1: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{natbib}
3:
4:
5: \shorttitle{HST Imaging of Bright LBG Candidates}
6: \shortauthors{Bentz, et al.}
7:
8: \received{}
9: \accepted{}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{{\it Hubble Space Telescope} Imaging of Bright Lyman-break Galaxy
14: Candidates from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Not LBGs After All}
15:
16: \author{ Misty~C.~Bentz\altaffilmark{1,2},
17: Richard~W.~Pogge\altaffilmark{1},
18: Patrick~S.~Osmer\altaffilmark{1}}
19:
20:
21: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy,
22: The Ohio State University,
23: 140 West 18th Avenue,
24: Columbus, OH 43210;
25: pogge, osmer@astronomy.ohio-state.edu}
26:
27: \altaffiltext{2}{Present address:
28: Department of Physics and Astronomy,
29: 4129 Frederick Reines Hall,
30: University of California, Irvine
31: Irvine, CA 92697;
32: mbentz@uci.edu}
33:
34: \begin{abstract}
35:
36: We present deep {\it Hubble Space Telescope} ACS and NICMOS images of
37: six bright Lyman-break galaxy candidates that were previously
38: discovered in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We find that five of the
39: objects are consistent with unresolved point sources. Although
40: somewhat atypical of the class, they are most likely LoBAL quasars,
41: perhaps FeLoBALs. The sixth object, J1147, has a faint companion
42: galaxy located $\sim 0.8$\,arcsec to the southwest. The companion
43: contributes $\sim 8\%$ of the flux in the observed-frame optical and
44: infrared. It is unknown whether this companion is located at the same
45: redshift as J1147.
46:
47: \end{abstract}
48:
49: \keywords{galaxies: high redshift --- galaxies: active --- galaxies:
50: photometry}
51:
52: \section{INTRODUCTION}
53:
54: The discovery of an apparently luminous (r $\approx 20.5$ mag)
55: star-forming galaxy at z $\approx 2.5$ by \citet{bentz04a} in the
56: Early Data Release \citep{stoughton02} of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
57: (SDSS, \citealt{york00}) Quasar Catalog \citep{schneider02} was an
58: unexpected surprise. Most known Lyman break galaxies (LBGs) have been
59: discovered in deep images covering very small areas of the sky, and
60: the brightest LBGs have R$_{AB} \approx 23$ magnitudes, which is much
61: fainter than the limit of SDSS. A dedicated search through the SDSS
62: First Data Release (DR1, \citealt{abazajian03}) produced five
63: additional objects, as well as the original EDR object
64: (\citealt{bentz04b}, see Figure 1), with redshifts $2.45 < z < 2.80$
65: and $19.8 < m_r < 20.5$. These six objects, by definition, have
66: similar emission- and absorption-line properties to the LBG composite
67: spectrum produced from 811 individual objects \citep{shapley03}, but
68: there are slight differences as well, in that the spectra are redder,
69: the widths of the lines are greater, and the high ionization lines are
70: stronger than the lower ionization lines. While such differences
71: bring into question the true nature of the underlying source of power
72: for these objects, the different possibilities are all extremely
73: important.
74:
75: The first possibility is that these objects truly are ultraluminous
76: LBGs, over 4 mag brighter than an ``$L_*$'' LBG. Using the continuum
77: luminosity at $\lambda$1500 \AA\ as a proxy for the star formation,
78: \citet{bentz04b} calculated the star formation rates (SFRs) to be
79: $\sim 300-1000$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, {\it without} corrections for
80: dust. As these spectra are quite red, the amount of light attenuated
81: by dust can be expected to be higher than the typical factor of 7
82: determined by \citet{shapley03} for LBGs, which would indicate
83: significantly higher SFRs. The turbulence of such a system may be
84: able to reproduce the differences observed in the spectra of the
85: objects compared to the composite spectrum. A rough estimate of the
86: luminosity function of these objects is well above a
87: \citet{schechter76} function extrapolation of the LBG luminosity
88: function determined by \citet{adelberger00}. Such objects would be
89: the most luminous members of their class known, and would be extremely
90: important to understanding the formation and evolution of star-forming
91: galaxies at their peak epoch of $z \approx 3$.
92: %The high resolution afforded by
93: %HST would provide crucial information on the angular sizes and
94: %morphologies of such objects, as well as their colors.
95: Furthermore, because the space density of these objects is higher than
96: predicted, they could represent a new class of objects or activity.
97:
98: The second possibility is that these objects are star-forming
99: galaxies, but they are significantly brightened by gravitational
100: lensing. This has already been found to be the case with the galaxy
101: MS~1512-cB58, which is an ``$L_*$'' LBG magnified by a factor of 30 by
102: a foreground cluster \citep{seitz98}. The lensing hypothesis would
103: account for the space density being higher than predicted for objects
104: this luminous, but it does not seem to be borne out by the differences
105: in the spectra of the objects when compared with the LBG composite of
106: \citet{shapley03}.
107: %In this case, HST observations will be crucial for showing that the
108: %objects are lensed and for determining the lens geometry and amount of
109: %magnification, as well as providing information on the background
110: %galaxy and the foreground lensing object.
111:
112: Finally, it is possible that these objects are an unusual class of
113: active galactic nuclei (AGNs) that has not been previously seen. The
114: greater line widths in the spectra of the candidates when compared
115: with the composite spectrum could be evidence for the AGN hypothesis,
116: and one object has a hint of a broad \ion{C}{3} emission line. The
117: main argument against this hypothesis has been the high level of
118: similarity between the spectra of the objects and the LBG composite
119: spectrum.
120: %In this case, the HST observations should show a strong, unresolved
121: %nucleus and will yield information on the host galaxy, particularly in
122: %the H band.
123:
124: With the SDSS data alone, the exact mechanism behind the source of
125: power in these objects cannot be determined. While there is no
126: evidence for lensing in the SDSS images, and the fields surrounding
127: the objects seem quite empty, groups or clusters at z $\approx 1$
128: would be too faint to be detected by SDSS. Also, the typical point
129: spread function (PSF) of the SDSS images is $\sim$1.4'', which would
130: mask any distortions of the source caused by gravitational lensing,
131: and also effectively confuses the distinction between a point source
132: or an extended object with a diameter on the scale of the PSF.
133: Furthermore, the low S/N of the SDSS spectra masks the finer details
134: in the rest-frame UV spectra and thus prevents a decision on whether
135: the source of power is dominated by star formation or AGN emission.
136:
137: In this paper, we present deep {\it HST} follow-up images of these six
138: candidates discovered by \citet{bentz04b} in the rest-frame UV and
139: optical. We apply two-dimensional image decomposition techniques to
140: determine the morphological classifications of each of the objects and
141: the relative contributions of the fitted components to the flux of
142: each object. We find that five of the objects are consistent with
143: unresolved point sources (i.e., AGNs), and that the sixth has a faint,
144: nearby companion that contributes $\sim 8$\% of the rest-frame UV flux
145: measured through the SDSS fiber. Finally, we discuss the results of
146: our analysis in the context of additional follow-up studies that have
147: meanwhile been carried out on these unusual objects.
148:
149:
150: %The superior resolution and sensitivity to faint galaxies afforded by
151: %HST would provide unique data for solving the mysteries surrounding
152: %these remarkable objects.
153:
154: %The possible outcomes of such observations are all intriguing. If
155: %these objects are dominated by AGN emission, then they are an unknown
156: %type of AGN that has not been previously identified. If the objects
157: %are star-formation dominated, they would be extremely important for
158: %detailed studies of the environments of star-forming galaxies, whether
159: %or not they are lensed. As cB58 is the only known LGB that is bright
160: %enough for detailed population studies, we would be increasing the
161: %number of galaxies that are luminous enough to be studied individually
162: %from 1 to 7, which would open up a wealth of information on this
163: %population of objects. And if they are non-lensed starburst galaxies,
164: %these objects would be a tremendous discovery, as they could be the
165: %most luminous galaxies known in the universe and could open the doors
166: %for the study of a new population of ultraluminous star-forming
167: %galaxies .
168:
169: %Why is HST essential for the success of this project? HST is the only
170: %telescope that can make these observations. Adaptive optics are not
171: %available in the optical yet, and as we need to go very faint, the
172: %r-band observations cannot be made from the ground. Adaptive optics
173: %{\it are} available in the near-infrared, but the background is
174: %extremely high in the atmospheric windows, and it would be impossible
175: %from the ground to probe to the faint surface brightness limits provided
176: %by NIC2 and HST.
177:
178:
179: \section{OBSERVATIONS}
180:
181: Each of the six candidate bright LBGs listed in Table 1 were observed
182: for a total of three orbits with the Hubble Space Telescope ({\it
183: HST}): two orbits with the Advanced Camera for Surveys Wide-Field
184: Channel (ACS WFC), and one orbit with the Near-Infrared Camera and
185: Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS). With the ACS WFC we acquired deep
186: $r$-band images with the goal of studying the rest-frame UV morphology
187: of the objects, and to search for evidence of possible foreground
188: lensing of the objects. Deep $H$-band images with the NICMOS NIC2
189: camera were acquired to try to detect the host galaxy in the
190: rest-frame optical, as well as to search for any nearby galaxies in
191: proximity to our primary targets. We present the details of the
192: observations for each in the following sections.
193:
194: \subsection{Advanced Camera for Surveys}
195:
196: Each of the six targets was observed with two full {\it HST} orbits
197: using the ACS WFC through the F625W filter (similar to the SDSS $r$
198: filter). The F625W filter was chosen specifically to take advantage
199: of the maximum throughput of the optics at 6300~\AA\ to get deep
200: images of the fields in the rest-frame UV and any foreground groups or
201: clusters. The higher sensitivity of the WFC was deemed more important
202: in this case than the resolution that would be afforded by the High
203: Resolution Channel on ACS. Table~1 lists the total exposure time for
204: each object, which was broken up into five individual exposures of
205: $\sim 14$ minutes each. Between each of the five exposures, the
206: telescope was dithered in a line pattern, with a typical offset of
207: 3\,arcsec per dither, to assist in the rejection of cosmic rays and
208: bad pixels.
209:
210: The standard {\it HST} reduction and calibration pipeline did a fine
211: job of processing and combining the individual images, which are
212: presented in the left hand panels of Figures~$1-6$, rotated and scaled
213: to match the field of view of NICMOS.
214:
215:
216: \subsection{Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer}
217:
218: Each of the six objects was also observed for one full orbit with the
219: NIC2 camera on NICMOS through the F160W (broad-band $H$) filter. The
220: observations were scheduled to avoid the cosmic ray persistence
221: problem caused by the South Atlantic Anomaly.\footnote{See ISR
222: NICMOS-98-001.} The F160W filter was chosen to take advantage of the
223: fact that the rest-frame visible spectrum is redshifted into the
224: infrared and would be the best way to study any visible hosts and
225: companions of our targets.
226:
227: The observations were acquired in MULTIACCUM mode, utilizing the {\it
228: step64} sample sequence, which has a series of rapid, non-destructive
229: reads up to 64\,s, and then reads out in steps of 64\,s. Such a
230: sample sequence gives a high dynamic range in the resulting image,
231: which allows for the study of both very faint and very bright objects
232: in the same field. The total exposure time for each target is listed
233: in Table~1, and is typically composed of five separate exposures of
234: 511\,s. For J1147 we were able to acquire two additional exposure of
235: 243\,s, and for J1340, a total of seven exposures of 384\,s each were
236: acquired. Between each individual exposure, the spacecraft was
237: dithered in a spiral pattern, with a typical offset of 1\,arcsec.
238:
239: The images were reduced and combined in the usual way by the {\it HST}
240: calibration pipeline, and are presented in the right-hand panels of
241: Figures~$1-6$.
242:
243:
244: \section{IMAGE DECOMPOSITIONS}
245:
246: At first glance, all six of the objects appear to be unresolved in
247: both the rest-frame UV and optical, although there does appear to be a
248: faint companion to J1147 that is slightly offset from the PSF of the
249: unresolved target. Within a radius of $\sim 20$\,arcsec, the fields
250: of these objects appear rather unremarkable, although there may be a
251: slight overdensity in the field of J1432.
252:
253: To search for any faint host galaxy contribution that may be hiding
254: underneath the bright PSF, we employed the two-dimensional image
255: decomposition program Galfit \citep{peng02}, which fits analytic
256: functions to an image, convolved with a user-supplied PSF model.
257: Model PSFs were created using the TinyTim software package, which
258: models the optics of {\it HST} plus the specifics of the camera and
259: filter system \citep{krist93}. For the ACS images, a model PSF was
260: created for the location of the target in each individual exposure,
261: and the model PSFs were then drizzled together and corrected for the
262: distortion in the optics of the camera using the same methods as were
263: applied to the data.
264:
265: As each of the targets is very compact and the fields are relatively
266: empty, we initially fit the images of each target with a central PSF
267: and a sky background that was allowed to tilt. This simple model
268: gives a reasonable fit to both the ACS and NICMOS image of each
269: target, except for J1147, which clearly has a faint companion offset a
270: few pixels ($\sim 0.8$\,arcsec) to the southwest of center of the PSF.
271: However, in all cases, a slightly better fit was achieved with the
272: addition of a compact \citep{sersic68} profile, which has the form
273: %
274: \begin{equation}
275: \Sigma (r) = \Sigma_e \exp^{-\kappa [(r/r_e)^{1/n}-1]}
276: \end{equation}
277: %
278: where $r_e$ is the effective radius of the component, $\Sigma_e$ is
279: the surface brightness at $r_e$, $n$ is the power-law index, and
280: $\kappa$ is coupled to $n$ such that half of the total flux is within
281: $r_e$. Two special cases of the S\'{e}rsic function are the
282: exponential profile ($n=1$), often used in modeling galactic disks,
283: and the \citet{devaucouleurs48} profile ($n=4$), historically used for
284: modeling galactic bulges. Table~2 lists the integrated magnitudes and
285: best-fit parameters of the PSF and S\'{e}rsic fits to each of the
286: targets in the ACS and NICMOS images. Figure~7 compares the residuals
287: after subtracting a single PSF component from each image to the
288: residuals after subtracting a PSF component plus a S\'{e}rsic
289: component.
290:
291: In addition, we also fit any field objects that were visible in both
292: the ACS and NICMOS images of each source. The NIC2 field of view is
293: much smaller than that of the WFC, therefore, only objects that were
294: $\lesssim 15$\,arcsec from each target were included. Table~3 lists
295: the fit parameters determined for the field objects. The models and
296: the fit residuals are shown in the bottom panels of Figures~1-6.
297:
298:
299: \section{DISCUSSION}
300:
301: While the fits to the images were statistically improved by the
302: addition of a S\'{e}rsic component to the PSF model produced by
303: TinyTim, it is unlikely that these S\'{e}rsic components represent a
304: separate flux component, and are more likely due to PSF mismatches
305: between the data and the models. Indeed, for J0243, J1444, and J1553,
306: the extra flux component attributed to the S\'{e}rsic profile lies on
307: the right-hand side of the PSF in the unrotated ACS image. This is
308: also true of the NICMOS images presented in Figure~7, where the PSF
309: mismatch is most apparent along the top edge of the PSF model for not
310: only these three, but all six objects.
311:
312: Rather, it appears that the only object with a significant
313: contribution of flux from a galaxy component is J1147, which has a
314: faint galaxy companion centered $\sim 0.8$\,arcsec SW of the PSF.
315: Although it is obviously visible in the images, this additional
316: component only contributes $\sim 8\%$ of the flux to both the
317: observed-frame optical and infrared. While it does have a similar
318: $r-H$ color to J1147, $-0.09$ and $-0.13$, respectively, with such
319: limited information it is impossible to know whether this object is at
320: the same redshift as J1147.
321:
322: In addition, there is also no evidence to support the lensing
323: hypothesis for these objects. The fields around them are fairly empty
324: for the most part. J1432 has a modest overdensity of objects, but
325: there are no lensing artifacts, such as arcs or rings, present in
326: either the ACS or NICMOS images of this object.
327:
328: From the fact that all of these objects (with the possible exception
329: of J1147) are unresolved point sources in both deep optical and
330: infrared images at the resolution of {\it HST}, it appears that these
331: objects are unusual AGNs. Indeed, this is consistent with the
332: findings of \citet{appenzeller05}, who aquired an echelle spectrum of
333: J1553 on the VLT and found that it was a broad absorption line quasar
334: mimicking a Lyman-break galaxy through the combination of absorption
335: lines with relatively moderate widths and unfortunately located metal
336: lines from an intervening system. They identify J1553 as most likely
337: being a member of the rare iron low-ionization broad absorption line
338: (FeLoBAL) quasar class. But even for this class of objects, J1553 is
339: still an oddity. Furthermore, near-infrared spectroscopy by
340: \citet{ivison05} shows that each of the objects has a very broad
341: H$\alpha$ emission line, which is a clear sign of AGN activity.
342: Finally, \citeauthor{ivison05} were unable to detect any of the six
343: objects in the submillimeter, indicating that they cannot possibly
344: have the high SFRs that would naturally accompany such luminous
345: objects if they were bona-fide LBGs.
346:
347:
348: \section{SUMMARY}
349:
350: We have presented high-resolution {\it HST} follow-up images of the
351: six bright Lyman-break galaxy candidates that were previously
352: identified in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We find that, with the
353: exception of J1147, they are all consistent with unresolved point
354: sources in both the rest-frame UV and optical. They are most likely
355: members of the LoBAL quasar class, and possibly the even rarer FeLoBAL
356: class, although their spectral properties are atypical of both classes
357: of objects.
358:
359: In the case of J1147, an additional flux component has been
360: identified, located a mere \mbox{$\sim 0.8$\,arcsec} SW of the PSF,
361: but this component is only contributing $8\%$ of the flux. Further
362: study will be necessary to determine whether this object is located at
363: the same redshift as J1147.
364:
365:
366: \acknowledgements
367: This work is based on observations with the NASA/ESA {\it Hubble Space
368: Telescope}. We are grateful for support of this work through grant
369: GO-10181 from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by
370: the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under
371: NASA contract NAS5-26555.
372:
373:
374:
375: \clearpage
376:
377: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
378: %\bibliography{mbentz}
379:
380: \begin{thebibliography}{16}
381: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
382:
383: \bibitem[{{Abazajian} {et~al.}(2003)}]{abazajian03}
384: {Abazajian}, K., {et~al.} 2003, \aj, 126, 2081
385:
386: \bibitem[{{Adelberger} \& {Steidel}(2000)}]{adelberger00}
387: {Adelberger}, K.~L., \& {Steidel}, C.~C. 2000, \apj, 544, 218
388:
389: \bibitem[{{Appenzeller} {et~al.}(2005){Appenzeller}, {Stahl}, {Tapken},
390: {Mehlert}, \& {Noll}}]{appenzeller05}
391: {Appenzeller}, I., {Stahl}, O., {Tapken}, C., {Mehlert}, D., \& {Noll}, S.
392: 2005, \aap, 435, 465
393:
394: \bibitem[{{Bentz} \& {Osmer}(2004)}]{bentz04a}
395: {Bentz}, M.~C., \& {Osmer}, P.~S. 2004, \aj, 127, 576
396:
397: \bibitem[{{Bentz} {et~al.}(2004){Bentz}, {Osmer}, \& {Weinberg}}]{bentz04b}
398: {Bentz}, M.~C., {Osmer}, P.~S., \& {Weinberg}, D.~H. 2004, \apjl, 600, L19
399:
400: \bibitem[{{de Vaucouleurs}(1948)}]{devaucouleurs48}
401: {de Vaucouleurs}, G. 1948, Annales d'Astrophysique, 11, 247
402:
403: \bibitem[{{Ivison} {et~al.}(2005){Ivison}, {Smail}, {Bentz}, {Stevens},
404: {Men{\'e}ndez-Delmestre}, {Chapman}, \& {Blain}}]{ivison05}
405: {Ivison}, R.~J., {Smail}, I., {Bentz}, M., {Stevens}, J.~A.,
406: {Men{\'e}ndez-Delmestre}, K., {Chapman}, S.~C., \& {Blain}, A.~W. 2005,
407: \mnras, 362, 535
408:
409: \bibitem[{{Krist}(1993)}]{krist93}
410: {Krist}, J. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series,
411: Vol.~52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R.~J.
412: {Hanisch}, R.~J.~V. {Brissenden}, \& J.~{Barnes}, 536--539
413:
414: \bibitem[{{Peng} {et~al.}(2002){Peng}, {Ho}, {Impey}, \& {Rix}}]{peng02}
415: {Peng}, C.~Y., {Ho}, L.~C., {Impey}, C.~D., \& {Rix}, H.-W. 2002, \aj, 124, 266
416:
417: \bibitem[{{Schechter}(1976)}]{schechter76}
418: {Schechter}, P. 1976, \apj, 203, 297
419:
420: \bibitem[{{Schneider} {et~al.}(2002)}]{schneider02}
421: {Schneider}, D.~P., {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 567
422:
423: \bibitem[{{Seitz} {et~al.}(1998){Seitz}, {Saglia}, {Bender}, {Hopp}, {Belloni},
424: \& {Ziegler}}]{seitz98}
425: {Seitz}, S., {Saglia}, R.~P., {Bender}, R., {Hopp}, U., {Belloni}, P., \&
426: {Ziegler}, B. 1998, \mnras, 298, 945
427:
428: \bibitem[{{S\'{e}rsic}(1968)}]{sersic68}
429: {S\'{e}rsic}, J.~L. 1968, {Atlas de galaxias australes} (Cordoba, Argentina:
430: Observatorio Astronomico, 1968)
431:
432: \bibitem[{{Shapley} {et~al.}(2003){Shapley}, {Steidel}, {Pettini}, \&
433: {Adelberger}}]{shapley03}
434: {Shapley}, A.~E., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Pettini}, M., \& {Adelberger}, K.~L. 2003,
435: \apj, 588, 65
436:
437: \bibitem[{{Stoughton} {et~al.}(2002)}]{stoughton02}
438: {Stoughton}, C., {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 485
439:
440: \bibitem[{{York} {et~al.}(2000)}]{york00}
441: {York}, D.~G., {et~al.} 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
442:
443: \end{thebibliography}
444:
445:
446: \clearpage
447:
448: \begin{figure}
449: \plotone{f1.eps}
450: \caption{ACS imaging of J0243 through the F625W filter (top left
451: panel) and NICMOS imaging of J0243 through the F160W filter (top right
452: panel). The circle around the object in the ACS image shows the size
453: of the SDSS fiber on the sky. The ACS images have been scaled and
454: oriented to match the NICMOS images. The bottom panels show, from
455: left to right: Galfit model of the ACS image and any field objects
456: that appear in both the optical and infrared, Galfit residuals after
457: subtracting the model from the ACS image, Galfit model of the NICMOS
458: image of J0243 and any shared field objects, and Galfit residuals
459: after subtracting the model from the NICMOS image.}
460: \end{figure}
461:
462: \begin{figure}
463: \plotone{f2.eps}
464: \caption{Same as Figure 1, but for J1147. Note the additional flux
465: component located to the southwest of the PSF.}
466: \end{figure}
467:
468: \begin{figure}
469: \plotone{f3.eps}
470: \caption{Same as Figure 1, but for J1340.}
471: \end{figure}
472:
473: \begin{figure}
474: \plotone{f4.eps}
475: \caption{Same as Figure 1, but for J1432.}
476: \end{figure}
477:
478: \begin{figure}
479: \plotone{f5.eps}
480: \caption{Same as Figure 1, but for J1444.}
481: \end{figure}
482:
483: \begin{figure}
484: \plotone{f6.eps}
485: \caption{Same as Figure 1, but for J1553.}
486: \end{figure}
487:
488: \begin{figure}
489: \epsscale{0.75}
490: \plotone{f7.eps}
491: \caption{Details of the PSF subtraction for each object. Each panel
492: is $6'' \times 6''$, and each object is shown at the same orientation
493: as it was previously presented. All the ACS images have the same
494: color scale, and the NICMOS images all have the same color scale. For
495: each object, the panels are as follows: {\it (a)} ACS F625W image,
496: with the best-fit PSF subtracted; {\it (b)} ACS F625W image with the
497: best-fit PSF + S\'{e}rsic combination subtracted; {\it (c)} NIC2 F160W
498: image with the best-fit PSF subtracted; {\it (d)} NIC2 F160W image
499: with the best-fit PSF + S\'{e}rsic combination subtracted.}
500: \end{figure}
501:
502: \clearpage
503:
504: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
505: \tablecolumns{7}
506: \tablewidth{0pt}
507: %\tabletypesize{\small}
508: \tablecaption{Observation Log}
509: \tablehead{
510: \colhead{} &
511: \colhead{} &
512: \multicolumn{2}{c}{ACS WFC F625W} &
513: \colhead{} &
514: \multicolumn{2}{c}{NIC2 F160W}\\ \cline{3-4} \cline{6-7}
515: \colhead{Object} &
516: \colhead{$z$} &
517: \colhead{Date Observed} &
518: \colhead{Exp. Time} &
519: \colhead{} &
520: \colhead{Date Observed} &
521: \colhead{Exp. Time} \\
522: \colhead{(SDSS J)} &
523: \colhead{} &
524: \colhead{(yyyy-mm-dd)} &
525: \colhead{(s)} &
526: \colhead{} &
527: \colhead{(yyyy-mm-dd)} &
528: \colhead{(s)}}
529:
530:
531: \startdata
532:
533: 024343.77$-$082109.9 & 2.590 & 2005-01-11 & 4150.0 & & 2004-08-12 & 2559.7 \\
534: 114756.00$-$025023.5 & 2.556 & 2004-11-20 & 4150.0 & & 2004-11-19 & 3046.4 \\
535: 134026.44+634433.2 & 2.786 & 2004-07-12 & 4550.0 & & 2004-07-24 & 2687.7 \\
536: 143224.55$-$000116.4 & 2.472 & 2005-12-27 & 4000.0 & & 2004-08-12 & 2559.7 \\
537: 144424.55+013457.0 & 2.670 & 2005-01-10 & 4150.0 & & 2004-08-12 & 2559.7 \\
538: 155359.96+005641.3 & 2.635 & 2006-03-09 & 4150.0 & & 2004-08-12 & 2559.7 \\
539:
540: \enddata
541: \end{deluxetable}
542:
543:
544:
545: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccccc}
546: \tablecolumns{13}
547: \tablewidth{0pt}
548: \tabletypesize{\small}
549: \tablecaption{Fit Parameters for LBG Candidates}
550: \tablehead{
551: \colhead{} &
552: \colhead{PSF} &
553: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Sersic component} &
554: \colhead{} &
555: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Additional component} \\ \cline{3-7} \cline{9-13}
556: \colhead{Object} &
557: \colhead{$m$\tablenotemark{a}} &
558: \colhead{$m$} &
559: \colhead{$\Delta$ d\tablenotemark{b}} &
560: \colhead{$r_{\rm e}$} &
561: \colhead{$n$} &
562: \colhead{$b/a$\tablenotemark{c}} &
563: \colhead{} &
564: \colhead{$m$} &
565: \colhead{$\Delta$ d} &
566: \colhead{$r_{\rm e}$} &
567: \colhead{$n$} &
568: \colhead{$b/a$} \\
569: \colhead{} &
570: \colhead{(stmag)} &
571: \colhead{(stmag)} &
572: \colhead{(arcsec)} &
573: \colhead{(kpc)} &
574: \colhead{} &
575: \colhead{} &
576: \colhead{} &
577: \colhead{(stmag)} &
578: \colhead{(arcsec)} &
579: \colhead{(kpc)} &
580: \colhead{} &
581: \colhead{}}
582: \startdata
583: \multicolumn{13}{c}{ACS WFC F625W} \\
584: \hline
585:
586: J0243 & 21.88 & 21.19 & 0.04 & 0.26 & 1.0 & 0.12 & & & & & & \\
587: J1147 & 21.37 & 20.92 & 0.06 & 0.26 & 4.5 & 0.79 & & 23.10 & 0.78 & 6.47 & 0.96 & 0.64 \\
588: J1340 & 20.72 & 20.25 & 0.04 & 0.12 & 4.8 & 0.65 & & & & & & \\
589: J1432 & 22.44 & 20.31 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 14.2 & 0.49 & & & & & & \\
590: J1444 & 21.44 & 22.16 & 0.04 & 0.39 & 1.0 & 0.57 & & & & & & \\
591: J1553 & 22.11 & 20.83 & 0.03 & 0.31 & 2.8 & 0.48 & & & & & & \\
592:
593: \hline
594: \multicolumn{13}{c}{NIC2 F160W}\\
595: \hline
596:
597: J0243 & 22.69 & 23.03 & 0.04 & 0.40 & 1.0 & 0.85 & & & & & & \\
598: J1147 & 20.59 & 23.38 & 0.17 & 1.71 & 1.0 & 0.24 & & 23.19 & 0.77 & 6.86 & 1.9 & 0.71 \\
599: J1340 & 22.06 & 21.68 & 0.03 & 0.87 & 0.01 & 0.69 & & & & & & \\
600: J1432 & 21.88 & 23.31 & 0.08 & 0.68 & 3.2 & 0.73 & & & & & & \\
601: J1444 & 22.23 & 24.08 & 0.06 & 1.02 & 1.0 & 0.75 & & & & & & \\
602: J1553 & 21.66 & 22.19 & 0.09 & 0.51 & 1.0 & 0.68 & & & & & & \\
603:
604: \enddata
605:
606: \tablenotetext{a}{Magnitudes are presented in the STMAG system, which
607: is defined such that Vega has a constant flux per unit wavelength and
608: has the form $m = -2.5 \log f_{\lambda} - 21.10$.}
609:
610: \tablenotetext{b}{Distance from the center of the component to the
611: center of the PSF.}
612:
613: \tablenotetext{c}{Ratio of the semi-major axis to the semi-minor axis
614: for the component.}
615:
616: \end{deluxetable}
617:
618: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccccc}
619: \tablecolumns{13}
620: \tablewidth{0pt}
621: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
622: \tablecaption{Fit Parameters for Field Objects}
623: \tablehead{
624: \colhead{} &
625: \colhead{} &
626: \multicolumn{5}{c}{ACS HRC F625W} &
627: \colhead{} &
628: \multicolumn{5}{c}{NIC2 F160W} \\ \cline{3-7} \cline{9-13}
629: \colhead{Field} &
630: \colhead{function} &
631: \colhead{$\Delta$ d} &
632: \colhead{$m_{\rm F625W}$} &
633: \colhead{$r_{\rm e}$} &
634: \colhead{$n$} &
635: \colhead{$b/a$} &
636: \colhead{} &
637: \colhead{$\Delta$ d} &
638: \colhead{$m_{\rm F160W}$} &
639: \colhead{$r_{\rm e}$} &
640: \colhead{$n$} &
641: \colhead{$b/a$} \\
642: \colhead{} &
643: \colhead{} &
644: \colhead{(arcsec)} &
645: \colhead{(mag)} &
646: \colhead{(arcsec)} &
647: \colhead{} &
648: \colhead{} &
649: \colhead{} &
650: \colhead{(arcsec)} &
651: \colhead{(mag)} &
652: \colhead{(arcsec)} &
653: \colhead{} &
654: \colhead{}}
655: \startdata
656:
657: J1147 & S\'{e}rsic & 4.71 & 23.86 & 1.04 & 0.36 & 0.16 && 4.51 & 25.27 & 0.50 & 0.37 & 0.13 \\
658: & S\'{e}rsic & 6.80 & 23.53 & 0.88 & 0.25 & 0.26 && 6.76 & 24.28 & 0.29 & 1.0 & 0.32 \\
659: J1340 & S\'{e}rsic & 4.28 & 23.51 & 0.88 & 1.8 & 0.37 && 4.00 & 24.33 & 0.45 & 0.47 & 0.54 \\
660: & S\'{e}rsic & 4.47 & 24.17 & 0.14 & 1.2 & 0.67 && 4.45 & 26.35 & 0.12 & 0.25 & 0.31 \\
661: & S\'{e}rsic & 4.70 & 25.94 & 0.11 & 1.9 & 0.44 && 4.65 & 25.50 & 2.0 & 1.6 & 0.35 \\
662: J1432 & S\'{e}rsic & 8.57 & 24.29 & 0.43 & 0.45 & 0.82 && 8.53 & 25.20 & 0.36 & 0.45 & 0.70 \\
663: & S\'{e}rsic & 9.24 & 24.82 & 0.37 & 20 & 0.56 && 9.28 & 25.76 & 0.68 & 0.97 & 0.18 \\
664: & S\'{e}rsic & 10.1 & 24.59 & 0.22 & 5.0 & 0.81 && 9.94 & 25.07 & 0.26 & 3.5 & 0.84 \\
665: & S\'{e}rsic & 10.7 & 24.69 & 0.28 & 1.1 & 0.50 && 10.7 & 24.32 & 1.1 & 2.9 & 0.33 \\
666: & S\'{e}rsic & 11.2 & 22.52 & 0.44 & 1.2 & 0.76 && 11.0 & 22.15 & 1.2 & 1.7 & 0.95 \\
667: & S\'{e}rsic & 11.4 & 24.42 & 0.16 & 1.1 & 0.81 && 11.3 & 24.20 & 0.22 & 3.3 & 0.94 \\
668: & S\'{e}rsic & 13.1 & 24.49 & 0.34 & 2.9 & 0.32 && 13.2 & 22.76 & 1.5 & 0.94 & 0.64 \\
669: J1444 & S\'{e}rsic & 6.73 & 25.58 & 0.33 & 2.3 & 0.84 && 7.29 & 22.84 & 1.9 & 0.73 & 0.54 \\
670: & S\'{e}rsic & 6.96 & 24.60 & 0.040 & 0.72 & 0.84 && 6.87 & 25.41 & 0.068 & 2.4 & 0.90 \\
671: & S\'{e}rsic & 7.31 & 25.64 & 0.22 & 0.93 & 0.11 && 7.25 & 26.61 & 0.17 & 0.32 & 0.27 \\
672: & S\'{e}rsic & 10.4 & 27.00 & 0.20 & 0.020 & 0.57 && 10.3 & 23.65 & 1.4 & 8.1 & 0.95 \\
673: J1553 & PSF & 4.45 & 25.22 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata && 4.41 & 23.43 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
674: & S\'{e}rsic & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata && 4.46 & 24.83 & 0.11 & 0.020 & 0.34 \\
675: & S\'{e}rsic & 6.85 & 25.22 & 0.00050 & 0.39 & 0.10 && 6.69 & 26.31 & 0.17 & 1.1 & 0.61 \\
676: & S\'{e}rsic & 10.7 & 23.35 & 0.039 & 0.042 & 0.66 && 10.6 & 23.48 & 2.4 & 6.3 & 0.90 \\
677: & S\'{e}rsic & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata && 10.6 & 24.44 & 0.013 & 0.82 & 0.90 \\
678:
679: \enddata
680: \end{deluxetable}
681:
682:
683:
684: \end{document}