pirzkal, N., et al. 2004, ApJS,
1412: 154, 501
1413: \bibitem[Pirzkal \etal(2005)]{pirz05} Pirzkal, N., et al. 2005, ApJ,
1414: 622, 319
1415: \bibitem[Ryan \etal(2007)]{ryan07} Ryan, R. E., Jr., Hathi, N. P.,
1416: Cohen, S. H., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 839
1417: \bibitem[Saha(2003)]{saha03} Saha, P. 2003, {\sl Principles of Data
1418: Analysis}, Cappella Archive.
1419: \bibitem[Salpeter(1955)]{salp55} Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161
1420: \bibitem[Schiavon \etal(2006)]{schi06} Schiavon, R., et al. 2006, ApJ,
1421: 651, L93
1422: \bibitem[S\'{e}rsic(1968)]{sers68} S\'{e}rsic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de
1423: galaxias australes
1424: \bibitem[Shapley \etal(2005)]{shap05} Shapley, A. E., Coil, A., Ma,
1425: C-P., \& Bundy, K. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1006
1426: \bibitem[Sheth \etal(2005)]{shet05} Sheth, K., Vogel, S. N., Regan,
1427: M. W., Thornley, M. D., \& Teuben, P. J. 2005, ApJ, 632, 217
1428: \bibitem[Sheth \etal(2008)]{shet08} Sheth, K., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675,
1429: 1141
1430: \bibitem[Simien \& de Vaucouleurs(1986)]{simi86} Simien, F., \& de
1431: Vaucouleurs, G. 1986, ApJ, 302, 564
1432: \bibitem[Thielemann \etal(1996)]{thie96} Thielemann, F-K., Nomoto, K.,
1433: \& Hashimoto, M. 1996, ApJ, 460, 408
1434: \bibitem[Thomas \& Davies(2006)]{thom06} Thomas, D., \& Davies,
1435: R. L. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 510
1436: \bibitem[van den Bosch(1998)]{vand98} van den Bosch, F. C. 1998, ApJ,
1437: 507, 601
1438: \bibitem[van den Hoek \& Groenewegen(1997)]{van97} van den Hoek,
1439: L. B., \& Groenewegen, M. A. T. 1997, A\&AS, 123, 305
1440: \bibitem[Vanzella \etal(2006)]{vanz06} Vanzella, E., Cristiani, S.,
1441: Dickinson, M., et al. 2006, A\&A, 454, 423
1442: \bibitem[Vanzella \etal(2008)]{vanz08} Vanzella, E., et al. 2008,
1443: A\&A, 478, 83
1444: \bibitem[Williams \etal(1996)]{will96} Williams, R. E., et al. 1996,
1445: AJ, 112, 1335
1446: \bibitem[Windhorst \etal(2002)]{wind02} Windhorst, R. A., et al. 2002,
1447: ApJS, 143, 113
1448: \end{thebibliography}
1449:
1450: %--------------------------------------------------
1451: \clearpage
1452:
1453: \input tab1.tex
1454:
1455: \clearpage
1456:
1457: \input tab2.tex
1458:
1459: %--------------------------------------------------
1460:
1461: \end{document}
1462: