1: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}

2: \usepackage{apjfonts}

3: 

4: % for submission to apj

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

6: 

7: 

8: %% The command below calls the preprint style

9: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

10: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use

11: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

12: %%

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

14: 

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

16: 

17: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

18: 

19: 

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

21: 

22: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

23: 

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

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

26: %% use the longabstract style option.

27: 

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

29: 

30: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

31: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

32: %% the \begin{document} command.

33: %%

34: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

35: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

36: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

37: %% for information.

38: 

39: %\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

40: %\newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}

41: 

42: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

43: \gdef\date{August 11}

44: %ApJ December 10, +2008, v689

45: \slugcomment{accepted for publication, ApJ, 2008, 689}

46: 

47: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

48: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

49: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

50: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

51: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.

52: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.

53: 

54: \shorttitle{Surface density dependent evolution to $z=3$}

55: 

56: \shortauthors{Franx et al.}

57: 

58: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

59: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

60: 

61: \begin{document}

62: 

63: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

64: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

65: %% you desire.

66: 

67: \title{Structure and star formation in galaxies out to $z=3$: evidence

68:   for surface density dependent evolution and

69:   upsizing\altaffilmark{1,2}}

70: 

71: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

72: %% author and affiliation information.

73: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

74: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

75: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

76: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.

77: 

78: \author{

79: Marijn   Franx\altaffilmark{3},

80: Pieter~G.~van Dokkum\altaffilmark{4},

81: Natascha M. F\"orster Schreiber\altaffilmark{5},

82: Stijn Wuyts\altaffilmark{6,7},

83: Ivo Labb\'e\altaffilmark{8,9},

84: Sune Toft\altaffilmark{10}

85: }

86: 

87: \altaffiltext{1}

88: {Based on observations with the NASA/ESA {\em Hubble Space

89: Telescope}, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which

90: is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5--26555.}

91: \altaffiltext{2}

92: {Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory,

93:   Chile (ESO Programme LP168.A-0485)}

94: \altaffiltext{3}

95: {Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9513, NL-2300 RA Leiden,

96:   Netherlands}

97: \altaffiltext{4}

98: {Department of Astronomy, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8101}

99: \altaffiltext{5}{MPE, Giessenbackstrasse, D-85748, Garching, Germany}

100: \altaffiltext{6}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60

101:   Garden Street,

102: Cambridge, MA 02138}

103: \altaffiltext{7}{W. M. Keck postdoctoral fellow}

104: \altaffiltext{8}{Carnegie Observatories, 813 Santa Barbara Street,

105:   Pasadena, CA  91101}

106: \altaffiltext{9}{Hubble Fellow}

107: \altaffiltext{10}

108: {European Southern Observatory, D-85748 Garching, Germany}

109: 

110: 

111: 

112: 

113: %\author{M. Franx}

114: %\affil{Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9513, 2300 RA Leiden,

115: %   The Netherlands}

116: 

117: %\author{P. van Dokkum}

118: %\affil{Yale University, New Haven, USA}

119: 

120: %\author{fireworks}

121: %\affil{usa+europe}

122: 

123: %\author{C. D. Biemesderfer\altaffilmark{4,5}}

124: %\affil{National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ 85719}

125: %\email{aastex-help@aas.org}

126: 

127: 

128: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which

129: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name.  Specify alternate

130: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each

131: %% affiliation.

132: 

133: %\altaffiltext{1}{Visiting Astronomer, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory.

134: %CTIO is operated by AURA, Inc.\ under contract to the National Science

135: %Foundation.}

136: %\altaffiltext{2}{Society of Fellows, Harvard University.}

137: %\altaffiltext{3}{present address: Center for Astrophysics,

138: %    60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}

139: %\altaffiltext{4}{Visiting Programmer, Space Telescope Science Institute}

140: %\altaffiltext{5}{Patron, Alonso's Bar and Grill}

141: 

142: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

143: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

144: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

145: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

146: %% editorial office after submission.

147: 

148: \begin{abstract}

149: %\input epsf

150: \def\car{{\hbox{}\par\parindent=0pt}}

151: %\def\caption#1#2{\vskip 1pt {\bf Fig. #1}{ {\sl #2 } \epsfxsize=13truecm}

152: %\vfill}

153: \def\Msun{M_{\odot}}

154: \def\Mstar{M_*}

155: \def\re{r_e}

156: \def\mre{\Mstar/\re}

157: \def\omit#1{}

158: \def\yrinv{yr$^{-1}$}

159: \def\msunkpc{$\Msun$ kpc$^{-2}$}

160: 

161: We present an analysis of galaxies in the CDF-South.

162: We find a tight relation to $z=3$ between color and size at a given mass,

163: with red galaxies being small, and blue galaxies being large.

164: We show that the relation is driven by stellar surface density or

165: inferred velocity

166: dispersion:

167: galaxies with high surface density

168: are red and have low specific star formation rates, and galaxies with

169: low surface density are blue and have high

170: specific star formation rates. 

171: Surface density and inferred velocity dispersion are better correlated with

172: specific star formation  rate and color than stellar mass.

173: Hence stellar mass by itself is not a good predictor of the star 

174: formation history of galaxies.

175: In general, galaxies at a given

176: surface density have higher specific star formation rates at higher

177: redshift. 

178: Specifically, galaxies with a surface density of $1-3\ 10^9$ $M_\odot$ $kpc^{-2}$

179: are ``red and dead'' at low redshift,

180: approximately 50\% are forming stars at $z=1$, and almost all are

181: forming stars by $z=2$.

182: This provides direct additional evidence for the late evolution of

183: galaxies onto the red sequence.

184: The sizes of galaxies at a given mass evolve like $1/(1+z)^{0.59

185: \pm 0.10}$.

186: Hence galaxies undergo significant upsizing in

187: their history. The size evolution is fastest for the highest mass

188: galaxies, and

189: quiescent galaxies.

190: The persistence of the structural relations from $z=0$ to $z=2.5$, and

191: the upsizing of galaxies

192: imply that a relation analogous to the Hubble

193: sequence exists out to $z=2.5$, and possibly beyond.

194: The star forming galaxies at $z\ge 1.5$ are quite different from star

195: forming

196: galaxies at $z=0$, as they have likely very high gas fractions, and

197: star formation time scales comparable to the orbital time.

198: 

199: 

200: 

201: \end{abstract}

202: 

203: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

204: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors

205: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

206: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

207: 

208: 

209: \keywords{cosmology: observations ---

210: galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: formation -- galaxies: high redshift

211: }

212: 

213: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.

214: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep

215: %% and \citet commands to identify citations.  The citations are

216: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds

217: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have

218: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus

219: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for

220: %% each reference.

221: 

222: 

223: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper

224: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging

225: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}.  Each macro takes the

226: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket

227: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification

228: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.  The text appearing

229: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper.

230: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked

231: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers

232: %%

233: %% Note that for sources with brackets in their names, e.g. [WEG2004] 14h-090,

234: %% the brackets must be escaped with backslashes when used in the first

235: %% square-bracket argument, for instance, \object[\[WEG2004\] 14h-090]{90}).

236: %%  Otherwise, LaTeX will issue an error.

237: 

238: \section{Introduction}

239: 

240: %\input epsf

241: \def\car{{\hbox{}\par\parindent=0pt}}

242: %\def\caption#1#2{\vskip 1pt {\bf Fig. #1}{ {\sl #2 } \epsfxsize=13truecm}

243: %\vfill}

244: \def\Msun{M_{\odot}}

245: \def\Mstar{M_*}

246: \def\re{r_e}

247: \def\mre{\Mstar/\re}

248: \def\omit#1{}

249: \def\yrinv{yr$^{-1}$}

250: \def\msunkpc{$\Msun$ kpc$^{-2}$}

251: 

252: \def\figprezero{\figzero}

253: \def\figpreone{\figone}

254: \def\figpretwo{\figtwo}

255: \def\figprethree{\figthree}

256: \def\figprefour{\figfour}

257: \def\figprefive{\figfive}

258: \def\figpresix{\figsix}

259: \def\figpreseven{\figseven}

260: \def\figpreeight{\figeight}

261: \def\figprenine{\fignine}

262: \def\figpreten{\figten}

263: \def\figpreeleven{\figeleven}

264: \def\figpretwelve{\figtwelve}

265: \def\figpreAone{\figAone}

266: 

267: \def\figsubzero{}

268: \def\figsubone{}

269: \def\figsubtwo{}

270: \def\figsubthree{}

271: \def\figsubfour{}

272: \def\figsubfive{}

273: \def\figsubsix{}

274: \def\figsubseven{}

275: \def\figsubeight{}

276: \def\figsubnine{}

277: \def\figsubten{}

278: \def\figsubeleven{}

279: \def\figsubtwelve{}

280: \def\figsubAone{}

281: 

282: 

283: 

284: \def\figone{

285: \begin{figure*}[t]

286: \plotone{fig2.eps}

287: \caption{\small

288: Comparison of the star formation rates estimated from the

289: UV + 24$\mu$m MIPS fluxes, and the star formation rates estimated by

290: SED fits. There is generally a good correspondence at redshifts

291: below 2.5, with mild offsets smaller than 30\%.

292: For the remainder of the paper, we use the UV + 24$\mu$m MIPS star

293: formation rates.

294: The typical formal error in the estimated star formation rates is shown

295: in the lower right corner.

296: The systematic uncertainties are a factor of 2 or more.

297: \label{figone}}

298: \end{figure*}

299: }

300: 

301: \gdef\figurenum#1{}

302: \def\figzero{

303: \begin{figure}[t]

304: \epsscale{0.9}

305: \plotone{fig1.eps}

306: \epsscale{1.0}

307: \caption{\small

308: The redshift distribution of the final CDFS sample. The

309: galaxies are  selected in the observed $K$ band, which lies redward of the

310: rest-frame Balmer-4000\AA\ break for this sample.

311: \label{figone}}

312: \end{figure}

313: }

314: 

315: 

316: \def\figtwo{

317: \begin{figure*}[t]

318: \epsscale{1.2}

319: \plotone{fig3.eps}

320: \epsscale{1.0}

321: \caption{\small

322: Top row: the restframe $u-g$ color against stellar mass, for the low redshift

323: sample (from the SDSS), and the redshifts 1, 2 and 3.

324: A large spread in restframe $u-g$ colors exists for masses between

325: $10^{10}$ and $10^{11}$, for all redshifts.

326: The absence of red, low mass galaxies at $z\ge 2$ is due to selection

327: effects.

328: The thick curves in the higher redshift panels delineate the  area

329: where the samples are less than 75 \% complete.

330: The red galaxies to the upper left of the curve  are missing as they are too faint

331: in the observed near-IR.

332: Bottom row:

333: The relation between  size  and  stellar mass for our

334: redshift intervals.

335: A large spread in sizes exists for masses between

336: $10^{10}$ and $10^{11}$, for all redshifts.

337: The thin dashed line indicates the mass-size relation from Shen et

338: al. (2003) for early-type galaxies at $z=0$.

339: It is clear from the figure that the scatter in color and size is very

340: large

341: for masses between 10$^{10}$ and 10$^{11}$ $\Msun$.

342: As in subsequent plots, the  typical formal error is shown in the lower

343: right corner.

344: \label{figone}}

345: \end{figure*}

346: }

347: 

348: 

349: 

350: \def\figthree{

351: \begin{figure*}[t]

352: \epsscale{1.2}

353: \plotone{fig4.eps}

354: \epsscale{1.00}

355: \caption{\small

356: The correlation between color and size, at fixed stellar

357: mass, for our sample. The top row shows the relation for the

358: SDSS sample, the row below for galaxies with $0.5<z < 1.5$, the 3rd

359: row for galaxies with $1.5< z < 2.5$, the bottom row for galaxies

360: with $2.5 < z < 3.5$.

361: The top rows show a strong correlation between color and size

362: in the mass bins,

363: with large galaxies being blue, and small galaxies being red.

364: This demonstrates that the scatter in color and size at a given

365: mass is driven by a third parameter.

366: A correlation is still present at $z\approx 2$, especially

367: in the mass bin $2.5\ 10^{10} \Msun < M_* < 4\ 10^{10}$.

368: At high redshift ($z>2.5$) the sample is too small to establish

369: whether or not a relation exists.

370: \label{figone}}

371: \end{figure*}

372: }

373: 

374: \def\figfour{

375: \begin{figure*}[t]

376: \figurenum{4a}

377: %\plotone{fig8b-sigmadens-ug.eps}

378: \epsscale{1.2}

379: \plotone{fig5.eps}

380: \epsscale{1.0}

381: \caption{\small

382: Left panels: the correlation between color and surface density, at redshifts 0,

383: 1, 2 and 3. At all redshifts, a correlation is found,

384: with high surface density galaxies being red, and low surface density galaxies

385: being blue.

386: This indicates that

387: surface density is one of the main driving parameters for galaxy evolution.

388: The color is more strongly correlated with surface density, than with

389: mass; and this holds out to the highest redshift.

390: Right panels: the correlation between color and velocity dispersion,

391: at the same redshifts. Again, a good correlation is found, with high velocity

392: dispersion galaxies being red, and low velocity dispersion galaxies being blue.

393: The velocity dispersions have been estimated from $M_*/r_e$.

394: \label{figone}}

395: \end{figure*}

396: }

397: 

398: 

399: %\def\figfourb{

400: %\begin{figure}[t]

401: %\figurenum{4b}

402: %\plotone{fig8a-vcirc-uv.eps}

403: %\caption{\small

404: %\label{figone}}

405: %\end{figure}

406: %}

407: 

408: 

409: \def\figfive{

410: \begin{figure*}[t]

411: \figurenum{5a}

412: %\plotone{fig9a-sigmadens-ssfr.eps}

413: \epsscale{1.2}

414: \plotone{fig6.eps}

415: \epsscale{1.0}

416: \caption{\small Left panels: the correlation between specific star formation rate and

417: surface density, at redshifts 0, 1, 2, and 3.

418: The SDSS specific star formation rate is based on an analysis of emission

419: lines, whereas the high redshift points are based on the 24 $\mu$m emission.

420: The arrows denote upper limits.

421: As can be seen, the highest surface density galaxies have low specific

422: star formation rates out to redshift of 2.5, showing that specific star formation rate is

423: causing to a large degree the relation between color and surface density.

424: The limiting specific star formation rates for the redshift of 3 galaxies are too

425: high to allow the detection of a correlation.

426: Right panels:

427: The correlation between velocity dispersion and

428: specific star formation rate. Again, a good correlation persists to

429: $z=2.5$, and above that the specific star formation rates are not

430: well enough determined.

431: \label{figone}}

432: \end{figure*}

433: }

434: 

435: 

436: %\def\figfiveb{

437: %\begin{figure}[t]

438: %\figurenum{5b}

439: %\plotone{fig9b-vcirc-ssfr.eps}

440: %\caption{\small

441: %\label{figone}}

442: %\end{figure}

443: %}

444: 

445: 

446: 

447: \def\figsix{

448: \begin{figure*}[t]

449: \figurenum{6}

450: \epsscale{1.2}

451: \plotone{fig7.eps}

452: \epsscale{1.0}

453: \caption{\small The evolution of the specific star formation rate in mass bins.

454: In all mass bins, the specific star formation rates increase with redshift,

455: and  the spread remains large.

456: The dashed line indicates the specific

457: star formation rate equal to $t_{hubble}^{-1}$.

458: \label{figone}}

459: \end{figure*}

460: }

461: 

462: 

463: \def\figseven{

464: \begin{figure*}[t]

465: \figurenum{7}

466: \epsscale{1.2}

467: \plotone{fig8.eps}

468: \epsscale{1.0}

469: \caption{ \small The evolution of the specific star formation rate in bins of

470: surface density. The specific star formation rates increase in all

471: bins.

472: In the lowest surface density bin, the specific star formation rates

473: are always high, and very few quiescent galaxies exist.

474: We define quiescent galaxies as those having specific star formation

475: rates

476: below $0.3 \times t_{hubble}^{-1}$.

477: The dashed line indicates a specific star formation rate of $t_{hubble}^{-1}$.

478: In the intermediate surface density

479: bin with $ 10^9 < SD < 10^{9.5}$ the specific star formation rates are

480: very low at $z<0.2$, increase rapidly to high values at $1=0.8-1.5$,

481: to have only high values at $z \ge 1.5$.

482: The highest surface density bins always have the lowest specific star formation

483: rates.

484: \label{figone}}

485: \end{figure*}

486: }

487: 

488: 

489: \def\figeight{

490: \begin{figure*}[t]

491: \figurenum{8}

492: \epsscale{1.2}

493: \plotone{fig9.eps}

494: \epsscale{1.0}

495: \caption{\small The median specific star formation rate as a function of

496: stellar surface density, at 3 redshift intervals: local galaxies from SDSS,

497: and galaxies at $0.5<z<1.5$, and $1.5<z<2.5$.

498: The median specific star formation rate is fairly constant at low

499: surface densities, to decrease rapidly at higher surface densities.

500: We have defined the threshold density, where the specific star formation

501: rate is a factor of 3 lower than the specific star formation rate of the

502: plateau.

503: \label{figone}}

504: \end{figure*}

505: }

506: 

507: \def\fignine{

508: \begin{figure*}[t]

509: \figurenum{9}

510: \epsscale{1.2}

511: \plotone{fig10.eps}

512: \epsscale{1.0}

513: \caption{\small a) The evolution of surface density threshold, above which the

514: specific star formation rate is low. At higher redshifts, the threshold

515: has been measured in bins of width $\delta z = 1$.

516: The threshold evolves fast, close to $(1+z)^{1.5}$, as shown by the curve.

517: b). The evolution of the specific star formation rate below the surface

518: density threshold. The specific star formation rate evolves very rapidly

519: like $(1+z)^{3.8}$, as shown by the curve.

520: The dotted line curve the specific star formation rate equal to

521: $t_{hubble}^{-1}$.

522: \label{figone}}

523: \end{figure*}

524: }

525: 

526: \def\figten{

527: \begin{figure*}[t]

528: \figurenum{10}

529: \epsscale{1.2}

530: \plotone{fig11.eps}

531: \epsscale{1.0}

532: \caption{\small The evolution of half-light radius with redshift, in narrow mass bins.

533: The sizes steadily decreases with  redshift, both for high mass and low

534: mass galaxies. The curves show fits using the average coefficient

535:  $r_e \propto (1+z)^{-0.59}$. The dashed curves show the fit using

536: $r_e \propto H(z)^{-2/3}$, which is predicted from simple formation

537: models.

538: The dotted curves show the fits of $\re \propto 1/(1+z)^\alpha$ to the

539: individual bins. The index $\alpha$ varies from 0.14$\pm$0.07 to

540: 0.81$\pm$ 0.1, from the

541: low mass to the high mass bin. The average index is 0.59 $\pm$ 0.10.

542: The triangles are quiescent galaxies with low specific star formation rates

543: (as defined in the text). They evolve faster, like $\re \propto

544: 1/(1+z)^{1.22\pm 0.15}$.

545: Overall, the sizes evolve significantly with redshift, the strongest

546: for the high mass galaxies, and the quiescent galaxies.

547: \label{figone}}

548: \end{figure*}

549: }

550: 

551: \def\figeleven{

552: \begin{figure*}[t]

553: \figurenum{11}

554: \epsscale{1.0}

555: \plotone{fig12.eps}

556: \epsscale{1.0}

557: \caption{\small

558: Left panel: The ratio of star formation time scale to dynamical time scale.

559: Whereas at low redshift, the dynamical timescale is generally more

560: than 30 times

561: longer than the star formation time scale , it decreases to values of

562: 3-10 at a redshift of 1.5 and above for the strongly star forming galaxies.

563: For these galaxies, the gas has barely time to settle in a disk.

564: Right panel: The evolution of the ratio of gas mass to stellar mass

565:  with redshift.

566: The gas mass has been estimated from the star formation rate, and

567: the kennicutt star formation law.

568: Galaxies with significant star formation are indicated with a large symbol

569: (specific star formation $>$ 1/3 threshold specific star formation rate).

570: Whereas at low redshift the typical gas fraction is around 10\%, it

571: increases steadily with redshift, to reach values of 0.3-1 at $z=1.5$

572: and above. The most strongly star forming galaxies at $z=1.5$ and

573: above have gas masses comparable to their stellar masses.

574: \label{figone}}

575: \end{figure*}

576: }

577: 

578: \def\figtwelve{

579: \begin{figure*}[t]

580: \figurenum{12}

581: \epsscale{1.0}

582: \plotone{fig13.eps}

583: \epsscale{1.0}

584: \caption{\small

585: Simulated selection effects for our $z=2$ sample.

586: The left panel shows the selection on  observed $H_\alpha$ flux.

587: The $H_\alpha$ flux has been estimated from the

588: star formation rate, and extinction corrected, assuming the extinction

589: from the SED fit.

590: Galaxies with H$\alpha$ flux $>$ $10^{42}$ ergs sec$^{-1}$  and $V_{ab} < 25.5$

591: are indicated  with full squares, the galaxies with

592: H$\alpha$ flux $>$ $10^{42}$ ergs sec$^{-1}$ and $V_{ab} > 25.5$ are

593: indicated with open triangles, and the other galaxies are indicated

594: with open squares. The V band limit is used as most often Near-IR

595: spectroscopy is done on galaxies with optical redshifts measured

596: first.

597: The right panel shows the selection on  UV-slope and

598: UV continuum flux

599: (right), simular to those used for Ly-break and BM-BX galaxies

600: (e.g., Steidel et al. 2006).

601: Filled squares are galaxies with $V_{ab} < 25.5 $ and $B-V < 1.2$.

602: In both panels, we see that the selected galaxies are prefentially

603: large

604: compared to the sample as a whole. It is obviously difficult to study

605: galaxies at the full range of sizes, given the mass.

606: We note that our full sample is also likely to be incomplete at low

607: masses

608: and small sizes.

609: \label{figone}}

610: \end{figure*}

611: }

612: 

613: \def\figAone{

614: \begin{figure*}[t]

615: %\figurenum{A1}

616: \epsscale{1.2}

617: \plotone{fig14.eps}

618: \epsscale{1.0}

619: \caption{\small

620: Simulation  of the selection effects. Top row: galaxies at $0.5 < z <

621: 1.5$ have been shifted to higher redshift by $\delta z =  1$, while

622: keeping

623: their intrinsic properties the same.

624: The open symbols show the galaxies which would still be selected using

625: the selection criteria in this paper. It is clear that they

626: are not biased in the mass radius relation or in the relation between

627: specific star formation rate and surface density.

628: Bottom row: the same, but now shifting galaxies at $1.5 < z < 2.5$ by

629: $\delta z = 1$. Again, the resulting relations are the same. If

630: anything,

631: the selected galaxies are slightly larger than the original full

632: distribution,

633: caused by the fact that small galaxies are red, and therefor dropped

634: earlier

635: from the sample. The median radius increases by 15\%.

636: The simulations shows that the evolutionary effects observed in this

637: paper are not caused by selection effects.

638: \label{figone}}

639: \end{figure*}

640: }

641: 

642: 

643: 

644: The dramatic progress in observational capabilities of the last decade

645: have enabled studies of galaxy evolution and formation to epochs which were

646: completely inaccessible only 15 years ago.

647: Nevertheless, despite this dramatic progress, many open questions

648: remain. Some of these are due to very fundamental problems related to

649: studies of galaxy formation.

650: The most important problem is that it has become clear that 

651: galaxy evolution is a complex process. 

652: Galaxy mergers change the mass function continuously. 

653: Furthermore, star formation does probably not occur with nice, smooth

654: exponentially declining star formation rates -

655: starbursts  can change the luminosities of

656: galaxies on a short timescale.

657: As a result, studies of galaxy evolution and formation are of a

658: statistical nature: we cannot directly establish which galaxies at $z=1$ would

659: evolve into what galaxies at $z=0$, and we therefore have to analyze

660: statistically the sample as a whole.

661: 

662: 

663: Modern analyses therefore employ large samples, and attempt to use

664: stellar masses whereever possible, as these are less likely to evolve

665: rapidly (e.g., Brinchman \& Ellis 2001, Kauffmann et al. 2003b,

666: Dickinson et al. 2003, Rudnick et al. 2003, Fontana et al. 2005, 

667: Borch et al. 2006, Faber et al. 2007).

668: However, as stressed by Faber et al. (2007), the mass function does

669: not show a strong mode or other feature. As a result, we have

670: to characterize the mass function by the 

671: characteristic mass at which it turns over. The determination of this

672: characteristic mass and the determination of the general shape of 

673: the mass function is hard.

674: 

675: 

676: A different type of information may come from 

677: studies of the structure of galaxies. By studying the sizes, colors,

678: velocity dispersions, etc, one may be able to derive tight

679: correlations between galaxy properties. These tight correlations can

680: then be used to study galaxy evolution. For example, by measuring

681: velocity dispersions, sizes, and luminosities of early-type galaxies

682: one can establish correlation between mass-to-light ratio and mass and

683: size of a galaxy (e.g., Djorgovski et al. 1988, Faber et al. 1987).

684: The evolution of these correlations with redshift (e.g., Franx 1993,

685: van Dokkum and Franx 1996, van der Wel et al. 2005, Treu et al. 2005,

686: van Dokkum \& van der Marel 2007) provide the evolution of the 

687: mass-to-light ratio with redshift, which is essential for a proper

688: interpretation of the evolution of the luminosity function.

689: In addition this evolution puts strong constraints on the

690: evolution of the early-type galaxies per se, and especially the time

691: at which they formed their stars.

692: However, we have to add that this interpretation is not entirely

693: insensitive to the statistical evolution of the class of early-types

694: (e.g., van Dokkum and Franx 2001). Nevertheless, detailed studies

695: of galaxy properties can provide important additional constraints on

696: galaxy evolution, even when relatively small samples are studied

697: compared

698: to the full statistical analyses.

699: 

700: In this paper we follow the second approach, where we study a fairly

701: limited sample of $K$-band selected galaxies in the CDFS 

702: (1155 galaxies  from Wuyts et al. 2008), augmented

703: by a local comparison sample based on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

704: (Strauss et al. 2002). %2002AJ....124.1810S

705: We use size measurements to explore the

706: relations between color, masses, star formation rates and size.

707: We show that a good correlation exists between the sizes, masses,

708: colors and  specific star formation rates of the galaxies from $z=0$

709: to $z=3$, and we analyze this correlation in this paper.

710: The paper is built up in the following way: section 2 presents the

711: data used in the analysis, both the high redshift sample, and the low

712: redshift sample. Section 3 presents the correlation between mass,

713: size, color  at redshifts $z=0$, 1, 2 and 3. In addition, the relation

714: between mass, size and specific star formation rate is presented.

715: Section 4 presents the evolution of the specific star formation rate as

716: a  function of redshift, and section 5 presents the evolution of

717: size. The results are discussed in section 6, and in section 7 we

718: discuss the potential biases that may occur in current samples of

719: high redshift galaxies and analyses.

720: The results are summarized in section 8.

721: 

722: 

723: \section{Observations and derived quantities}

724: 

725: \subsection{High redshift ($0.2 < z < 3.5$)}

726: 

727: \figprezero

728: %\figpreone

729: \figpreone

730: 

731: The high redshift sample of galaxies is taken from the

732: GOODS-CDF-South field as presented by the

733: FIREWORKS 

734: study

735: by Wuyts et al. (2008). Briefly, Wuyts et al. (2008)

736: combined 

737: the available

738: optical-near IR-mid IR observations on the GOODS-CDF-South field.

739: The optical imaging consisted of ACS GOODS imaging (Giavalisco et al

740: 2004), and deep imaging with the ESO/MPG 2.2-m telescope 

741: (Arnouts et al. 2001, Wolf et al. 2004).

742: The Near-IR imaging was taken with the VLT and ISAAC and

743: presented in a reduced form by Vandame et al. (2001) and Vandame (in

744: preparation).

745: The GOODS IRAC

746: and MIPS 24 $\mu$m imaging was taken from Dickinson et al. (in preparation).

747: Wuyts et al. (2008) homogonized the PSFs of the GOODS ACS

748: and VLT Near-IR imaging data, to derive optical-near-ir photometry,

749: based on a  K-selected sample.

750: As the PSFs of the other data sets were significantly worse, the PSF

751: convolution and fitting technique of 

752: Labb\' e et al. (2006) and Labb\' e, (in preparation)

753: was used to derive

754: colors in the remaining bands. 

755: The overall photometry derived by Wuyts et al. (2008) agrees well with

756: that of Grazian et al. (2006), with the exception of an offset

757: in the IRAC photometry in Grazian et al. (2006), which was removed

758: in a later update of the Grazian et al. (2006) catalogue (Grazian,

759: private communication). %aa 449, 951

760: The total effective area of the survey  is 138 arcmin$^2$.

761: 

762: 

763: Wuyts et al. (2008) derived photometric

764: redshifts using EAZY (Brammer et al. 2008), and found good

765: correspondence between the photometric redshifts and the available

766: spectroscopic redshifts. The overall difference 

767: $\delta=(z_{phot}-z_{spec})/(1+z_{spec})$ amounted to 0.03 for the

768: full sample with spectroscopic redshifts, and was slightly larger for

769: galaxies with $z_{spec} > 1$: $\delta = 0.05$.

770: 

771: 

772: The Wuyts. et al. (2008) sample, and the sample used here,

773: is selected in the $K$-band.

774: To assure high quality photometry in the near-IR, only galaxies with a

775: total $K$-magnitude  below 22.5 were used, and with a signal-to-noise

776: higher than 10 in the $K$-band. Galaxies with redshifts between

777: 0.5 and 3.5 were used, assuring that the detection band is always

778: redward of the restframe Balmer/4000 \AA\ break.

779: The resulting redshift distribution of the sample used in the paper

780: is shown in Fig. 1.

781: \figsubzero

782: 

783: Another ingredient in the analysis presented here is the sizes of the

784: galaxies.

785: The sizes have been determined in the band redwards of the redshifted

786: 4000 \AA\ break and closest to the rest-frame $g$ band. 

787: Sersic models convolved with the PSF were fit to each galaxy. 

788: The sersic index $n$ was allowed to vary between 1 and 4.

789: The procedure is

790: identical to that used by Trujillo et al. (2006a), and  Toft et al. (2007).

791: The procedure was as

792: follows: for each near-IR tile in the field, the PSF was determined by

793: averaging the normalized PSFs from the stars in the tile. 

794: For the ACS imaging, the PSF was similarly determined from stars.

795: Then

796: the GALFIT program was used (Peng et al. 2002) to derive the best

797: fitting position, flux, circularized half light radius $\re=\sqrt{ab}$, 

798: sersic index, ellipticity

799: and position angle. Independently, the r4fit program written by the

800: first author was used to verify the results. This program has been 

801: extensively used in the past (e.g., van Dokkum \& Franx 1996, van Dokkum et

802: al. 1998). The results agreed well, with a median systematic offset

803: as small as 3\%.

804: We verified that all the results presented later do not change when

805: the method is changed.  Furthermore, the results change rather little when

806: the sizes from just the $K$-band imaging are used.

807: Trujillo et al. (2006a) studied in great detail the possible systematic

808: effects that can arise from low signal-to-noise, small input sizes,

809: and other effects. 

810: In general, the systematic effects are small at high signal-to-noise.

811: At sizes above 0.1 arcsec, the systematic effects in $\re$ are very

812: small - which is surprising, as the FWHM of the PSF is about 0.45 arcsec.

813: As the instrumental setup of Trujillo et al. (2006a) 

814: was identical to the one used here,

815: we expect similar errors, and hence we expect that the sizes are reliable

816: for measured sizes above  $\approx$ 1 kpc (corresponding 

817: to 0.12 arcsec at $z=2$).

818: 

819: 

820: Galaxy masses have been estimated from SED fits to the full

821: photometric dataset shortward of 24$\mu$m, 

822: and are presented in F\"orster Schreiber et

823: al. (in preparation)

824: following similar procedure as described by F\"orster Schreiber et al.

825: (2004).

826: The masses used here are based on fits with stellar

827: population models by Bruzual \& Charlot (2003). The models used in the

828: study were based on star formation histories with exponentially

829: declining

830: star formation rates. The time scales were 0 (single stellar

831: population),

832: 300 Myr, and infinity (constant star formation).

833: A Calzetti et al. (2000) extinction curve was used, and the extinction in the

834: V band $A_V$ was allowed to vary between 0 and 4.

835: The single stellar population models did not include dust extinction.

836: The fits also produced

837: estimates of the star formation rates, and these are briefly used

838: below for comparison.

839: The IMF used was the Salpeter (1955) IMF. The results were normalized

840: to a Kroupa (2001) IMF, by multiplying the masses and star formation

841: rates by $10^{-0.2}$. We verified that this approximation is accurate

842: to a few percent.

843: We notice that the masses presented here decrease on average by 1.4

844: when Maraston (2005) models are used, without a dependence on

845: redshift (see also Wuyts et al. 2007b).

846: %\figsubzero

847: \figpretwo

848: 

849: 

850: Star formation rates were also estimated from the UV and 24 $\mu$m MIPS fluxes.

851: First, mid-IR fluxes were estimated using the models by

852: Dale \& Helou (2001), and the prescription by Labb\' e et al. (in preparation)

853: and Wuyts et al. (2008). In short, a large range of models was used

854: to convert the MIPS flux to a bolometric flux, and the mean of the log

855: of the bolometric fluxes was used as a best estimate. Typically, the

856: top and bottom estimates varied by a factor of 3-5 from our best

857: estimate.

858: We note, however, that Wuyts et al. (in preparation) found that the 

859: conversion used

860: here agreed within 10\% with the conversion given by Papovich et

861: al. (2007),

862: based on observed 70 $\mu$m and 160 $\mu$m fluxes for galaxies in the

863: E-CFDS.

864: The star formation rate of the galaxies was estimated assuming the

865: Kroupa IMF : $SFR = 0.98\ 10^{-10} (L_{IR} + 3.3 L_{2800})$.

866: This is the relation by Bell et al. (2005), and it is based on the relations

867: given by Kennicutt (1998). The Bell et al. (2005) 

868: relation has been adapted to the Kroupa IMF used in this study.

869: 

870: The star formation rates have been measured for all galaxies,

871: and the 1-sigma errors on the measured star formation rates dependend 

872: on redshift. The typical random errors are 

873: less than 1 $\Msun$ year$^{-1}$ at $z=1$, 

874: less than 5 $\Msun$ year$^{-1}$ at $z=2$, 

875: increasing rapidly to 25 $\Msun$ year$^{-1}$ at $z=3$.

876: 

877: 

878: \figsubone

879: We compare the star formation rates derived from the UV+ 24 $\mu$m MIPS

880: fluxes

881: with the star formation rates derived from the SED fits in

882: Fig. 2. We compare the star formation rates at different redshift

883: intervals, $z\approx 1$, $z\approx 2$, $z\approx 3$.

884: We can see a good correlation in the first two redshift bins.

885: There is a small offset at $z\approx 1$, with a median 

886: of SFR(UV+MIPS)/SFR(SED) = 0.77.

887: At $z\approx 2$, the median ratio is 1.29.

888: These deviations are much smaller than the uncertainties in the 24

889: $\mu$m MIPS flux to total IR flux conversion, which are up to a factor

890: of 3.

891: At $z\approx 3$, the correspondence is less good. This is

892: expected:

893: observational errors on the 24$\mu$m fluxes become more important,

894: and the 8$\mu$m  PAH emission feature 

895: shifts out of the 24$\mu$m band at those redshifts.

896: Overall, the agreement between the star formation rates from UV+MIPS and

897: SED-fits is surprisingly good at $z\le 2.5$.

898: This may come as a

899: surprise, as other authors found that the MIPS based star formation

900: rates are significantly too high for a substantial fraction of the galaxies

901: (e.g., Daddi et al. 2007). We do not find

902: such an effect. This may be due to the fact that we use a linear 

903: conversion from MIPS flux to

904: full IR flux. This apparently works well.

905: The assumption is further

906: justified by the work of Papovich et al. (2007), who found that the

907: earlier empirical conversions of MIPS flux to star formation rate for $z=2$

908: galaxies generally over-predict the star formation rate. As a matter

909: of

910: fact, the results of Papovich et al. (2007) are in very good agreement

911: with a simple linear conversion.

912: However, we have to note that our estimates of the star formation

913: rates

914: may still be wrong: we have

915: not measured the full IR flux and depend on extrapolations.

916: We remark, however, that Daddi et al. (2007) concluded that the

917: star formation measured from the dustcorrected UV is a good representation

918: of the true star formation rate. Our SED fits should be a good

919: approximation of those values. 

920: But at the same time, we find that our UV+MIPS star formation rates

921: correspond well to the star formation rates based on SED fits.

922: Hence, in the rest of the paper, we use the UV+MIPS

923: star formation rates.

924: Galaxies with X-ray detections (Giacconi et al. 2002) were omitted

925: from the sample, as these have likely AGN.

926: 

927: 

928: For consistency, we use the MIPS derived star formation rates also at $z>2.5$.

929: We note that at $z\approx 3$, the MIPS star formation rates are higher than

930: the SED derived star formation rates by a factor than 2.8 (Fig. 2).

931: We verified that the results obtained in the paper remain valid when using the

932: SED derived star formation rates. The main difference is a systematic 

933: decrease in derived star formation rates and specific star formation rates

934: at $z=2.5$ and higher.

935: 

936: 

937: 

938: 

939: 

940: \subsection{Low redshift sample: SDSS}

941: 

942: For comparison at low redshift, we use the SDSS sample, as used by

943: Kauffmann et al. (2003a,b). These authors derived masses for galaxies

944: from the DR2 release 

945: %\citep{ab04}

946: (Abazajian et al. 2004). The masses are based on 

947: mass-to-light ratios estimated from analysis of the nuclear spectra.

948: We applied a small correction to the mass-to-light ratios: 

949: as the colors of the nuclei

950: are generally redder than the color of the galaxy as a whole, the

951: mass-to-light ratio is generally slightly overestimated. We corrected

952: the mass-to-light ratios with a factor of $10^{1.7 \Delta(g-r)}$,

953: where $\Delta(g-r) = (g-r)(petrosian) - (g-r)(fiber)$.

954: Furthermore, we corrected the masses by the fraction of light missed

955: in the Petrosian aperture. We used the sersic fits by Blanton et

956: al. (2003) to derive the total fluxes, and the ratio of the total

957: flux to the Petrosian flux.

958: 

959: The rest-frame colors of the galaxies were derived using INTEREST

960: (Taylor et al. 2008, in preparation), 

961: and are determined in a way consistent with the

962: high redshift sample.

963: INTEREST determines the rest-frame colors and fluxes from the

964: observed magnitudes, using the algorithm defined by Rudnick et al. (2003).

965: The star formation rates were taken from Brinchmann et al. (2004).

966: Finally, the sizes (half-light radii) were taken from Blanton et

967: al. (2003).

968: 

969: In the rest of the paper, we use the sample between redshifts of 0.05

970: and 0.07. The lower limit is used to avoid a strong bias against

971: massive galaxies, resulting from the magnitude limit imposed on the

972: sample with masses from Kauffmann et al. (2003a).

973: The high redshift limit is used to avoid the worst selection effects

974: against apparently small galaxies, and to avoid large uncertainties 

975: in the derived sizes.

976: %#21725-3=21722

977: This sample contains 21722 galaxies.

978: The sample includes both star-forming galaxies and

979: galaxies without star formation.

980: 

981: 

982: \section{ Correlations between size, mass, color and star formation rates}

983: 

984: \subsection{Mass-color and Mass-size relations }

985: 

986: \figsubtwo

987: We can now start to analyze the correlations between galaxy parameters

988: out to $z=3.5$.

989: We start by showing the well known correlation between color and

990: stellar mass (e.g., Kauffmann et al. 2003a, Borch et al. 2006).

991: The top row in Fig. 3 shows the result  for the galaxies

992: in our sample. Here, and in following plots, we divide the galaxies in

993: 4 bins: low redshift ($0.05 < z < 0.07$  from SDSS), $0.5 < z < 1.5$, 

994: $1.5 < z < 2.5$, and

995: $2.5 < z < 3.5$, the latter all from the CDFS.

996: Fig. 3 shows that  there is a correlation between color and mass

997: out to $z=3.5$:

998: low mass galaxies being generally blue,

999: and high mass galaxies being red. At low redshift we see the well known

1000: red sequence extending to high masses. 

1001: At high redshift we lack the accuracy to establish the red sequence,

1002: but a correlation between color and mass probably persists as massive 

1003: blue galaxies are scarce.

1004: These results agree well with

1005: those of Kauffmann et al. (2003a), 

1006: Borch et al.  (2006) for galaxies at $z < 1$.

1007: \figprethree

1008: 

1009: 

1010: 

1011: 

1012: %\figprethree

1013: \figprefour

1014: 

1015: As the redshifts used for this figure are mostly photometric

1016: redshifts, the errors in the colors are significant at higher

1017: redshift.

1018: Hence the absence of a tight red sequence at $z=2$ can be caused

1019: entirely by the observational errors.

1020: We note that Kriek et al. (2008) found a  red sequence at $z=2.3$ for

1021: a sample with spectroscopy.

1022: It is striking that at $z=2$ and above, there appears to be a lack of

1023: low mass, red galaxies. 

1024: We have to realize, however that red, low mass galaxies are 

1025: progressively missed from the

1026: samples, as they have low mass-to-light ratios, and drop out of the $K$-band

1027: selected samples first. We have indicated in Fig. 3 the  lines of

1028: 75\% completeness.

1029: We determined this in the following way. 

1030: We divided the galaxies in a redshift bin into separate color

1031: bins. In each color bin, the galaxy fluxes and masses were scaled downward so

1032: that the resulting signal-to-noise in the K band was at our selection

1033: limit.

1034: For each galaxy, the resulting mass is the limiting mass at which that 

1035: particular galaxy could have been observed. 

1036: Finally, we determined the mass limit at which 75 \%

1037: of the galaxies were detectable, and show it in Fig. 3 with the

1038: dashed curve.

1039: It is clear that the absence of red, low mass galaxies at $z=2$ and

1040: $z=3$ is mostly due to the incompleteness of the sample.

1041: 

1042: Whereas a general relation exists between mass and color, 

1043: it is noticeable that at stellar masses between  $10^{10}$ and 

1044: $10^{11}$ $\Msun$,

1045: the spread in color is very large, up to 0.8 magnitude in $u-g$.

1046: This is not only the case at low redshift, but also at higher redshifts.

1047: As the color is a function of stellar age, it implies a large range

1048: in star formation histories of galaxies at a given mass.

1049: Other indicators (D4000, specific star formation rate

1050: \footnote{The specific star formation rate is the star formation rate

1051:   divided by the stellar mass.}

1052: derived from emission

1053: lines) show the same, large spread at these intermediate masses in the

1054: local universe (e.g., Kauffman et al. 2003b, Brinchman et al. 2004).

1055: Clearly, mass is not the only factor determining the star formation

1056: history,

1057: and galaxies are not uniform in this mass interval.

1058: 

1059: 

1060: Next we show the relation between mass and effective radius in the bottom

1061: row

1062: of Fig. 3.

1063: There is a well defined trend at low redshift, with high mass 

1064: galaxies being larger than low mass galaxies.

1065: The trend is weaker at high redshift, but this might be caused by

1066: selection effects, as small galaxies are preferentially missed first

1067: (see Appendix A).

1068: Just as for the mass-color relation, we find a significant scatter

1069: at a given mass at all redshifts.

1070: This was found earlier by Shen et al. (2003) for the SDSS sample,

1071: and it persists to high redshift.

1072: Shen et al. (2003) found that the rms in log radius is 

1073: 0.3-0.5 dex at a

1074: given mass, and the distribution is log-normal at 

1075: low redshift.

1076: 

1077: 

1078: \subsection{ Mass-size-color relation}

1079: 

1080: If we take these two results together, we conclude that 

1081: galaxies at masses between $10^{10}$ and

1082: $10^{11}$ $\Msun$

1083: have a large spread in

1084: effective radius, and a large range in colors, from $z=0$ to $z=3$ !

1085: This raises the simple question whether a different, underlying parameter

1086: might cause this variation in color, and size.

1087: This might be expected if, for example, the galaxies

1088: consist of large, blue disks, and small, red bulges, and if the

1089: bulge-to-disk

1090: ratio varies, at a given mass.

1091: 

1092: 

1093: \figsubthree

1094: 

1095: 

1096: To investigate whether an additional parameter may cause the scatter, 

1097: we present the relation between

1098: color and effective radius in narrow mass bins.

1099: Figure 4 shows these  relations

1100: in our 4 redshift bins.

1101: Interestingly,  we find a  tight relation between color and

1102: effective radius, showing that the {\em combination} of mass and size can

1103: predict the color very well.

1104: The relation persists to $z=2$, with too few galaxies at $z=3$ to

1105: establish it at that redshift.

1106: The average scatter in $u-g$ color around a simple fit to color-size relation

1107: at a given mass

1108: is very  small at 0.16 mag 

1109: in the mass bins between $10^{10}$ and $10^{11}$ $\Msun$.

1110: This is a significant reduction of the scatter, which is 0.33 mag in

1111: $u-g$ color in the same mass range if we do not correct for the

1112: color-size relation.

1113: The scatter listed here, and in the remainder of the paper is measured

1114: with the normalized Median Absolute Deviation (nMAD). This is the

1115: median absolute deviation multiplied by 1.48 so that the nMAD of

1116: a gaussian is equal to its dispersion.

1117: 

1118: 

1119: This result suggests that indeed a single underlying parameter might

1120: drive the variations between galaxies.

1121: Hence we test  whether the relation

1122: between color, mass, and size can be written in a simple form.

1123: We assume a relation of the form

1124: 

1125: $$ u-g = a ( \log\ Mass - b \log\ r_e ) + c,$$

1126: 

1127: and we derive the values of $a$, $b$, and $c$ which minimize the scatter.

1128: The selection effects discussed earlier make it hard to do this

1129: test unambiguously at high redshift.

1130: At low redshift ($z=0$ and $z=1$), we find that the scatter is

1131: minimized for $b$=1.05 and $b=1.55,$ respectively, with a value of $b=2$

1132: giving a similar, but slightly higher scatter. At $z=2$, selection

1133: effects are already quite important, but we still find a similar value

1134: of $b=0.89$. At $z=3$, we find that $b=0.28$ produces the lowest scatter,

1135: likely caused by the selection effects against low mass, red galaxies,

1136: making it impossible to establish the mass-color-size relation at that

1137: redshift.

1138: 

1139: 

1140: We note that

1141: the coefficient $a$ has no special physical meaning, as it is dependent on

1142: the color used on the left side of the equation.

1143: 

1144: However, the coefficient $b$ has a special meaning, as it can indicate the

1145: physical parameter underlying the relation.

1146: Our main result is that $b$ is close to 1-1.5 for most redshifts

1147: ($z=0$ to $z=2.5$). This suggests that the relevant parameter is 

1148: $Mass/\re$, related to velocity dispersion,  or

1149: $Mass/\re^2$, related stellar surface density.

1150: In the following, we use the term ``inferred velocity dispersion''

1151: for the quantity derived from $M/\re$,

1152: to make clear that it is not the true stellar velocity

1153: dispersion for the galaxies. The two agree well at low

1154: redshift, see, e.g., Drory, Bender, \& Hopp (2004), but at high

1155: redshift this remains to be demonstrated, especially for gas rich

1156: galaxies.

1157: 

1158: \figprefive

1159: 

1160: 

1161: This correlations obtained here are similar to the results 

1162: of Kauffmann et al. (2003b,

1163: 2006)

1164: for the SDSS

1165: sample, who noted

1166: that the specific star formation rate correlates better with stellar surface

1167: density than with mass.

1168: The scatter in $u-g$ color is low, for both the color-inferred velocity

1169: dispersion and color-surface density relations: 0.21 and 0.22 mag

1170: respectively, 

1171: for our bins at $z<2.5$.

1172: 

1173: 

1174: We emphasize that the single correlation with surface density or

1175: inferred velocity dispersion

1176:  is unlikely to be complete: as can be

1177: seen in Fig. 4, at $z=0$, at each mass interval, a ``narrow red sequence'' 

1178: exists

1179: over a  range in radii. The relation above does not represent this

1180: sequence properly, and the relation has less predictive power than, for

1181: example, the Fundamental Plane relation for early-type galaxies alone.

1182: 

1183: 

1184: Given this result, we now show the relation between color and surface

1185: density in the left panels of Fig. 5.

1186: It is striking that a well defined relation exists at all redshifts,

1187: with red galaxies having high surface density, and blue galaxies

1188: having low surface density.

1189: The relation exists at all redshifts, but we have to note that

1190: at $z=3$ the number of points is low, and the relation is weak.

1191: More, and deeper data at high resolution

1192: would be needed to establish the relation better

1193: at that redshift.

1194: \figsubfour

1195: 

1196: The relation between color and inferred velocity dispersion is shown in the

1197: right panels of Fig. 5.

1198: We calculated the inferred velocity dispersion from $\sigma = \sqrt (0.3 G

1199: M/\re)$,

1200: where the constant has been chosen so that the inferred velocity

1201: dispersions of the SDSS galaxies match the measured dispersions well.

1202: Again,  we  find a well defined relation between the inferred velocity

1203: dispersion and the color,

1204: with somewhat smaller scatter  in color than for the relation between

1205: surface density and color.

1206:  

1207: \figpresix

1208: 

1209: \subsection{Specific star formation rates as a function of surface

1210: density}

1211: 

1212: The color variations found above are interesting by themselves, but 

1213: the interpretation is complex, as color is a function of both

1214: star formation history and dust.

1215: A more direct diagnostic of the star formation history of the galaxies

1216: is the specific star formation rate. 

1217: The specific star formation rate is the star formation rate divided by

1218: the mass, and it is the inverse of the time it would take to form the

1219: galaxy

1220: if the star formation rate were constant.

1221: In general, the specific star

1222: formation

1223: rate and color of galaxies are well correlated, and the correlation

1224: between surface density and color suggests therefore that a similar

1225: correlation may exist between surface density and specific star

1226: formation

1227: rate.

1228: 

1229: \figsubfive

1230: Figure  6 presents the specific star formation rates plotted 

1231: against the surface density and inferred velocity dispersion of the galaxies.

1232: As can be seen, good correlations exist.

1233: The  high surface density galaxies have generally lower specific 

1234: star formation rates, and the low surface density galaxies have

1235: generally high specific star formation rates.

1236: We note, however, that the scatter is larger for the SDSS sample

1237: than when the color

1238: is plotted against surface density, and there is no clear linear 

1239: relation.

1240: Either aperture correction effects play a role (Brinchmann et al. 

1241: 2004), or a correlation

1242: between dust and specific star formation rates produces

1243: lower scatter in  color than in specific star formation rate

1244: by itself.

1245: At higher redshift, this difference is not strong.

1246: 

1247: 

1248: We conclude that the relation between color and surface density is

1249: directly related to the relation between specific star formation rate

1250: and surface density. 

1251: This result extends the earlier analysis of Kauffmann et al. (2003b, 2006)

1252: to significantly higher redshift.

1253: 

1254: 

1255: 

1256: \section{Evolution of specific star formation rate with redshift}

1257: 

1258: The tight correlation between color and specific star formation rate

1259: with surface density and inferred velocity dispersion suggests that

1260: evolutionary studies should focus on using these parameters for

1261: studying the evolution with redshift - in contrast to using

1262: mass (e.g.,  Cowie et al. 1996, Brichmann \& Ellis, 2000, Juneau et al. 2005)

1263: Below, we  explore the evolution of specific star formation

1264: rate as a function of mass and of  surface density.

1265: 

1266: \subsection{Specific star formation rates in bins of mass}

1267: 

1268: It is now well established that galaxies generally had higher star 

1269: formation rates at higher redshift (e.g. Lilly et al. 1996,

1270: Cowie et al., 1996, Bell et al. 2005).

1271: The evolution of the star formation rate is generally found to be

1272: dependent on mass: the most massive galaxies stopped forming stars

1273: the earliest (also known as down-sizing, e.g., Cowie et al. 1996, 

1274: Brichmann \& Ellis, 2000, Juneau et al. 2005, Zheng et al. 2007)

1275: 

1276: \figsubsix

1277: 

1278: Fig. 7 shows the evolution of the specific star formation rate in

1279: narrow

1280: mass bins.

1281: The specific star formation rate is the star formation rate divided

1282: by the stellar mass. It is the inverse of the time in which the galaxy 

1283: would have formed, given the observed mass and star formation rate.

1284: We can see in Fig. 7 that the specific star formation  rates increase

1285: with increasing redshift, consistent with previous results (e.g.,

1286: Juneau et al. 2005, Zheng et al. 2007, and references therein)

1287: The increase can be seen in all mass bins. 

1288: 

1289: The specific star formation rates increase by a large factor:

1290: whereas at $z=0$ the highest

1291: specific star formation rates range around $10^{-10}$ \yrinv,

1292: by $z=1$ the maximum specific star formation rates increase to

1293: $10^{-9}$ \yrinv,

1294: and by $z=2$ to even higher values ($10^{-8.5}$ \yrinv). 

1295: In this discussion, we have to keep

1296: in mind that the specific star formation rates suffer from systematic

1297: uncertainties.

1298: Nevertheless, it is striking how strongly the specific star formation rates

1299: increase with redshift, and we notice that the trends at $0.2 < z < 1.5$

1300: extrapolate at $z=0$ to values consistent with the local SDSS values.

1301: 

1302: \figpreseven

1303: 

1304: We also find a trend with mass: in the lowest mass bins, the majority

1305: of

1306: the galaxies have already very high specific star formation rates by $z=1$,

1307: whereas at the highest masses, the galaxies with high star formation

1308: rates start to dominate at significantly higher redshift.

1309: These results are very similar to those obtained before by many other

1310: authors (e.g., Cowie et al. 1996, Brinchmann \& Ellis 2000, 

1311: Zheng et al. 2007 and references therein), and are generally

1312: characterized as ``down-sizing''.

1313: 

1314: However, we notice that all mass bins contain galaxies with very low

1315: specific star formation rates to very high redshifts.

1316: We have to keep in mind, that the upper limits on the specific star

1317: formation

1318: rates at $z=2$ are quite high, 

1319: especially

1320: for the lower mass galaxies. 

1321: This is simply caused by the limited depth of the MIPS 24 $\mu$m imaging:

1322: Even though the MIPS exposure is extremely deep,

1323: the limiting depth produces rather high limits on the specific star

1324: formation

1325: rate for low mass galaxies.

1326: 

1327: 

1328: Additionally, we note that the highest specific star formation rates occur for

1329: the lowest mass galaxies. These do not have the highest star formation

1330: rates in an absolute sense:

1331: a specific star formation rate of  $10^{-8}$ \yrinv\ at $\Mstar = 2\ 10^{10} \Msun$

1332: corresponds to a star formation rate of 200 $\Mstar$ \yrinv, whereas

1333: a specific star formation rate of $3\ 10^{-9}$\yrinv\ at $\Mstar = 8\ 10^{10} \Msun$

1334: corresponds to a star formation rate of 240 $\Mstar$ \yrinv.

1335: Obviously, characterizing  galaxies by their absolute star formation rate

1336: over-emphasizes massive galaxies, which are actually not as

1337: extreme as the lower mass galaxies.

1338: 

1339: 

1340: \figsubseven

1341: \subsection{Specific star formation rate in bins of surface density}

1342: 

1343: 

1344: The wide range in specific star formation rate in the mass bins is a

1345: striking

1346: feature in Fig. 7.

1347: In Fig. 8, we show the specific star formation rate in bins of surface density.

1348: It is striking that at low surface density,  the specific star formation

1349: rates are always high, and at high surface density, the specific 

1350: star formation rates are generally low; but at intermediate surface densities,

1351: ($10^{9}$ - $10^{10}$ \msunkpc)

1352: we see a transition from low specific star formation rates at low redshift.

1353: to high specific star formation rates at high redshift.

1354: At a surface density of $10^{9} -  10^{9.5}$ \msunkpc\ this transition takes

1355: place

1356: in a fairly narrow interval between $z=0.6$ and $z=1.6$, and at

1357: the

1358: surface density interval of $10^{9.5}-10^{10}$ \msunkpc, it takes

1359: place 

1360: around $z=1.5-2.5$.

1361: 

1362: By comparing Figs. 7 and 8, we conclude that the evolution is 

1363: better  defined by the surface density of the galaxies, than by their

1364: mass. At all masses and nearly all redshift, we find galaxies with

1365: very high specific star formation rates, and galaxies with very low

1366: specific star formation rates. When galaxies are sorted by surface

1367: density,

1368: we see that low surface density galaxies have high specific star formation

1369: rates

1370: at all redshifts, high surface density galaxies have low specific 

1371: star formation rates at nearly all redshifts, and we find a clear transition

1372: zone for intermediate surface density galaxies.

1373: 

1374: \subsection{The evolution of threshold surface density with redshift}

1375: 

1376: Kauffmann et al. (2006) analyzed a sample of local SDSS galaxies, and 

1377: introduced  a threshold surface density, below which galaxies have

1378: nearly constant specific star formation rates, and above which the

1379: specific star formation rate declines rapidly.

1380: 

1381: Our results imply that similar threshold surface densities

1382: can be defined at higher redshifts, and that the evolution of the

1383: galaxies

1384: can be well described by an increase in the threshold surface density

1385: with increasing redshift.

1386: 

1387: 

1388: \figpreeight

1389: \figprenine

1390: 

1391: \figsubeight

1392: 

1393: We define the threshold surface densities in the following way:

1394: we determine the median specific star formation rates in surface

1395: density bins of width 0.5 dex,

1396: sampled at 0.1 dex. 

1397: The results are shown for $z=0,1,2$ in Fig. 9.

1398: We find that the median specific star formation rates are fairly

1399: constant at low surface densities, and decline rapidly at higher

1400: surface 

1401: densities. 

1402: The threshold surface density is defined by requiring that the specific

1403: star formation rate is 3 times lower than the median at the low

1404: surface density end.

1405: 

1406: We determine the thresholds in redshift bins of width $\Delta z=1$ for

1407: our CDFS sample, and we sample them at redshift steps of 0.5.

1408: The results are shown in Fig. 10. The left panel shows the threshold 

1409: surface density versus  redshift.

1410: As can be seen, the threshold evolves quite strongly with redshift - 

1411: proportional to $(1+z)^{1.5 \pm 0.12}$. 

1412: 

1413: \figsubnine

1414: 

1415: This evolution by itself would obviously cause a strongly increasing star

1416: formation rate density with redshift, as more and more galaxies fall below

1417: the threshold. However, it is not the full story, as we can also see that

1418: the specific star formation rate below the surface density threshold 

1419: increases rapidly with redshift

1420: (Fig. 10b). The evolution is fast at low redshift, proportional

1421: to $(1+z)^{3.8 \pm 0.2}$.

1422: 

1423: 

1424: 

1425: \section{Evolution of mass-size relation with redshift }

1426: 

1427: We saw above that the specific star formation rate is strongly

1428: correlated with the surface density of the galaxies, and evolves

1429: strongly at a given surface density.

1430: This is not the only evolution taking place: the surface

1431: densities and sizes of galaxies at a fixed mass are also expected to evolve.

1432: This evolution has been studied before (e.g., Trujillo et al. 2006a, and

1433: references

1434: therein). We revisit this issue here as our sample size is significantly

1435: larger at high redshifts.

1436: To be consistent with existing literature, we study the mass-size

1437: relation.

1438: The relation between surface density and mass follows directly from

1439: using $\Sigma \propto M/\re^2$.

1440: 

1441: We note that the evolution of the mass-size relation

1442: is  a valuable diagnostic of the evolution of

1443: galaxies:

1444: in simple models of disc formation, the sizes of discs are assumed to

1445: evolve at the same rate as the halo size (e.g., Mo, Mao, \& White 1998).

1446: This has

1447: been used to predict the evolution of the mass-size relation for

1448: such galaxies (e.g., Mo et al. 1998). More complex models find

1449: generally weaker evolution (e.g., Somerville et al. 2008).

1450: The evolution of the mass-size relation for spheroidal galaxies is

1451: expected to evolve even faster 

1452: (e.g., Kochfar \& Silk 2006, Hopkins et al. 2007,2008)

1453: 

1454: \figpreten

1455: \figsubten

1456: 

1457: The first studies of the evolution of the size-mass relation to $z=3$

1458: were done by Trujillo et al. (2006), based on ISAAC imaging data

1459: on the smaller but deeper fields of the FIRES survey (Franx et al.

1460: 2003, Labbe et al. 2003a, Forster Schreiber et al. 2006).

1461: The sample studied here is based on imaging with the same instrument, but

1462: on the much larger CDF-South field.

1463: Fig.  11 shows the evolution of the radii of galaxies with redshift in

1464: narrow mass bins. As we can see, significant evolution is present.

1465: On average, the sample produces an evolution of $\delta \log \re =

1466: -(0.13\pm 0.02) z$,

1467: or $\re \propto (1+z)^{-0.59\pm 0.10}$. This is an average of the

1468: evolution seen in the mass bins with $M_* > 2.5\ 10^{10}$, where the

1469: sample is more than 70 \% complete at the $z=2$ bin.

1470: The evolution may still be an

1471: underestimate, as the lowest mass bins are still deficient in small, red

1472: galaxies at high redshift ($z \ge 2.5$).

1473: 

1474: 

1475: As can be seen in Fig. 11, the evolution is fastest for galaxies with

1476: masses above 6.3 $10^{10}$ $\Msun$. These give $\re \propto

1477: (1+z)^{-0.71 \pm 0.07}$.

1478: Again this difference may be partly or fully due to incompleteness at the lower

1479: masses:  the smallest galaxies are typically red,

1480: and they drop out of the $K$ selected samples earlier than the larger, 

1481: blue galaxies.

1482: Deeper data will be required to verify this trend.

1483: Furthermore, we note that the smallest galaxies are small with regards

1484: to the PSF, and hence the size measurements around 1kpc and below should be

1485: considered to be uncertain (see also section 2).

1486: Hence higher resolution imaging is needed to verify those sizes.

1487: We  note that the $z=0$ SDSS size measurements agree well with the

1488: trend found for the full dataset. There is no indication that the

1489: SDSS measurements are biased compared to the low redshift CDFS measurements.

1490: 

1491: The evolution found here agrees well with that found by Trujillo et al. (2006a),

1492: who found an average evolution for the full sample 

1493: of a factor of 0.48$\pm$ 0.05 out to z=2.5, compared to the evolution of

1494: a factor of 0.48$\pm$0.08 found here (derived from our average 

1495: redshift evolution).

1496: 

1497: 

1498: Given the strong evolution, one may wonder to what extent these

1499: results could be affected by serious systematic errors in establishing the

1500: stellar masses of galaxies. We note that the evolution is so strong, that

1501: it cannot be caused by an error of a factor of 3 in the stellar mass at $z=2$.

1502: The typical size of galaxies with mass of 6.3-10 $10^{10}$ $\Msun$

1503: in our sample is 1.6 kpc at $z=2$. If we had overestimated the mass

1504: by a factor of 3, we should compare their size with galaxies at z=0 of a

1505: mass of 2.1-3.3 $10^{10}$ $\Msun$. 

1506: As we can see in Fig. 11, galaxies with that mass

1507: have a size of 2.5 kpc at $z=0$, implying an evolution with a factor

1508: of 0.64.

1509: Hence it seems rather unlikely that systematic

1510: errors in the mass determination cause the observed evolution.

1511: Incompleteness could be another factor, as we may miss the larger

1512: galaxies

1513: more easily

1514: by surface brightness effects. This is straightforward to test by simulating

1515: the effects of such selection on the observed low redshift galaxies, by putting

1516: them at higher and higher redshift, and simulation the selection effects.

1517: In appendix A we show that this effect

1518: is almost negligible, which is due to the fact that the PSF is significant

1519: compared to the sizes of the galaxies. Hence we miss rather few large galaxies,

1520: and we cannot easily explain the absence of massive, small red galaxies at 

1521: low redshift.

1522: The most significant bias is to miss low mass, red galaxies at high redshift, 

1523: because they are fainter in $K$, 

1524: and this biases the sample towards larger galaxies at the same mass.

1525: Hence the true evolution of the mass-size relation may even be faster

1526: than the evolution observed here.

1527: 

1528: 

1529: The scatter in the mass-size relation at $z>0.2$ is approximately 0.3 dex

1530: in log radius. This is comparable to the scatter in the relation for

1531: the SDSS sample for galaxies with masses lower than $ 4\ 10^{10}$

1532: $\Msun$ (Shen et al. 2003). The scatter is comparable to the evolution

1533: found here, showing that it is possible that some individual galaxies

1534: have no evolution in either parameter. The largest galaxies at $z=2$,

1535: for example, are consistent with galaxies at $z=0$. The small, massive

1536:  galaxies at $z=2$ are not consistent with $z=0$ galaxies, a point

1537: made also by many other authors (e.g., Cimatti et al. 2008, van Dokkum

1538: et al. 2008, and references therein).

1539: Therefore, the population as a whole must evolve.

1540: 

1541: \section{Implications for galaxy evolution}

1542: 

1543: \subsection{General evolution and transformation onto the red sequence}

1544: 

1545: We have found that at all redshifts, color and specific star formation

1546: rates correlate well with surface density and inferred velocity

1547: dispersion (which is $\sqrt{0.3 G M/\re}$).

1548: The lower the surface density and inferred velocity dispersion, 

1549: the bluer the colors,

1550: and the higher the specific star formation rates.

1551: The implication of this result is simply that the high surface

1552: density galaxies are older, have low star formation, and must have

1553: formed their stars earlier than the low surface density galaxies.

1554: This had been found earlier by Kauffman et al. (2003b, 2006) at low redshift,

1555: and these new result show that the relations persist to at least $z=2.5$.

1556: 

1557: The evolution in the relations is as expected: at higher redshifts,

1558: high specific star formation rates are found at higher surface

1559: densities/

1560: inferred velocity dispersions than at lower redshift.

1561: This is consistent with a simple picture in which  the high surface density 

1562: galaxies which are dead at low redshift were forming stars at some 

1563: higher redshift. The apparently smooth increase  of the characteristic

1564: surface density at which high star formation occurs suggests that the 

1565: star formation

1566: history is a simple function of the surface density of the galaxy.

1567: This is quite striking as the star formation rate of a galaxy is

1568: driven by complex processes like mergers, gas accretion, and other

1569: processes which will vary with time.

1570: Hence these processes affect both the star formation rates and the

1571: surface

1572: densities to result in a fairly simple relation

1573: between surface density and star formation history.

1574: 

1575: Interestingly, the results provide independent evidence that many galaxies 

1576: which are on the red sequence at $z=0$ were not "red and dead" at $z=1$:

1577: their typical surface densities are around $10^9\ -\ 3\ 10^9 $

1578: \msunkpc\  at $z=0$, and

1579: approximately half of the galaxies with such surface densities at $z=1$ are

1580: forming stars (see Fig. 8).

1581: We note that this evidence is completely independent of the evidence based

1582: on the mass density evolution of the red sequence galaxies, which has shown

1583: that the mass density has increased significantly between $z=1$ and $z=0$

1584: (e.g., Bell et al. 2004, Faber et al. 2007). The evidence presented here shows

1585: that the galaxies with the structure of red-sequence galaxies at $z=0$ are

1586: generally forming stars at $z=1.5$. Of course, as galaxy evolution is a

1587: complex process which may include both merging and star formation, we cannot

1588: uniquely identify what the progenitors are of $z=0$ red galaxies once we

1589: allow for structural evolution.

1590: However, we can confidently exclude the possibility

1591: that all red sequence galaxies at $z=0$ have passively evolved from $z=1$ red

1592: galaxies: many of the galaxies with the corresponding structural 

1593: parameters at $z=1$

1594: are not dead.

1595: The evolution of the galaxies onto the "dead" zone of surface density$> 10^9$ 

1596: \msunkpc\ 

1597: likely involves both star formation and merging: the first from

1598: the direct observational evidence presented here that the galaxies

1599: with surface density $> 10^9$ \msunkpc\ were forming stars at higher

1600: redshift,

1601: the latter from theoretical

1602: predictions, and determinations of the merger rate 

1603: (e.g., Bell et al. 2006, van Dokkum et al. 2005), 

1604: %\citep[e.g.,][]{dok05,bell06}, 

1605: which are still quite uncertain, however.

1606: 

1607: 

1608: The steady increase with redshift of the threshold density 

1609: (above which the specific star formation rates drop)

1610: suggests that similar processes were at play between $z=1$ and

1611: $z=2$, but then at higher surface densities/inferred velocity dispersions.

1612: 

1613: 

1614: \subsection{Properties of quiescent galaxies out to $z=3$}

1615: 

1616: One of the striking features is that quiescent galaxies exist at all redshifts.

1617: At all redshifts, they are the galaxies with the highest surface densities,

1618: and the highest inferred velocity dispersions. However, their sizes at $z=2$ and above

1619:  are

1620: much smaller than their sizes at $z=0$, and their surface densities much

1621: higher. This had been noticed before

1622: by many authors (e.g., Trujillo et al. 2003, 2006a,b, Daddi et al. 2005,

1623: Toft et al. 2007, Cimatti et al. 2008, van Dokkum et al. 2008). 

1624: The results here indicate that

1625: their small sizes are related to the general evolution of the

1626: mass-size relation. 

1627: When we select only quiescent galaxies by requiring

1628: that the specific star formation rate is smaller than $0.3/t{hubble}$,

1629: we find a size evolution

1630: of $\re \propto (1+z)^{-1.09 \pm 0.07}$, 

1631: significantly faster than the evolution for the full

1632: galaxy sample. 

1633: This is measured for masses larger than $4\ 10^{10}$ $\Msun$, where

1634: good limits on the specific star formation rates are achieved.

1635: The error is the formal error from comparisons between the mass bins.

1636: In reality, the error is larger as many of the galaxies have very

1637: uncertain

1638: sizes below 1 kpc.

1639: However, we note that van Dokkum et al. (2008) used high resolution NIC2

1640: imaging

1641: and found a similar evolution

1642: for massive quiescent galaxies:  a factor of 5 between $z=0$ and

1643: $z=2.3$.

1644: Hence the evolution of the quiescent galaxies is faster than

1645: the full galaxy sample, by a factor of two or more.

1646: Given our selection effects at low masses, and our limited resolution,

1647: deeper studies with better resolution are needed to measure the

1648: evolution more accurately.

1649: 

1650: 

1651: 

1652: The fact that quiescent galaxies exist out to the highest redshift is 

1653: very significant,

1654: as it shows that the mechanism which shuts off star formation

1655: in galaxies was already present at high redshift ($z=3$ and above).

1656: In many ways, it does not come as a surprise that the quiescent

1657: galaxies are small: once 

1658: star formation shuts off, they apparently do  not continue to accrete 

1659: cold gas in their outer parts which would make them grow in size.

1660: Hence their size remains fixed, whereas the star forming galaxies

1661: grow in size.

1662: However, it is surprising that the $z=2$ quiescent galaxies are much

1663: smaller than any quiescent galaxies in the nearby universe

1664: with reasonable number densities.

1665: Hence, in one way they must have "disappeared", or surveys of the

1666: nearby universe are incomplete.

1667: 

1668: Incompleteness in the SDSS survey certainly does play a role: due to the

1669: star-galaxy separation criteria used, several known compact galaxies from the

1670: 7 Samurai survey (Faber et al, 1989) are missing in the SDSS survey.

1671: These are galaxies like NGC 4342 and NGC 5845, which have velocity

1672: dispersions above 200 km sec$^{-1}$, and sizes below 0.5 kpc. Such

1673: galaxies are extremely rare in the SDSS (less than 1 in 10$^4$).

1674: The volume in which the compact, massive galaxies can be found is

1675: rather small in the SDSS, 

1676: as they are excluded when at small distance because they

1677: are too bright in the fiber aperture, and they are excluded at large distance

1678: because they are too small (Strauss et al. 2002). 

1679: Despite these potential problems, it is clear that evolution also takes

1680: place between $z=2$ and $z=1$, where such incompleteness should play no role.

1681: The simplest explanation is that the small galaxies grow by merging with

1682: larger galaxies, whether star forming or not. As all other galaxies 

1683: are larger, any merger is expected

1684: to increase the size. Furthermore, additional accretion of gas and

1685: star formation in the outer

1686: parts would also scale up these galaxies.

1687: 

1688: 

1689: \subsection{ A simple accretion model to explain why blue galaxies are large}

1690: 

1691: The fact that blue galaxies are larger than red galaxies of the same

1692: mass may find a very simple explanation. In the nearby universe, we know

1693: that star forming galaxies with masses between $10^{10}$$\Msun$ and

1694: $10^{11}$ $\Msun$ are

1695: generally multi-component: a red bulge, with a blue disk around it.

1696: As a matter of fact, the Hubble sequence is correlated with

1697: bulge-to-disk ratio, and is correlated with color, and 

1698: the sequence satisfies the same general

1699: trend as the trend observed here. Hence a simple explanation for the

1700: trend between  specific star formation rate and surface density is

1701: that the galaxies with significant star formation have accreted gas,

1702: which forms stars preferentially in the outer parts, 

1703: and this why they are both larger, and bluer.

1704: This gas accretion is assumed to be fairly regular and 

1705: possibly caused by minor mergers which do not stir up the galaxy.

1706: For some reason, gas accretion and star formation are shut off for

1707: high density galaxies, either due to AGN (e.g., Croton et al. 2006,

1708: Bower et al. 2006), or heating of the gas due to 

1709: shocks occurring naturally in massive, forming galaxies

1710: (Dekel \& Birnboim 2006, Birnboim et al. 2007,

1711: Naab et al. 2007).

1712: 

1713: 

1714: The persistence of the relation at higher redshift, but then shifted to

1715: higher surface density, suggests that similar processes occur out to $z=2.5$

1716: and beyond. The fact that the threshold surface density is  higher

1717: may be a simple result from the fact that the halos of galaxies are

1718: smaller at high redshift, and hence the galaxies are denser. 

1719: Galaxy size is correlated with the star formation history, as the

1720: galaxies which have accreted material recently are expected to be larger,

1721: and have higher specific star formation rates than those who have not accreted.

1722: In short, a very simple picture is one in which pre-existing star

1723: forming galaxies accrete  material preferentially in the outer parts,

1724: where stars are formed.

1725: For some reason, high surface density galaxies do not accrete such material.

1726: In this picture, star forming galaxies with $M > 10^{10}$ $\Msun$ at 

1727: $z=2$ are very analogous to 

1728: $z=0$: old centers, younger outer parts. This specific prediction of

1729: gradients can be tested with higher resolution imaging data, as would

1730: be provided, for example with WF3 on HST.

1731: The imaging study by Labb\'e et al (2003b) showed evidence for

1732: substructure and gradients for a sample of large galaxies to $z=2$.

1733: As the angular momentum of the accreted material is thought to set

1734: the scale of the galaxies, it is also natural to expect that the blue 

1735: galaxies may have disks of star forming gas, analogous to the low 

1736: redshift galaxies. There is at least some evidence for this from

1737: kinematic studies of high redshift galaxies

1738: (e.g., F\" oster Schreiber et al. 2006, Genzel et al. 2006, 

1739: Wright et al. 2007, Law et al. 2007)

1740: As we  see below, and as noted in these  kinematical studies,

1741: the nature of the star forming galaxies at $z > 1.5$ 

1742: may be significantly different from what

1743: we call "disk galaxies" in the nearby universe.

1744: 

1745: 

1746: \subsection{The enigmatic nature of strongly star forming galaxies at $z \ge 1.5$.}

1747: 

1748: As we have seen, at $z\ge1$ the strongly star forming galaxies have

1749: very high specific star formation rates, well above $1/t_{hubble}$.

1750: For example, at $z=1$ the typical specific star formation rate is

1751: 6 $10^{-10}$\yrinv, well above $1/t_{hubble} = 1.7 10^{-10}$ \yrinv.

1752: At $z=2$ the typical specific star formation rate is 2 $10^{-9}$ \yrinv,

1753: compared to $1/t_{hubble} = 3 10^{-10}$ \yrinv, off by almost a factor of 10.

1754: This phenomenon has been noted by many authors (e.g., Daddi et al. 2007, 

1755: Dav\' e, 2007).

1756: Taken at face value, it suggests that these

1757: galaxies may have formed the bulk of their stars in a very short time.

1758: We note that some authors have argued that the star formation rates are

1759: systematically

1760: over-estimated by a factor of 2-3, either because too many stars are

1761: produced (Wilkins et al. 2008), or because the specific star formation

1762: rates are much higher than theoretical models (Dav\' e 2007).

1763: 

1764: 

1765: \figsubeleven

1766: 

1767: If we accept the high star formation rates, we have to conclude that the

1768: time scale of star formation is getting very close to the orbital times

1769: of these galaxies. 

1770: We estimate the orbital time simply from the inferred velocity

1771: dispersion and the size. 

1772: We emphasize that they are uncertain at high redshift, 

1773: as the velocity dispersions or

1774: circular velocities are not directly measured.

1775: We show the ratio of the star formation time over

1776: the orbital  time in Fig. 12. As can be seen, at redshifts below 1, the

1777: star formation time is $>30$ times the orbital time, but at $z>1.5$ the

1778: ratio gets close to 3. This is  so short, that it is

1779: unlikely that the gas is settled in a cold disk.

1780: Simulations would obviously be needed to understand better the exact

1781: dynamical state.

1782: 

1783: \figpreeleven

1784: 

1785: Furthermore, we can roughly estimate the gas fractions of these galaxies,

1786: by assuming that the gas has the same lengthscale as the (blue) light,

1787: and by assuming the Kennicutt (1998) relation between gas surface density, and

1788: star formation rate per area. 

1789: Even though the estimated gas masses

1790: must be considered to be very uncertain (as the sizes are uncertain, and

1791: the Kennicutt relation has not been established at $z=2$), the results

1792: can be used for at least consistency checks with models which assume

1793: the Kennicutt relation as a general recipe for  star formation.

1794: We note that Bouch\' e et al. (2007) confirmed the Kennicutt relation

1795: for sub-millimeter galaxies at $z=2-3$.

1796: The resulting gas mass to stellar mass ratios for the star forming 

1797: galaxies are shown

1798: in Fig. 12. As can be seen, the gas to star ratios for the star forming

1799: galaxies increase from 0.2 at $z=0$  to 1 at $z=1.5$.

1800: Even if the star formation rates have been overestimated by a factor of 2 

1801: at $z=1.5$, this result will not change much.

1802: As a result, we have to conclude that the general relations between star

1803: formation and gas density at $z=0$ imply that the typical  

1804: star forming galaxies at

1805: $z=1.5$ and above have very significant gas fractions. A similar result

1806: had been found before by Erb et al. (2006), based on H$\alpha$ spectroscopy.

1807: 

1808: 

1809: Another issue related to these strongly star forming galaxies is how

1810: long the star formation episodes last. If the star formation rate would

1811: be constant, the specific star formation rate would decline very rapidly

1812: (on a timescale of 1/specific star formation rate). As the 

1813: epoch in which the specific

1814: star formation rate is high would last only briefly, the universe would

1815: be expected to be dominated by galaxies with specific star formation rates

1816: comparable to the inverse of the Hubble time.

1817: This is obviously not what is observed. Either the specific star formation

1818: rates are over-estimated, or the galaxies undergo brief bursts punctuated

1819: by periods of low star formation, or the galaxies form with constant

1820: specific star formation rate.

1821: The first explanation requires an over-estimate by a factor of 3 -

1822: which is entirely possible, given the uncertainties with the conversion

1823: to bolometric luminosities, and uncertainties in the IMF.

1824: The second mechanism would imply that we would have to see a substantial

1825: number of "dead" galaxies, with the same masses and sizes of the 

1826: "live" galaxies. However, one of the basic results of this paper is

1827: that we see a good correlation between the structure and specific star 

1828: formation rate of the galaxies, and this would be washed out if

1829: galaxies were to undergo frequent bursts. The only way to explain this

1830: would be to assume that the sizes and possibly masses of the galaxies

1831: have been estimated wrongly for the star forming galaxies. 

1832: If high redshift galaxies are multi-component, with

1833: high gas fractions, and large dust masses, it might be possible that their

1834: derived quantities from just optical light might be seriously wrong.

1835: Even in the nearby universe this plays a role: color gradients in spirals

1836: are significant, and this does imply that the optical half-light radius

1837: can deviate significantly from the half-mass radius. 

1838: The derived gas surface densities for the $z\approx 2$ 

1839: galaxies imply typical absorption

1840: in the V-band of $A_V \approx 10$, suggesting that a significant amount of

1841: starlight is completely obscured.

1842: This result appears entirely reasonable, but is somewhat inconsistent

1843: with

1844: the result that SED fits to the restframe UV-optical-near-IR give

1845: good estimates of the total star formation rate, suggesting that

1846: the galaxies are semi-transparent (e.g., Daddi et al. 2007).

1847: Obviously, this should investigated further.

1848: 

1849: Alternatively, the high specific star formation rates are correct,

1850: and many galaxies form very rapidly with

1851: nearly constant, very high specific star formation rate.

1852: This implies rapid expontial growth on a short timescale (e.g.,

1853: Daddi et al. 2007): in this

1854: case, they would increase by a factor of 10 in mass in a time of

1855: 2.3 * 1/SSFR, corresponding to 1 Gyr at $z=2$. For the $z=2$ galaxies,

1856: they would be less massive  by a factor of 10 at $z=2.8$.

1857: This does not appear completely unreasonable, but we have to note

1858: that current models of galaxy formation do not predict this type of

1859: behaviour (e.g., Dav\' e  2007). 

1860: 

1861: 

1862: \subsection{Comparing the evolution of the mass-size relation with models}

1863: 

1864: As we have seen, the mass-size relation of galaxies evolves smoothly

1865: from $z=0$ to $z=3.5$, like $\re \propto (1+z)^{-0.5}$ at a given mass.

1866: There is  evidence that the relation evolves faster for high

1867: masses,

1868: and quiescent galaxies also tend to evolve faster.

1869: The general evolution is fairly close to what is predicted for 

1870: simple disk galaxy evolution, where $r \propto 1/H(z)^{2/3}$ (Mo et al. 1998).

1871: In the redshift interval from 0 to 3.5, we find approximately

1872: $1/H(z)^{2/3}  \propto 1/(1+z)^{0.79}$, fairly close

1873: to the observed size evolution.

1874: We note that in a detailed analysis, Somerville et al. (2008) found

1875: that

1876: the expect rate of evolution is somewhat slower than $1/H(z)^{2/3}$, 

1877: more consistent with the result obtained here.

1878: The fact that the general trend holds can be taken as evidence that

1879: the simple scaling of dark matter halos also determines the scaling of

1880: the  galaxies.

1881: 

1882: Hence the question remains open whether the very compact quiescent galaxies

1883: at high redshift have formed in  intrinsically very different ways

1884: compared to their cousins at low redshift.

1885: Kochfar \& Silk (2006) invoked strong dissipation at high redshift to

1886: explain the very small sizes of galaxies at high redshift.

1887: The results obtained here suggests that star forming galaxies

1888: at redshifts as low as $z=1.5$ also had very high gas fractions, 

1889: potentially undercutting this explanation for the evolution.

1890: 

1891: 

1892: If we assume that our trends persist to $z=4$, we would be let to conclude

1893: that the compact galaxies at $z=2$ formed their stars around $z=4$:

1894: Their average  specific star formation rate is approximately

1895: $10^{-10}$\yrinv at $z=2$. If we assume that the specific star formation

1896: rates

1897: evolve like $(1+z)^{3.5}$ (as for the specific star formation rate 

1898: at the threshold surface density),  we find that the

1899: specific star formation rate

1900: would be $1/t_{hubble}$ 

1901: when the universe was about 1.6 times smaller, i.e., at $z=3.8$. 

1902: Obviously, this is an  uncertain extrapolation of the relations found at

1903: $z<3$.

1904: 

1905: The stellar ages of the quiescent galaxies at $z=2.5$ have been

1906: estimated around 1Gyr  (Kriek  et al. 2008), this would imply a

1907: similar formation

1908: redshift of 4.

1909: 

1910: 

1911: \subsection {Relation to sub-mm galaxies}

1912: 

1913: One of the striking results in this work is that the star forming galaxies

1914: at $z>1.5$ are large compared to the quiescent galaxies,

1915: in agreement with earlier studies (e.g., Zirm et al. 2007 and

1916: Toft et al. 2007). Furthermore,

1917: the star forming galaxies have very high star formation rates and 

1918: short specific star formation times, and

1919: would be called starbursts if 

1920: they occured in the nearby universe. 

1921: One of the interesting questions is whether  they

1922: are related to the ULIRGS at low redshift, and the  sub-mm galaxies at 

1923: high redshift.

1924:  We note that ULIRGS in the nearby universe have very concentrated

1925: star formation in very small volumes, with typical sizes significantly

1926: smaller than 1 kpc (Tacconi et al. 2006, and references therein). 

1927: Hence the high redshift star forming

1928: galaxies

1929: have comparable IR luminosities (typically $10^{12}\ L_\odot$), but

1930: are

1931: inferred to have a very 

1932: different structure than the local sub-mm galaxies.

1933: Unfortunately, catalogues of sub-mm sources in the CDF-South are not

1934: yet available.

1935: Size measurements of sub-mm galaxies at high redshift are rare.

1936: Tacconi et al. (2006, 2008) 

1937: found  typical sizes of the gas smaller than 2 kpc at 

1938: $z=2$, which is small for the star forming galaxies found here at the 

1939: same redshift.

1940: A detailed comparison of the sizes measured for the stars, gas, and

1941: star formation region would be valuable.

1942: As the space density of the sub-mm galaxies at high redshift is low,

1943: it may be that they simply lie in the tail of the size distribution 

1944: for star forming galaxies.

1945: Larger samples are needed to test this.

1946: 

1947: \subsection{Caveats and further work}

1948: 

1949: The results obtained here illustrate the power of structural studies of

1950: galaxies. It is appropriate to discuss the potential errors that may have

1951: occured in the derivation of the masses, sizes, and star formation rates.

1952: 

1953: 1) masses: it is well known that the  stellar masses derived from

1954: sed fitting are rather uncertain, even though they are the most stable

1955: outcome of such fits. Problems include the uncertainties in stellar population

1956: models themselves (without considering differences in star formation

1957: history,

1958: for example Maraston 2005 versus Bruzual \& Charlot 2003),

1959: uncertain star formation histories, uncertain geometries of the dust,

1960: and potential correlations between absorption and stellar age, and the

1961: possibility that some components are entirely hidden throughout the 

1962: rest-frame near-ir due to very high extinction. In addition, the IMF

1963: of the stars may vary 

1964: (e.g., 

1965: van Dokkum 2008,

1966: Dav\' e 2008, 

1967: Wilkins\& Hopkins et al. 2008).

1968: Only more detailed observations can provide answers. High resolution 

1969: observations with HST can determine whether galaxies have strong color

1970: gradients,  complicating

1971: the SED fitting. Direct spectroscopy is urgently needed to establish the

1972: stellar velocity dispersions of the compact, quiescent galaxies, and

1973: the star forming galaxies (which will be even harder).

1974: High spatial resolution observations of molecular lines can provide detailed

1975: information on the mass distribution in the inner parts, and can maybe

1976: provide insight into hidden populations, whether old or young.

1977: Rest-frame optical spectroscopy can potentially probe the mass distributions in

1978: the outer parts.

1979: 

1980: 2) Sizes: the sizes used here are sizes measured in the rest-frame optical.

1981: For the small galaxies, the sizes are just barely resolved.

1982: Obviously, higher resolution imaging is required for the rest-frame optical

1983: sizes at $z>1.5$, and, in addition, the determination of color gradients

1984: is important to see whether the measured sizes could be affected significantly

1985: by color gradients. The color gradients in the nearby universe vary from

1986: 0.07 in B-R per dex radius for ellipticals to 0.2 in g-r per dex radius for 

1987: late-type spirals, (e.g., Franx \& Illingworth 1990, 

1988: Peletier et al. 1990, % 1990AJ....100.1091

1989: de Jong 1996). %1996A&A...313..377D

1990: If we use simple relations between mass-to-light ratio and color, we find

1991: that the half mass radii are smaller by

1992: about a factor of 0.87 and 0.56, respectively. This is insufficient to wash out

1993: the effects which we have seen, but larger effects could be present at

1994: high redshift.  Simulations can also play a role here: Hopkins et al. (2008)

1995: %Xarchiv0802.0508

1996: have shown that the optical sizes of the merger remnants can be smaller

1997: by a factor of 2 than the true half-mass size. This is caused by

1998: the concentrated young population of stars formed at the end of the merger.

1999: Joung et al. (2008) find that the

2000: apparent

2001: sizes of simulated star forming galaxies at $z=3$ are a factor of 3

2002: higher

2003: due to extinction by dust.

2004: Obviously, the  interpretation of the apparent

2005: sizes may not be straightforward, and other diagnostics may be needed

2006: (e.g. the spatial distribution of the star forming regions).

2007: The models by Guo \& White (2008) predict the correct qualitative rise

2008: in

2009: specific star formation rate, but  unfortunately do not predict sizes.

2010: 

2011: 

2012: 3) Star formation rates:

2013: It is well known that the derivation of reliable star formation rates is

2014: still very hard. The extrapolation of the measured 24 $\mu$m flux to

2015: a total bolometric 	IR flux  is uncertain (although the results of

2016: Papovich et al. 2007 imply that a simple linear relation may suffice). 

2017: Studies with Herschel may improve upon this situation.

2018: Furthermore, even if the

2019: bolometric flux is well determined, the star formation rate is not, as

2020: the IMF may vary with redshift. For example, the IMF may vary at very

2021: high masses (around the masses of O stars, 50 $\Msun$,), at the full mass

2022: range between 1 and 50 $\Msun$, and at the low mass range (as suggested

2023: by Dav\' e 2008 and van Dokkum 2008).

2024: There is direct evidence that the star formation rates estimated traditionally

2025: are too high: the mass in stars seems to be over-produced (Wilkins et al

2026: 2008, Dav\' e 2008). 

2027: van Dokkum (2008) 

2028: emphasized that

2029: a change in the IMF results in both changes in the derived star formation

2030: rate, and the derived masses, and the changes depend on the exact form

2031: of the IMF evolution. Omitting or adding low mass stars ( $m < 1 \Msun$) 

2032: essentially does not do very much, as all masses and star formation rates

2033: are changed by the same factor, 

2034: and the specific star formation rates remain the same

2035: (and too high). Changes in the characteristic mass of Chabrier  type

2036: IMFs will change the star formation rates more than the masses, which

2037: is the type of change that is desired; and changing the slope above $m= 1 \Msun$

2038: will have the largest effect on the derived star formation rates, and smaller

2039: effects on the masses. Obviously, the exact investigation of these effects

2040: is beyond the scope of this paper. 

2041: The calibration of the stellar masses of quiescent

2042: galaxies at high redshift can play an important role in these investigations,

2043: in addition to the high resolution dynamical studies of gas and stars to

2044: decompose galaxies.

2045: The comparison of many different star formation indicators will also provide

2046: further insight in this issue.

2047: 

2048: 4) cosmic variance: the current field is fairly small, and does not

2049: have

2050: large numbers of high mass galaxies. It will obviously be important

2051: to study the same relations on larger fields, thereby making a

2052: fairer sample of the universe. Furthermore, such studies will allow

2053: the

2054: determination of the distribution of surface densities, and inferred velocity

2055: dispersions as a function of redshift.

2056: 

2057: 

2058: \section{Implications for high redshift galaxy studies: biases and consequences}

2059: 

2060: \figpretwelve

2061: \figsubtwelve

2062: 

2063: The correlations which we found above have important consequences for

2064: observational studies. First of all, many studies have flux limits

2065: or color selection criteria which may make them to pick up specific

2066: subsamples in the space of  mass, size, and specific star formation

2067: rate.

2068: For example, studies have now begun of the H$\alpha$ emission line

2069: kinematics and spatial distribution (e.g., Erb et al. 2003, 2006,

2070: Genzel et al. 2006, F\"orster Schreiber

2071: et al. 2006, Kriek et al. 2006, Law et al. 2007, Wright et al. 2007).

2072: Many of these studies impose a flux limit on the H$\alpha$ emission

2073: line flux before the detailed observations are performed.

2074: The H$\alpha$ fluxes have not been measured for this sample, but we

2075: can estimate them using the star formation rate, and the estimated

2076: extinction $A_V$. We used the conversion by Kennicutt (1998) to

2077: transfer the star formation rate to unobscured H$\alpha$ flux.

2078: We impose a flux limit of $10^{42}$ ergs sec$^{-1}$,

2079: and we show the selected galaxies in the left hand panel of Fig. 13.

2080: As is clear, the galaxies with strong H$\alpha$ 

2081: are preferentially large, and have high

2082: specific star formation rates for galaxies at that mass, as might be

2083: expected. Their star formation timescales are generally a few times

2084: the dynamical time, and hence their dynamical state is not typical for

2085: the median galaxy at that redshift.

2086: 

2087: Another, often used selection technique is the Lyman Break selection

2088: technique, or BM-BX selection employed by Steidel et al. (1999, 2004),

2089: and many other authors. We show in the right hand panel those galaxies

2090: which satisfy the criterion $B-R < 1.2$, and $R < 25.5$, which are

2091: the criteria often used for these studies. Again, it is clear that the

2092: selection picks up preferentially large  galaxies from the samples.

2093: Near-IR spectroscopic follow-up of these samples introduces

2094: an additional bias (through the flux limit on H$\alpha$).

2095: 

2096: 

2097: 

2098: Apart from the selection effects discussed above, the results imply

2099: that the interpretation of the SEDs of the galaxies may be

2100: over-simplified

2101: in the current models. As the relation between mass and radius

2102: evolves with time, and as galaxy masses increase with time, it is

2103: likely that galaxies have old subcomponents which are smaller than

2104: the new additions. If so, the subcomponents will have different 

2105: extinction as well, and the modeling of the galaxies as simple

2106: populations

2107: with constant extinction may give biased results.

2108: Without more detailed information, it is hard to quantify these

2109: effects,

2110: and first of all, direct dynamical mass estimates are needed.

2111: However, simulations can also be used to estimate the sizes of such

2112: effects. We notice that Wuyts (2007a) found that the stellar mass can be

2113: underestimated by a factor of 2 in the phase

2114: of strong star formation in  a gas rich merger. 

2115: These effects are in addition to the known

2116: uncertainties in stellar populations models.

2117: 

2118: \section{Summary and conclusions}

2119: 

2120: We have shown that massive galaxies from $z=0$ out to $z=3.5$

2121: have a strong correlation between size and color and size and specific

2122: star formation rate, at a

2123: given mass. Galaxies with high specific star formation rates are

2124: large, galaxies with low specific star formation rates are small. 

2125: At increasing redshifts, the overall specific star formation rates go up.

2126: 

2127: 

2128: In general, the specific star formation rates correlate better 

2129: with surface density, 

2130: and inferred velocity dispersion, than with  mass. This suggest that surface density, or

2131: inferred velocity dispersion, is the driving parameter. 

2132: We find that, as expected, specific star formation rates  at a

2133: given surface density increase with redshift.

2134: We identified a threshold surface density at each redshift interval: 

2135: below the threshold the specific star formation rates are high with

2136: little

2137: variation, above the threshold density galaxies

2138: have low specific star formation rates.

2139: As expected, the threshold increases with redshift: high specific

2140: star formation occurs at higher and higher surface density with increasing

2141: redshift.

2142: As a result, we find that many  galaxies which are on the red sequence

2143: at $z=0$ are star forming at $z=1$.

2144: 

2145: Furthermore, the sizes of galaxies at a given mass decrease with redshift

2146: steadily from $z=0$ to $z=3$.  This overall evolution shows that

2147: galaxies grow inside out. As this growth also occurs for 

2148: 'red and dead galaxies', it suggests that these galaxies keep evolving - and

2149: are never just 'passively' evolving. 

2150: In short, all galaxies show 'up-sizing', and the most massive galaxies

2151: show the strongest evidence for it.

2152: There is no evidence in this sample that very massive galaxies do not

2153: evolve

2154: between $z=1$ and $z=0$ (Scarlata et al. 2007), but obviously larger

2155: area studies can address this issue better.

2156: The very small, red galaxies at $z=2-3$ 

2157: have to evolve into larger galaxies by $z=0$ through merging,

2158: accretion,

2159: and star formation.

2160: Their small sizes may simply be due to the fact that they are on the tail

2161: of the distribution at $z=2-3$, where all sizes are smaller.

2162: Two processes are likely  responsible for their small sizes:

2163: the halos were smaller and denser, and additionally their gas fractions

2164: were higher, and dissipation during

2165: merging was stronger, as suggested by Khochfar \& Silk (2006). 

2166: The observed evolution  is also consistent with merger simulations (e.g.,

2167: Hopkins et al. 2008).

2168: 

2169: The similarity in structural relations for galaxies from $z=0$

2170: to $z=2.5$, and the

2171: fact that galaxies grow inside out suggests that one form or another of

2172: the Hubble sequence persists to $z=2.5$, and possibly beyond. The older

2173: stars likely dominate in the centers, and younger stars are 

2174: likely distributed over

2175: a larger radius - similar to bulges and disks in spiral galaxies.

2176: Although we don't have the resolution to establish this directly for

2177: the galaxies, the evolution of the mass-size relation with redshift

2178: also strongly supports such inside-out growth of galaxies.

2179: The exact dynamical state of high redshift galaxies still needs to

2180: be determined. 

2181: 

2182: The multicomponent nature of galaxies suggest that modeling these galaxies

2183: is much harder, as the different populations have different spatial 

2184: distributions, and therefore different extinction, star formation

2185: history, etc.

2186: Analysis of simulations suggests that this can lead to under-estimates of

2187: the masses through SED fits, and over-estimates of the sizes (e.g.,

2188: Wuyts et al. 2007a).

2189: 

2190: The galaxies with very high star formation rates at $z \ge 1.5$ likely

2191: have very high ratios  of gas mass to stellar mass (approximately 1 or

2192: above).

2193: Furthermore, they are large ($\approx 3 kpc$), and therefore different

2194: from  ULIRGs in the nearby universe, which have typical sizes of

2195: the star formation regions of $<< 1kpc$.

2196: However, these high redshift galaxies may not be simple cold disks:

2197: their star formation time scale is only a few dynamical times, and

2198: therefore the gas had barely time to settle in discs, if accretion is

2199: causing the very high star formation.

2200: Alternatively, the star formation may have been overestimated, and

2201: this would allow the gas more time to settle.

2202: 

2203: Obviously, these results call for many follow-up observations. First and 

2204: foremost, the mass estimates must be improved, hopefully through dynamical

2205: mass estimators, either through near-ir spectroscopy, or spectroscopy

2206: with ALMA.

2207: Second, higher resolution Near-IR imaging can determine 

2208: the structure of nature of the high redshift galaxies better.

2209: High resolution imaging with ALMA will be able to establish the distribution

2210: of the star formation across the galaxies, and spectroscopy will

2211: allow the determination of the gas content and gas distribution.

2212: 

2213: Third, it will be important to extend this work to even higher redshifts,

2214: where samples selected in the rest-frame optical are very rare, and 

2215: structural analyses absent.  Fourth, the environment of the high

2216: redshift  galaxies

2217: needs to be determined. This will allow a study of the

2218: the relation between structure, 

2219: star formation history and environment  at high

2220: redshift. At low redshifts, environment plays an important role in

2221: setting the star formation rate (e.g., Kauffmann et al. 2004), and

2222: a full understanding requires an extension to high redshift.

2223: Finally, a determination of evolution of the surface density function 

2224: can help to

2225: confirm the simple picture in which the centers of massive galaxies

2226: formed first.

2227: 

2228: The results show that stellar surface density, or inferred velocity 

2229: dispersion, is

2230: one of the main driving parameters of galaxy evolution.

2231: Studies of the correlation of other galaxy properties with these parameters

2232: would be extremely valuable: metallicities, observed circular velocities,

2233: but also correlation length, and environment. Such studies require 

2234: surveys of much larger areas, and extensive spectroscopy.

2235: The velocity dispersions used here are estimated from $M/\re$, and it

2236: remains to be verified whether the two are well correlated at all

2237: redshifts, for all galaxies. If not, it is crucial to determine which

2238: is the driving parameter.

2239: 

2240: 

2241: 

2242: %% If you wish to include an acknowledgments section in your paper,

2243: %% separate it off from the body of the text using the \acknowledgments

2244: %% command.

2245: 

2246: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the

2247: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]

2248: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,

2249: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the

2250: %% text to be printed in the second.

2251: 

2252: \acknowledgments

2253: 

2254: The comments of the referee helped to improve the paper.

2255: We thank the Leids Kerkhoven Bosscha foundation for providing travel

2256: support. We thank the Lorentz Center for hosting workshops during

2257: which this paper was written.

2258: We thank  Joop Schaye, Phil Hopkins, Lars Hernquist, Rachel

2259: Somerville for discussions.

2260: Support from NASA grant HST-GO-10808.01-A is gratefully acknowledged.

2261: S. Wuyts acknowledges support from the

2262: W. M. Keck Foundation.

2263: 

2264: \begin{references}

2265: \gdef\bibitem#1#2{\reference{}}

2266: 

2267: 

2268:  %A

2269:  \reference{}  Abazajian, K.,  et al.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 502 

2270: 

2271:  \reference{} Arnouts, S., et al. 2001, A\&A, 379, 740

2272:  %B

2273: 

2274: 

2275:  \bibitem{{Bell et al.(2004)}}{2004ApJ...608..752B} Bell, E.~F., et al.\

2276:  2004, 

2277:  \apj, 608, 752

2278: 

2279: 

2280:  \bibitem{{Bell et al.(2005)}}{2005ApJ...625...23B} Bell, E.~F., et al.\

2281:  2005, 

2282:  \apj, 625, 23 

2283:  % towards understanding ...

2284: 

2285: 

2286:  \bibitem{{Bell et al.(2006)}}{2006ApJ...640..241B} Bell, E.~F., et al.\

2287:  2006, 

2288:  \apj, 640, 241

2289:  % merger rate

2290: 

2291:  \reference{} Bell, E., 2006, 652, 270

2292: 

2293:  \bibitem{{Birnboim et al.(2007)}}{2007MNRAS.380..339B} Birnboim, Y.,

2294:  Dekel, 

2295:  A., \& Neistein, E.\ 2007, \mnras, 380, 339

2296: 

2297:  \bibitem{{Borch et 

2298:  al.(2006)}}{2006A&A...453..869B} Borch, A., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 453,

2299:    869 

2300: 

2301:  \reference{} Bouch\'e, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 303

2302: 

2303:  \bibitem{{Bower et al.(2006)}}{2006MNRAS.370..645B} Bower, R.~G.,

2304:  Benson, 

2305:  A.~J., Malbon, R., Helly, J.~C., Frenk, C.~S., Baugh, C.~M., Cole, S., 

2306:  \& Lacey, C.~G.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, 645

2307:  % bnreaking hierch

2308: 

2309:  \reference{} Brammer, G., van Dokkum, P. G., Coppi, P., 2008, ApJ, submitted

2310: 

2311:  \bibitem{{Brinchmann 

2312:  \& Ellis(2000)}}{2000ApJ...536L..77B} Brinchmann, J., \& Ellis,

2313:  R.~S.\ 2000, \apjl, 536, L77

2314: 

2315: 

2316:  \bibitem{{Brinchmann et al.(2004)}}{2004MNRAS.351.1151B} Brinchmann, J., 

2317:  Charlot, S., White, S.~D.~M., Tremonti, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman,

2318:  T., 

2319:  \& Brinkmann, J.\ 2004, \mnras, 351, 1151 

2320: 

2321:  \reference{} Bruzual, G.,\& Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

2322: 

2323:  %C

2324:  %\reference{} Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L.,\& Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994,

2325:  %ApJ, 429, 582

2326: 

2327:  \reference{} Calzetti, D., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

2328: 

2329:  \reference{} {Cimatti}, A., {et al.} 2008, A\&{}A, in press

2330: 

2331:  \bibitem{{Cowie et al.(1996)}}{1996AJ....112..839C} Cowie, L.~L.,

2332:  Songaila, 

2333:  A., Hu, E.~M., \& Cohen, J.~G.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 839 

2334: 

2335: 

2336:  \bibitem{{Croton et al.(2006)}}{2006MNRAS.365...11C} Croton, D.~J., et

2337:  al.\ 

2338:  2006, \mnras, 365, 11 

2339: 

2340: 

2341:  %D

2342: 

2343:  \reference{} {Daddi}, E., {et al.} 2005, \apj, 626, 680

2344: 

2345: 

2346:  \bibitem{{Daddi et al.(2005)}}{2005ApJ...626..680D} Daddi, E., et al.\

2347:  2005, 

2348:  \apj, 626, 680

2349: 

2350:  \bibitem{{Daddi et al.(2007)}}{2007ApJ...670..156D} Daddi, E., et al.\

2351:  2007, 

2352:  \apj, 670, 156 

2353: 

2354: 

2355:  \reference{} Dale, D. A.,\& Helou, G. 2002, ApJ, 576, 159

2356: 

2357: 

2358:  \bibitem{{Dav{\'e}(2008)}}{2008MNRAS.385..147D} Dav{\'e}, R.\

2359:  2008, \mnras, 

2360:  385, 147 

2361: 

2362:  \reference{}  de Jong, R. S. 1996, \aa, 313, 377

2363: 

2364: 

2365: 

2366:  \bibitem{{Dekel 

2367:  \& Birnboim(2006)}}{2006MNRAS.368....2D} Dekel, A., \& Birnboim, Y.\

2368:  2006, \mnras, 368, 2 

2369: 

2370: 

2371:  \bibitem{{Dickinson et al.(2003)}}{2003ApJ...587...25D} Dickinson, M., 

2372:  Papovich, C., Ferguson, H.~C., \& Budav{\'a}ri, T.\ 2003, \apj, 587,

2373:  25

2374: 

2375: 

2376:  \bibitem{{Djorgovski 

2377:  \& Davis(1987)}}{1987ApJ...313...59D} Djorgovski, S., \& Davis,

2378:    M.\ 1987, \apj, 313, 59

2379: 

2380:  \bibitem{}{}Drory, N., Bender, R., \& Hopp, U. 2004,

2381:  \apj, 616, 103

2382: 

2383:  %E

2384: 

2385: 

2386:  \bibitem{{Erb et al.(2003)}}{2003ApJ...591..101E} Erb, D.~K., Shapley,

2387:  A.~E., 

2388:  Steidel, C.~C., Pettini, M., Adelberger, K.~L., Hunt, M.~P., Moorwood, 

2389:  A.~F.~M., \& Cuby, J.-G.\ 2003, \apj, 591, 101

2390: 

2391: 

2392:  \bibitem{{Erb et al.(2006)}}{2006ApJ...647..128E} Erb, D.~K., Steidel,

2393:  C.~C., 

2394:  Shapley, A.~E., Pettini, M., Reddy, N.~A., 

2395:  \& Adelberger, K.~L.\ 2006, \apj, 647, 128 

2396: 

2397: 

2398:  %F

2399:  \bibitem{{Faber et al.(1987)}}{1987nngp.proc..175F} 

2400:  Faber, S.~M.,  Dressler,  A., Davies, R.~L., Burstein, D., 

2401:  \& Lynden-Bell, D.\ 1987, Nearly Normal Galaxies.~From the Planck Time

2402:  to the Present, 175 

2403: 

2404:  \bibitem{{Faber et al.(2007)}}{2007ApJ...665..265F} 

2405:  Faber, S.~M., et  al.\ 2007, \apj, 665, 265 

2406: 

2407:  \bibitem{{Fontana et 

2408:  al.(2006)}}{2006A&A...459..745F} Fontana, A., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 459,

2409:    745 

2410: 

2411:  \reference{}

2412:  F{\"o}rster Schreiber, N.~M., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 616, 40

2413: 

2414:  \bibitem{{F{\"o}rster Schreiber et al.(2006)}}{2006ApJ...645.1062F} 

2415:  F{\"o}rster Schreiber, N.~M., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 645, 1062 

2416:  % synfino

2417: 

2418:  \bibitem{{F{\"o}rster Schreiber et al.(2006)}}{2006AJ....131.1891F} 

2419:  F{\"o}rster Schreiber, N.~M., et al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1891 

2420:  % 1054

2421: 

2422:  \reference{} Franx, M., Illingworth, G. D. 1990, \apjl, 359, L41

2423: 

2424:  \bibitem{{Franx(1993)}}{1993PASP..105.1058F} Franx, M.\ 1993, \pasp,

2425:    105, 

2426:  1058 

2427: 

2428: 

2429:  %\bibitem{{Franx(1993)}}{1993ApJ...407L...5F} Franx, M.\ 1993, \apjl,

2430:  %  407, L5 

2431: 

2432:  \bibitem{{Franx et al.(2003)}}{2003ApJ...587L..79F} Franx, M., et

2433:    al.\ 2003, 

2434:  \apjl, 587, L79 

2435: 

2436: 

2437: 

2438:  \bibitem{{Franx 

2439:  \& Illingworth(1990)}}{1990ApJ...359L..41F} Franx, M., \& Illingworth,

2440:    G.\ 1990, \apjl, 359, L41

2441: 

2442: 

2443:  %G

2444: 

2445:  \bibitem{{Giacconi et al.(2002)}}{2002ApJS..139..369G} Giacconi, R., et

2446:  al.\ 

2447:  2002, \apjs, 139, 369 

2448: 

2449: 

2450: 

2451:  \bibitem{{Genzel et al.(2006)}}{2006Natur.442..786G} Genzel, R., et al.\ 

2452:  2006, \nat, 442, 786 

2453: 

2454:  \reference{} Giavalisco, M.,\& the GOODS Team 2004, ApJ, 600, L93

2455: 

2456:  \bibitem{{Grazian et 

2457:  al.(2006)}}{2006A&A...449..951G} Grazian, A., et al.\ 2006, \aap, 449,

2458:    951

2459: 

2460:  \bibitem{{Guo 

2461:  \& White(2008)}}{2008MNRAS.384....2G} Guo, Q., \& White, S.~D.~M.\

2462:    2008, \mnras, 384, 2 

2463: 

2464: 

2465:  %H

2466: 

2467: 

2468:  %size(z)

2469:  \bibitem{{Hopkins et al.(2007)}}{2007ApJ...669...45H} Hopkins, P.~F., 

2470:  Hernquist, L., Cox, T.~J., Robertson, B., 

2471:  \& Krause, E.\ 2007, \apj, 669, 45

2472: 

2473:  % size(color)

2474:  \bibitem{{Hopkins et al.(2008)}}{2008arXiv0802.0508H} Hopkins, P.~F., 

2475:  Hernquist, L., Cox, T.~J., Dutta, S.~N., 

2476:  \& Rothberg, B.\ 2008, \apj,  679, 156

2477: 

2478:  %I

2479:  %J

2480:  \bibitem{{Joung et al.(2008)}}{2008arXiv0805.3150J} Joung, M.~K.~R.,

2481:  Cen, R., 

2482:  \& Bryan, G.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 805, arXiv:0805.3150

2483: 

2484:  \bibitem{{Juneau et al.(2005)}}{2005ApJ...619L.135J} Juneau, S., et al.\ 

2485:  2005, \apjl, 619, L135

2486:  %K

2487: 

2488: 

2489:  \bibitem{{Kauffmann et al.(2003)}}{2003MNRAS.341...33K} Kauffmann, G.,

2490:    et 

2491:  al.\ 2003, \mnras, 341, 33 

2492: 

2493:  \bibitem{{Kauffmann et al.(2003)}}{2003MNRAS.341...54K} Kauffmann, G.,

2494:    et al.\ 2003, \mnras, 341, 54 

2495: 

2496: 

2497:  %\bibitem{{Kauffmann et al.(2003)}}{2003MNRAS.346.1055K} Kauffmann, G.,

2498:  %  et al.\ 2003, \mnras, 346, 1055 

2499: 

2500:  \bibitem{{Kauffmann et al.(2004)}}{2004MNRAS.353..713K} Kauffmann, G.,

2501:    White, 

2502:  S.~D.~M., Heckman, T.~M., M{\'e}nard, B., Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., 

2503:  Tremonti, C., \& Brinkmann, J.\ 2004, \mnras, 353, 713 

2504:  % environment

2505: 

2506:  \bibitem{{Kauffmann et al.(2006)}}{2006MNRAS.367.1394K} Kauffmann, G., 

2507:  Heckman, T.~M., De Lucia, G., Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., Tremonti,

2508:  C., 

2509:  White, S.~D.~M., \& Brinkmann, J.\ 2006, \mnras, 367, 1394 

2510: 

2511:  \reference{} Kennicutt, R. C., 1998, ARAA, 36, 189

2512: 

2513:  \reference{} {Khochfar}, S. \& {Silk}, J. 2006, \apjl, 648, L21

2514: 

2515: 

2516:  \bibitem{{Kriek et al.(2006)}}{2006ApJ...649L..71K} Kriek, M., et

2517:    al.\ 2006, 

2518:  \apjl, 649, L71 

2519: 

2520:  \bibitem{{Kriek et al.(2008)}}{2008arXiv0804.4175K} Kriek, M., van der

2521:  Wel, 

2522:  A., van Dokkum, P.~G., Franx, M., 

2523:  \& Illingworth, G.~D.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804, arXiv:0804.4175 

2524:  % red sequence

2525: 

2526:  \reference{} {Kroupa}, P. 2001, \mnras, 322, 231

2527:  %L

2528: 

2529:  \reference{} Labb\'{e}, I., et al. 2003a, AJ, 125, 1107

2530: 

2531: 

2532:  \bibitem{{Labb{\'e} et al.(2003)}}{2003ApJ...591L..95L} Labb{\'e}, I.,

2533:  et 

2534:  al.\ 2003, \apjl, 591, L95 

2535: 

2536: 

2537:  \bibitem{{Labb{\'e} et al.(2006)}}{2006ApJ...649L..67L} Labb{\'e}, I., 

2538:  Bouwens, R., Illingworth, G.~D., \& Franx, M.\ 2006, \apjl, 649, L67

2539: 

2540:  %\reference{} Labb{\'e}, I., Bouwens, R., Illingworth, G.~D., \& Franx, 

2541:  %M.\ 2006, \apjl, 649, L67 

2542: 

2543: 

2544:  \bibitem{{Law et al.(2007)}}{2007ApJ...669..929L} Law, D.~R., Steidel,

2545:  C.~C., 

2546:  Erb, D.~K., Larkin, J.~E., Pettini, M., Shapley, A.~E., 

2547:  \& Wright, S.~A.\ 2007, \apj, 669, 929

2548: 

2549: 

2550:  \bibitem{{Lilly et al.(1996)}}{1996ApJ...460L...1L} Lilly, S.~J., Le

2551:  Fevre, 

2552:  O., Hammer, F., \& Crampton, D.\ 1996, \apjl, 460, L1

2553: 

2554:  %M

2555: 

2556:  \reference{} Maraston, C., 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799

2557: 

2558:  \bibitem{{Mo et al.(1998)}}{1998MNRAS.295..319M} Mo, H.~J., Mao, S., 

2559:  \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1998, \mnras, 295, 319 

2560: 

2561: 

2562: 

2563:  %N

2564: 

2565:  \reference{} {Naab}, T., {Johansson}, P.~H., {Ostriker}, J.~P., \&

2566:  {Efstathiou}, G. 2007,  \apj, 658, 710

2567: 

2568:  %O

2569:  %P

2570: 

2571:  %\reference{} Papovich, C., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., Conselice,

2572:  %C. J.,\& Ferguson, H. C. 2005, ApJ, 631, 101

2573: 

2574:  \reference{} Papovich, C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 92

2575: 

2576:  \reference{} Papovich, C., et al. 2007, 668, 45

2577: 

2578:  \bibitem{{Peletier et al.(1990)}}{1990AJ....100.1091P} Peletier, R.~F., 

2579:  Davies, R.~L., Illingworth, G.~D., Davis, L.~E., 

2580:  \& Cawson, M.\ 1990, \aj, 100, 1091

2581: 

2582:  \reference{} {Peng}, C.~Y., {Ho}, L.~C., {Impey}, C.~D., \& {Rix},

2583:  H.-W. 2002, \aj, 124, 266

2584: 

2585:  %Q

2586:  %R

2587:  \bibitem{{Rudnick et al.(2003)}}{2003ApJ...599..847R} Rudnick, G., et

2588:    al.\ 

2589:  2003, \apj, 599, 847

2590:  %S

2591: 

2592:  \reference{} Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

2593: 

2594:  \bibitem{{Scarlata et al.(2007)}}{2007ApJS..172..494S} Scarlata, C., et

2595:  al.\  2007, \apjs, 172, 494 

2596: 

2597: 

2598:  \bibitem{{Shen et al.(2003)}}{2003MNRAS.343..978S} Shen, S., Mo, H.~J., 

2599:  White, S.~D.~M., Blanton, M.~R., Kauffmann, G., Voges, W., Brinkmann,

2600:  J., 

2601:  \& Csabai, I.\ 2003, \mnras, 343, 978

2602: 

2603:  \bibitem{{Somerville et al.(2008)}}{2008ApJ...672..776S} Somerville,

2604:  R.~S., 

2605:  et al.\ 2008, \apj, 672, 776

2606: 

2607:  \bibitem{{Steidel et al.(1999)}}{1999ApJ...519....1S} Steidel, C.~C., 

2608:  Adelberger, K.~L., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M., 

2609:  \& Pettini, M.\ 1999, \apj, 519, 1 

2610: 

2611:  \bibitem{{Steidel et al.(2004)}}{2004ApJ...604..534S} Steidel, C.~C., 

2612:  Shapley, A.~E., Pettini, M., Adelberger, K.~L., Erb, D.~K., Reddy,

2613:  N.~A., 

2614:  \& Hunt, M.~P.\ 2004, \apj, 604, 534 

2615: 

2616: 

2617: 

2618:  \bibitem{{Strauss et al.(2002)}}{2002AJ....124.1810S} Strauss, M.~A., et

2619:    al.\ 

2620:  2002, \aj, 124, 1810 

2621: 

2622:  %T

2623: 

2624:  \bibitem{{Tacconi et al.(2006)}}{2006ApJ...640..228T} Tacconi, L.~J.,

2625:  et al.\ 

2626:  2006, \apj, 640, 228 

2627: 

2628:  \bibitem{{Tacconi et al.(2008)}}{2008arXiv0801.3650T} Tacconi, L.~J.,

2629:  et al.\ 

2630:  2008, ArXiv e-prints, 801, arXiv:0801.3650 

2631: 

2632: 

2633:  \reference{} {Toft}, S.,  {et al.} 2007, \apj, 671, 285

2634: 

2635:  \bibitem{{Treu et al.(2005)}}{2005ApJ...622L...5T} Treu, T., Ellis,

2636:    R.~S., 

2637:  Liao, T.~X., \& van Dokkum, P.~G.\ 2005, \apjl, 622, L5 

2638: 

2639: 

2640:  \bibitem{{Trujillo et al.(2004)}}{2004ApJ...604..521T} Trujillo, I., et

2641:    al.\ 

2642:  2004, \apj, 604, 521 

2643: 

2644: 

2645:  \bibitem{{Trujillo et al.(2006)}}{2006ApJ...650...18T} Trujillo, I., et

2646:    al.\ 

2647:  2006a, \apj, 650, 18 

2648: 

2649:  \bibitem{{Trujillo et al.(2006)}}{2006MNRAS.373L..36T} Trujillo, I., et

2650:  al.\ 

2651:  2006b, \mnras, 373, L36 

2652: 

2653: 

2654:  %U

2655:  %V

2656: 

2657: 

2658:  \bibitem{{van Dokkum 

2659:  \& Franx(1996)}}{1996MNRAS.281..985V} van Dokkum, P.~G., \& Franx,

2660:    M.\ 1996, \mnras, 281, 985 

2661: 

2662:  \bibitem{{van Dokkum et al.(1998)}}{1998ApJ...504L..17V} van Dokkum,

2663:  P.~G., 

2664:  Franx, M., Kelson, D.~D., \& Illingworth, G.~D.\ 1998, \apjl, 504, L17

2665: 

2666:  \bibitem{{van Dokkum 

2667:  \& Franx(2001)}}{2001ApJ...553...90V} van Dokkum, P.~G., \& Franx,

2668:    M.\ 2001, \apj, 553, 90 

2669: 

2670:  \bibitem{{van Dokkum(2005)}}{2005AJ....130.2647V} van Dokkum, P.~G.\

2671:  2005, 

2672:  \aj, 130, 2647

2673: 

2674:  \reference{} van Dokkum, P. G., 2005, \aj, 130, 264 

2675: 

2676: 

2677: 

2678:  \bibitem{{van Dokkum et al.(2006)}}{2006ApJ...638L..59V} van Dokkum,

2679:    P.~G., 

2680:  et al.\ 2006, \apjl, 638, L59 

2681: 

2682:  \bibitem{{van Dokkum 

2683:  \& van der Marel(2007)}}{2007ApJ...655...30V} van Dokkum, P.~G., \& van

2684:    der Marel, R.~P.\ 2007, \apj, 655, 30 

2685: 

2686: 

2687:  \bibitem{{van Dokkum et al.(2008)}}{2008ApJ...677L...5V} van Dokkum,

2688:    P.~G., 

2689:  et al.\ 2008, \apjl, 677, L5 

2690: 

2691: 

2692: 

2693:  \bibitem{{van der Wel et al.(2005)}}{2005ApJ...631..145V} van der Wel,

2694:    A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P.~G., Rix, H.-W., Illingworth, G.~D., 

2695:  \& Rosati, P.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 145 

2696: 

2697: 

2698: 

2699:  \reference{} Vandame, B., et al. 2001, astro-ph/0102300

2700: 

2701:  %W

2702: 

2703: 

2704: 

2705:  \bibitem{{Wilkins et al.(2008)}}{2008MNRAS.385..687W} Wilkins, S.~M., 

2706:  Trentham, N., \& Hopkins, A.~M.\ 2008, \mnras, 385, 687

2707: 

2708:  \reference{} Wolf, C., et al. 2004, A\&A, 421, 913

2709: 

2710:  \bibitem{{Wright et al.(2007)}}{2007ApJ...658...78W} Wright, S.~A., et

2711:  al.\ 

2712:  2007, \apj, 658, 78 

2713: 

2714:  \reference{} Wuyts, S. 2007a, PhD Thesis, Leiden University

2715: 

2716: 

2717:  \bibitem{{Wuyts et al.(2007b)}}{2007ApJ...655...51W} Wuyts, S., et al.\

2718:  2007b, 

2719:  \apj, 655, 51 

2720: 

2721: 

2722:  \bibitem{{Wuyts et al.(2008)}}{2008arXiv0804.0615W} Wuyts, S., Labb\'e,

2723:    I., 

2724:  Forster Schreiber, N.~M., Franx, M., Rudnick, G., Brammer, G.~B., 

2725:  \& van Dokkum, P.~G.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804, arXiv:0804.0615

2726: 

2727:  %XYZ

2728: 

2729:  \bibitem{{Zheng et al.(2007)}}{2007ApJ...661L..41Z} Zheng, X.~Z., Bell, 

2730:  E.~F., Papovich, C., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., Rix, H.-W., Rieke,

2731:  G.~H., 

2732:  \& Somerville, R.\ 2007, \apjl, 661, L41 

2733: 

2734:  \bibitem{{Zirm et al.(2007)}}{2007ApJ...656...66Z} Zirm, A.~W., et al.\

2735:  2007,  \apj, 656, 66 

2736: 

2737: 

2738:  %ENDEND

2739: 

2740: 

2741: 

2742: 

2743:  %\reference{} Kennicutt, R. C., 1998, ARAA, 36, 189

2744: 

2745: 

2746:  \end{references}

2747: 

2748: 

2749: 

2750:  %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their

2751:  %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope

2752:  %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches

2753:  %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be

2754:  %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes

2755:  %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.

2756:  %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX

2757:  %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.

2758: 

2759:  %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the

2760:  %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research

2761:  %% for the paper.  Each keyword will be checked against the master list during

2762:  %% copy editing.  Individual instruments or configurations can be provided

2763:  %% in parentheses, after the keyword, but they will not be verified.

2764: 

2765: % {\it Facilities:} \facility{HST (ACS)}, \facility{VLT (ISAAC)}.

2766: 

2767:  %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.

2768:  %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix

2769:  %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.

2770: 

2771:  %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.

2772:  %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix

2773:  %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.

2774: 

2775:  %\input figs.tex

2776: 

2777:  \appendix

2778: 

2779:  \section{Appendix A}

2780: \figsubAone

2781: 

2782: Here we analyze in more detail whether some of our evolutionary

2783: effects may be caused by selection effects.  Trujillo et al. (2006a)

2784: presented the impact of surface brightness selection effects on the

2785: distribution of effective radii for a comparable set of galaxies in

2786: the field of MS1054-03, and found no strong effects.

2787: As our own dataset is very comparable in depth and uses the same

2788: instrument, we don't expect strong selection effects here either.

2789: 

2790: We have to note, however, that selection effects in the mass-size and

2791: surface density specific star formation rate  planes may be more

2792: complex, as these quantities are derived indirectly from the

2793: observables. To determine whether our evolutionary effects may be

2794: driven by selection biases, we perform an analysis where we use

2795: low redshift samples as a  reference sample, and transpose  the

2796: galaxies

2797: to higher redshift, while keeping their intrinsic properties the same.

2798: This allows us to determine directly whether the evolution observed

2799: here is caused by simple selection effects.

2800: 

2801: \figpreAone

2802: 

2803: \subsection {Moving galaxies from $z \approx 1$ to $z \approx2$ }

2804: 

2805: We first take the galaxies in the redshift bin $0.5 < z < 1.5$ as our reference

2806: sample. We increase the redshift of each galaxies by 1 unit in redshift,

2807: while maintaining  constant intrinsic absolute magnitudes, and

2808: apparent size. For each galaxy, we then re-determine whether it has

2809: sufficient signal-to-noise ratio and $K$ band flux

2810: to be included in our sample.

2811: The resulting distributions in the mass-size plane, and the surface

2812: density-specific star formation plane are shown in the top row of Fig. A14.

2813: The open squares indicate galaxies which are still detected at $z

2814: \approx 2$, the small symbols are galaxies which are lost in the process.

2815: It is clear that in this  simulation the incompleteness is very strong

2816: below a mass of 3\ $10^{10}$  $\Msun$. Even above that mass significant

2817: numbers of galaxies are missing. However, it is also obvious from the

2818: plot that there is no bias towards losing large galaxies.  We

2819: quantified this by determining the median radii of all

2820: galaxies,

2821: and the galaxies still selected when shifted at $z\approx 2$. This two

2822: radii are the same within 2 \%.

2823: 

2824: The upper right figure shows the distribution in the plane of specific

2825: star formation against surface density. Again, it is clear that the

2826: galaxies which persist when shifted are not strongly biased.

2827: 

2828: \subsection {Moving galaxies from $z\approx2$ to $z\approx3$ }

2829: 

2830: In a similar analysis, we shifted the galaxies at $z\approx 2$ to

2831: $z\approx 3$. The result is shown in the bottom row of Fig. A14.

2832: Again, a large fraction of galaxies is lost. This should not come as a 

2833: surprise, as the simulation assumes no evolution, and therefore

2834: may very well overpredict the fraction of lost galaxies.

2835: We note a small bias towards keeping large galaxies in the sample -

2836: exactly

2837: the opposite from what might be expected from surface brightness

2838: selection

2839: effects. This is caused by the fact that red galaxies are lost the

2840: fastest,

2841: as they are faintest in $K$ (and all other bands), for the same mass.

2842: Hence the median radius of the galaxies still detected after shifting

2843: them

2844: is slightly higher (by 15\%), than the median radius of all galaxies

2845: more

2846: massive than 6\ $10^{10}$ $\Msun$.

2847: Overall, this is a small effect, and we ignore it in the analysis.

2848: We also see that the distribution in the plane of specific star

2849: formation

2850: against surface density is not affected by these selection  effects.

2851: 

2852: In short, we conclude that the selection effects are not likely to

2853: cause

2854: the strong evolution in specific star formation rate and size.

2855: This is likely caused by the fact that the point spread function is

2856: rather large, compared to the size of the galaxies, and hence 

2857: strong surface brightness selection effects are not likely to play a

2858: role.

2859: It is also clear that the main selection effect is caused by the $K$

2860: band limiting depth. This causes quiescent galaxies of a given mass to

2861: be missed earlier than strongly star forming galaxies. As these

2862: quiescent galaxies are small, it causes us to miss small galaxies

2863: first below the mass limit at which we are complete.

2864: 

2865: \vfill\eject

2866: \vbox{\hsize=16truecm

2867: { TABLE 1: LIMITING MAGNITUDES FOR THE GOODS-SOUTH IMAGING}

2868: \vskip 0.7truecm

2869: \halign { \hskip 3truecm # \hfil & # \hfil & # \hfil \cr

2870: Camera & Filter &  Magnitude$^a$\cr

2871: \cr

2872: WFI	& $U_{38}$		& 26.06 \cr

2873: WFI	& $B$			& 27.21 \cr

2874: WFI	& $V$			& 26.88 \cr

2875: WFI	& $R$			& 26.99 \cr

2876: WFI	& $I$			& 25.00 \cr

2877: ACS	& $F435$		& 27.29 \cr

2878: ACS	& $F606$		& 27.42 \cr

2879: ACS	& $F775$		& 26.87 \cr

2880: ACS	& $F850LP$		& 26.51 \cr

2881: ISAAC	& $J$			& 25.43 - 26.03 \cr

2882: ISAAC	& $H$			& 25.00 - 25.55 \cr

2883: ISAAC	& $K_s$			& 24.63 - 25.57 \cr

2884: IRAC	& ch1			& 26.15 \cr

2885: IRAC	& ch2			& 25.66 \cr

2886: IRAC	& ch3			& 23.79 \cr

2887: IRAC	& ch4			& 23.70 \cr

2888: MIPS	& 24 $\mu$m	 	& 21.30\cr}

2889: }

2890: $^a$ The limiting magnitude is the total AB magnitude for

2891: point sources detected at 3-$\sigma$.

2892: 

2893: 

2894: 

2895: 

2896: \end{document}

2897: 

2898: \vfill\eject

2899: \end{document}

2900: 

2901: % shifted end doc to just above here

2902: 

2903: \vfill\eject

2904: %\clearpage

2905: 

2906: 

2907: 

2908: %%

2909: %% End of file `sample.tex'.

2910: