DRAFT: December 30, 2011
Preprint typeset using I^'T^]X style eniulatoapj v. 5/2/11
AN HST/WFC3-IR MORPHOLOGICAL SURVEY OF GALAXIES AT Z = 1.5 - 3.6: I. SURVEY DESCRIPTION
AND MORPHOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF STAR FORMING GALAXIES
David R. Law , Charles C. Steidel
Alice E. Shapley^, Sarah R. Nagy^, Naveen A. Reddy^''',
DRAFT: December 30, 2011
Dawn K. Erb'
o
o
CD
Q
(N
o
u
6
>
cn
m
o
%
ABSTRACT
We present the results of a 42-orbit Huhhle Space Telescope Wide-Field Camera 3 (775'r/WFC3)
survey of the rest-frame optical morphologies of star forming galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts in
the range z = 1.5 — 3.6. The survey consists of 42 orbits of F160W imaging covering ~ 65 arcmin^
distributed widely across the sky and reaching a depth of 27.9 AB for a 5cr detection within a 0.2 arc-
sec radius aperture. Focusing on an optically selected sample of 306 star forming galaxies with stellar
masses in the range M, = 10^ — lO^^M©, we find that typical circularized effective half-light radii
range from ~ 0.7 — 3.0 kpc and describe a stellar mass - radius relation as early as 2; '^ 3. While these
galaxies are best described by an exponential surface brightness profile (Sersic index n ~ 1), their
distribution of axis ratios is strongly inconsistent with a population of inclined exponential disks and
is better reproduced by triaxial stellar systems with minor/major and intermediate/major axis ratios
'^ 0.3 and 0.7 respectively. While rest-UV and rest-optical morphologies are generally similar for a
subset of galaxies with HST/ ACS imaging data, differences are more pronounced at higher masses
M^, > 3 X 1O^°M0. Finally, we discuss galaxy morphology in the context of efforts to constrain the
merger fraction, finding that morphologically-identified mergers/non-mergers generally have insignifi-
cant differences in terms of physical observables such as stellar mass and star formation rate, although
merger-like galaxies selected according to some criteria have statistically smaller effective radii and
correspondingly larger Ssfr-
Subject headings: galaxies: high-redshift — galaxies: fundamental parameters — galaxies: structure
1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years our understanding of the broad global
characteristics of galaxies in the young universe has
grown considerably. Using rest-frame UV and optical
spectroscopy and multi-wavelength broadband photom-
etry it has been possible to estimate their stellar and
dynamical masses, average metallicities, ages, and star
formation rates across cosmic time from z > 6 to the
present day (e.g., Shapley et al. 2005; Cowie & Barger
2008; Maiolino et al. 2008; Stark et al. 2009). Such
studies indicate that the majority of structures observed
in the local universe were already in place at z '^ 1 (Pa-
povich et al. 2005) and point to the era spanned by the
redshift range 1.5 < z < 3 as the peak epoch of both
the cosmic star formation rate density (Dickinson et al.
2003; Reddy et al. 2008) and AGN activity in the uni-
verse (e.g., Miyaji et al. 2000).
In contrast to our knowledge of the global characteris-
tics of such galaxies from ever-expanding samples how-
ever, our understanding of their internal structure and
Based in part on data obtained at the W. M. Keck Observatory,
which is operated as a scientific partnership among the Cahfornia
Institute of Technology, the University of California, and NASA,
and was made possible by the generous financial support of the
W. M. Keck Foundation.
1 Hubble Fellow.
^ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Cal-
ifornia, Los Angeles, CA 90095; drlaw, aes@astro.ucla.edu,
snagy@ucla.edu
3 California Institute of Technology, MS 249-17, Pasadena, CA
91125; ccs@astro.caltech.edu
* National Optical Astronomy Observatories, 950 N. Cherry
Ave., Tucson, AZ 85719
^ Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201
evolution has been limited by their small angular size.
It has therefore been challenging to constrain the ma-
jor mode of mass assembly in these galaxies (i.e., from
major/minor mergers, hot mode or cold filamentary gas
accretion, etc.). With typical half-light radii ^ 0.2 — 0.3
arcsec at z ~ 2 (Bouwens et al. 2004; Nagy et al.
2011), such galaxies are barely resolved in the ~ 1 arc-
sec FWHM ground-based imaging and spectroscopy that
form the backbone of the observational data.
Significant efforts have therefore been invested in imag-
ing studies capitalizing on the high angular resolution
afforded by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). Early
efforts to characterize the morphologies of galaxies at
z ~ 1.5 — 3 (e.g., Abraham et al. 1996; Giavalisco et
al. 1996; Lowenthal et al. 1997; Bouwens et al. 2004;
Conselice et al. 2004; Lotz et al. 2006; Papovich et al.
2005; Law et al. 2007b; and references therein) used the
visible-wavelength surveying efficiency of the ACS (Ad-
vanced Camera for Surveys) to demonstrate that star
forming galaxies typically have irregular, clumpy mor-
phologies unlike the well-known Hubble sequence that
has been established since z '-^ 1 (e.g., Conselice et al.
2005, Oesch et al. 2010). Indeed, rest-UV luminosity and
morphology for such galaxies appears to be only poorly
correlated with other physical observables such as stellar
mass, outflow characteristics, and characteristic rotation
velocity (e.g., Shapley et al. 2005; Law et al. 2007b).
Recent technological developments have permitted ad-
ditional insights to be gleaned from ground-based ob-
servations using adaptive-optics (AO) fed imagers or in-
tegral field unit (IFU) spectrographs on lOm-class tele-
scopes (e.g.. Law et al. 2007a, 2009; Melbourne et al.,
2008ab, 2011; Stark et al., 2008; Forster-Schreiber et
Law et al.
al. 2009; Wright et al. 2009; Jones et al., 2010). Such
IFU spectroscopy mapping rest-frame optical nebular
line emission (redshiftcd into the near-IR at z > 1) from
star forming galaxies has suggested that high redshift
star forming galaxies often have dispersion-dominated
kinematics at odds with the classical picture of galaxy
formation via rotationally supported thin gas disks (e.g.,
Forster-Schreiber et al. 2009; Law et al. 2009). In-
stead, the dynamical evolution of these systems may be
driven by gravitational instabilities within massive gas-
rich clumps or low angular-momentum cosmological gas
flows (e.g., Keres et al. 2005; Bournaud et al. 2007;
Genzel et al. 2008 ). What is immediately clear is that
we do not yet understand the dynamical state of galaxies
during the period when they are forming the majority of
their stars.
Both early rest-UV imaging and AO IFU observations
of high-redshift galaxies tend to trace regions of active
star formation however, and in order to understand these
galaxies we also wish to map the regions in which the
bulk of the underlying stellar population live. While
young and old populations may have a generally simi-
lar distribution for lower- mass galaxies (e.g., Conselice
et al. 2011), more significant differences exist for galax-
ies with larger stellar mass (e.g., Dickinson 2000; Pa-
povich et al. 2005; and §4.3). Efforts to characterize
rest-optical galaxy morphologies using ground-based in-
struments and/or the HST/NICMOS camera have been
made by (e.g.) Papovich et al. (2005), Franx et al.
(2008), Toft et al. (2009), van Dokkum et al. (2010),
and Mosleh et al. (2011), generally finding that galaxies
at z ~ 2 were significantly smaller at fixed stellar mass
than in the local universe. Additionally, HST/NICMOS
work by Kriek et al. (2009) has demonstrated that star-
forming and quiescent galaxies differ substantially from
each other in relative compactness of their rest-optical
morphologies, and both differ from their kin in the local
universe.
Given the narrow field of view of both ground-based
AO-fed imagers (e.g., Carrasco et al. 2010) and the
HST/mCMOS camera (e.g., Conselice et al. 2011a)
however, it is only recently with the advent of the new
WFC3 camera onboard iJSTthat it has become practical
to perform wide-field morphological surveys in the near-
IR that trace rest-frame optical emission from galaxies
at z > 1. The results of the first such studies in the
UDF have been reported recently in the literature (e.g.,
Cameron et al. 2010; Cassata et al. 2010; Conselice et
al. 2011b). Our recent survey has greatly extended these
early results by obtaining HST/WFC3-IR morphological
data for 306 z = 1.5 — 3.6 galaxies in 10 fields widely dis-
tributed across the sky for which we have obtained dense
spectroscopic sampling.
Preliminary results for the evolution of the stellar mass
- radius relation were presented in Nagy et al. (2011).
In this first contribution of a series of papers using the
full sample, we introduce our survey and describe a selec-
tion of results concerning evolution of the characteristic
size, shape, and major merger fraction for actively star
forming galaxies. Future contributions (Law et al. 2012,
in preparation) will discuss the relation between mor-
phology and low-ionization gas-phase kinematics, treat
quiescent galaxies and AGN, and discuss the morphol-
ogy of uniquely interesting galaxies (e.g., Q2343-BX442;
Law & Shapley 2012, in preparation) in greater detail.
This paper is organized as follows: In §2 we describe the
HST/WFCS observing program and review the proper-
ties of the star forming galaxy sample. In §3 we present
postage-stamp morphologies of the galaxy sample and
discuss our morphological analysis techniques. An ex-
tended discussion of the robustness of the morphological
statistics and the systematic variations between measure-
ment systems commonly adopted in the literature is pre-
sented in the Appendix. §4 summarizes the basic mor-
phological characteristics (luminosity profile, relation to
rest-UV imaging, and intrinsic 3D shape) of the galaxy
sample, and the implications of our data for the evolution
of the stellar mass - effective radius relation are discussed
in §5. Finally, we use a variety of morphological statistics
to constrain the major merger fraction and its evolution
with redshift in §6. We summarize our results in §7.
Throughout our analysis, we adopt a standard ACDM
cosmology based on the seven-year WMAP results (Ko-
matsu et al. 2011) in which Hq = 70.4 km s"^ Mpc"\
Qm = 0.272, and ^a = 0.728.
2. OBSERVATIONAL DATA
2.1. Observations and Data Reduction
Data were obtained using the WFC3/IR camera on-
board the Hubble Space Telescope {HST-WFC3) as part
of the Cycle 17 program GO-11694 (PI: Law). This pro-
gram was comprised of 42 orbits using the F160W fil-
ter (Aoff = 15369 A, which traces rest-frame 5123/3824
A at z = 2/3 respectively), divided amongst fourteen
pointings in ten different survey fields (see Table 1) for a
combined sky coverage of ~ 65 arcmin^ centered on lines
of sight to bright {V ~ 17) background QSOs.^ Each
pointing had a total integration time of 8100 seconds
composed of nine 900 second exposures dithered using
a custom nine-point sub-pixel offset pattern designed to
uniformly sample the PSF.
The data were reduced using the MultiDrizzle (Koeke-
moer et al. 2002) software package to clean, sky subtract,
distortion correct, and combine the individual frames.
The raw WFC3 frames are undersampled with a pixel
scale of 0.128 arcsec; these frames were drizzled to a pixel
scale of 0.08 arcsec pixel" ^ using a pixel droplet fraction
(pixfrac) of 0.7. This combination of parameters was
found to give the cleanest, narrowest point-spread func-
tion (PSF) while ensuring that the RMS variation of the
final weight map was less than ~ 7% across the 136 x 123
arcsec field of view. Using nine isolated and unsaturated
stars in the Q1623+26 field we estimate that the FWHM
of the PSF is 0.18 ±0.01 arcsec (i.e., Nyquist sampled by
the 0.08 arcsec drizzled pixels), varying by less than 4%
across the detector and from field-to-field.
2.2. The Galaxy Sample
Our fourteen individual pointings arc located within
ten survey fields centered on lines of sight to bright back-
ground QSOs {zQso ^2.7). In the present contribution,
we focus on actively star forming galaxies drawn from
6 Two fields (Q1623-f26 and Q2343-f-12) had additional point-
ings in order to include sightlines to additional bright background
QSOs and to include the uniquely interesting systems Q2343-
BX415 (Rix et al. 2007) and Q2343-BX418 (Erb et al. 2010).
Morphological Properties of z ^ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
rest-UV color-selected catalogs ofz ^ 1.5 — 3.5 star form-
ing galaxy candidates constructed according to the meth-
ods described by Steidel et al. (2003, 2004) and Adel-
berger et al. (2004). These catalogs are based on deep
ground-based imaging and therefore select galaxies with
7?, < 27 independent of morphology or surface brightness
(since even the largest galaxies are nearly unresolved in
these seeing-limited images). Extensive ancillary infor-
mation is available in these survey fields. In addition to
deep ground-based UnGTZ optical imaging and rcst-UV
spectroscopy, many of the fields also have deep ground-
based J/ Kg imaging, Spitzer IRAC/MIPS photometry,
and for Q1549-t-19/Q1700-t-64 respectively spatially re-
solved HST/WFC5-\JYIS and HST/ ACS rest-UV imag-
ing. All galaxy candidates in these catalogs are detected
with WFC3 at > IOct down to - 27.5 AB.
Rather than relying on photometric redshifts, which
typically have large uncertainties (Az/(1 + z) > 0.06
at z > 1.5; van Dokkum et al. 2009), we restrict our
attention to the subsample of galaxies with TZ < 25.5 that
have been spectroscopically confirmed using Keck/LRIS
rest-UV spectra to lie in the redshift range 1.5 < z <
3.6; i.e., the "BM" ((z) = 1.70 ± 0.34), "BX" ((z) =
2.20 ± 0.32), and "LBG" or t/„-dropout (2.7 < z < 3.6)
samples defined by Steidel et al. (2003, 2004). Systemic
redshifts for the majority of our galaxies were derived
from rest-UV absorption/emission line centroids using
the prescriptions of Steidel et al. (2010); for 51 galaxies
that have been successfully observed to date with cither
long-slit (Erb et al. 2006b) and/or IFU spectroscopy (13
galaxies, Forster Schreiber et al. 2009; Law et al. 2009;
Wright et al. 2009) systemic redshifts were derived from
rest-optical nebular emission lines (e.g., Ha, [Oiii]).^
Additionally, we omit from our sample any galaxies
that lie within ^ 1.5 arcsec of the edge of the WFC3-
IR detector (where our dither coverage is incomplete),
or which are known to contain AGN on the basis of
rest-UV spectroscopy (24 systems; 12 bright QSOs with
HiGo < 19 AB, and 12 faint AGN with Hiao > 19 AB).
We discuss the morphological properties of these AGN in
detail in a forthcoming contribution (Law et al. 2012, in
preparation). The redshift and F160W magnitude dis-
tribution of the final sample of 306 galaxies are shown in
Figure 1 . As detailed in Table 1 the galaxies are roughly
evenly distributed amongst the 10 fields (with additional
pointings in Q1623-H26 and Q2343+12). Motivated by
the redshift ranges of the photometric selection crite-
ria we loosely divide our galaxies into the three redshift
ranges z = 1.5 — 2.0, z = 2.0 — 2.5, and z = 2.5 — 3.6,
containing 72/127/107 galaxies respectively. Although
we include galaxies up to z = 3.6 in our analysis we note
that the galaxy sample is very sparse for z > 3.2, as
shown in Figure 1.
2.3. Initial Segmentation Map
Reduced _ffS'r/WFC3 images were registered to the
same world coordinate system (WCS) as our deep
ground-based optical/near-IR data using ^ 10—15 stars
per pointing. Source Extractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996)
was then used to perform automated object detection
(with no smoothing kernel) and produce an initial seg-
mentation map in which each source is assigned a unique
identifier. We set the source detection threshold to 1.5cr
with a required minimum of 10 pixels above threshold
for analysis, 32 deblending thresholds, and a minimum
deblcnding contrast of 1%.^ We adopt an RMS map pro-
portional to the inverse square root of the weight map
produced by MultiDrizzle, scaling by a correction factor
Fa = 0.3933 (see discussion by Casertano et al. 2000) to
account for the fact that the MultiDrizzle process intro-
duces correlation in the pixel-to-pixel noise.
The initial segmentation map was manually inspected
for each galaxy in our sample to ensure both that no spu-
rious pixels were assigned to the galaxies and that each
galaxy was not artificially broken into multiple objects.
Since galaxies in the redshift range z ^ 2 — 3 are well-
known to be clumpy (e.g., Conselice et al. 2005; Law
et al. 2007b; and references therein), this latter goal
is non-trivial and Source Extractor frequently classifies
multi-component galaxies as separate sources (see, e.g.,
CoUey et al. 1996). While some neighboring clumps are
likely to be physically associated with each other (if, for
instance, they are embedded in a common envelope of
low surface brightness emission) , it is not always obvious
which clumps are part of the target source and which are
unassociated low- or high-redshift interlopers along the
line of sight. Generally, we assume that all clumps that
lie within a 1.5 arcsec (~ 12 kpc at z ~ 2—3) radius about
the 7?.-band centroid (i.e., the original detection image)
are physically associated with a given galaxy unless there
is evidence to the contrary (e.g., different spectroscopic
redshifts, or dramatically different UnGTZJHK colors),
and combine them under a single identifier. We discuss
the validity of this method with respect to the incidence
of genuine vs apparent pairs in §6.1.2.
In Figure 2, we present postage-stamp images of the
galaxy sample (all pixels identified with sources other
than the target 1.5 < z < 3.6 galaxy sample have
been cosmetically masked out by Gaussian random noise
matched to the noise characteristics of the background
sky) . As expected on the basis of previous rest-UV mor-
phological studies there is considerable diversity among
the morphologies, which range from compact isolated
sources to multi-component systems with extended re-
gions of diffuse emission. While this initial segmenta-
tion map is adequate for estimating total source magni-
tudes and constructing postage-stamp images, it is in-
adequate for calculating quantitative morphologies; we
discuss construction of second-pass segmentation maps
in Section 3.8.
2.4. Photometry
We photometrically calibrated our data using the zero-
point magnitude of 25.96 AB given for the F160W filter
in the HST/WFC3 data handbook. Masking aU pixels
identified with luminous sources using Source Extractor
(Bertin & Arnouts 1996), we use a 3a clipped mean to es-
timate that our drizzled images typically reach a limiting
depth of 27.9 AB for a 5a detection within a 0.2 arcsec
radius aperture, or 3a surface brightness sensitivity of
'^ Nebular emission line redshifts arc better indicators of the
systemic redshift than UV interstellar features at the < 100
km s~^ level; see discussion by Steidel et al. 2010).
° Adopting reasonable alternative values for the smoothing ker-
nel and deblending thresholds makes an imperceptible difference
to our derived morphological statistics.
Law et al.
40
30
I I I 1
1 I I I I I I I I I I
UK 1.5^z<2.0
^ 2.0gz<2.5
2.5gz<3.6
T — r
n — r
T i 1 i 1 1 1 1 T
2.5 3
Redshift
25
Hieo (AB)
Fig. 1. — Histograms of spectroscopic redshift and observed -ffmo magnitude for the 306 star forming galaxies in our sample.
TABLE 1
WFC3 Imaging Fields
R.A.
Decl.
Field
(J2000)
(J2000)
Date Observed
A'.i'^
N^2''
A'za'*
A^AGN °
QOlOO+13
01:03:11
+13:16:30
Oct 23, 2010
2
6
8
3
Q0142-09
01:45:17
-09:45:04
Nov 2, 2010
4
13
13
1
Q0449-16
04:52:14
-16:40:17
Nov 19, 2010
6
10
10
Q1009+29
10:11:55
+29:41:44
Jan 11, 2010
10
7
10
1
Q1217+49
12:19:30
+49:40:59
Oct 18, 2009
9
7
6
Q1549+19
15:51:53
+19:11:02
Aug 8, 2010
4
9
12
4
Q1623+26''
16:25:48
16:25:58
16:25:48
16:25:55
+26:47:04
+26:44:49
+26:44:38
+26:49:39
Aug 6, 2010
Aug 28, 2010
Oct 8, 2010
Jul 8, 2010
7
36
24
1
Q1700+64
17:00:59
+64:12:09
Jan 21, 2010
5
7
9
6
Q2206-19
22:08:53
-19:43:56
Oct 2, 2010
13
7
7
Q2343+12''
23:46:29
23:46:22
+12:48:42
+12:48:13
Jun 13, 2010
Jun 14. 2010
10
25
10
2
TOTAL
72
127
107
12
'^ Multiple overlapping pointings in the Q1623+26 and Q2343+12 fields.
Number of star forming galaxies in the range 1.5 < s < 2.0.
^ Number of star forming galaxies in the range 2.0 < 2 < 2.5.
Number of star forming galaxies in the range 2.5 < 2 < 3.6.
^ Number of faint (/fieo > 19) broad and narrow-lined AGN in the redshift range 1.5 < 2 < 3.6.
TABLE 2
Results of Monte Carlo Photometry Tests
AB Magnitude
b.W
ZP
(^H
21.75 < Hi60 < 22.25
22.25 < Hi60 < 22.75
22.75 < ffieo < 23.25
23.25 < Hi60 < 23.75
23.75 < ffieo < 24.25
24.25 < ffieo < 24.75
0.06
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.11
0.16
^ Bias between the measured and simulated photometry.
Statistical uncertainty in the recovered magnitudes.
25.1 AB arcsec"^^
Initial estimates of the F160W magnitudes of the
galaxies are obtained from the Source Extractor cor-
rected isophotal magnitudes (MAGJSOCOR), which
are consistent to within 0.04 mag with estimates ob-
tained from matched-aperture photometry from images
smoothed to the angular resolution of the ground-based
7^-band survey images for well-defined, isolated sources.
^ For comparison, the HUDF09 program (GO 11563; Bouwens
et al. 2010) covered an area of 4.7 arcmin-^ to a 5cr depth of 28.8
AB, the GOODS-NICMOS survey (GNS; Conselice et al. 2011a)
covered 45 arcmin^ to a depth of 26.8 AB, and the ERS/GOODS-
S program (GO 11359; Windhorst et al. 2011) covered an area of
~ 40 arcmin^ to a depth of 27.2 AB.
Morphological Properties of z ^ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
Q1009-BM143 Q1009-BM133 Q1700-BM605 Q2206-BX85 Q1217-BX107 Q1009-BM105
z=1 .5035
Q2206-BM49
z=1 .5767
Q0100-BX150
z=1 .6249
Q1623-BX445
f
z=1.6419
Q1217-BX126
Z=1.7954
mi
z=1.5115
Q2343-BM194
# m
z=1.5266
Q2343-BM145
2=1.5888
Q0142-BM136
z=1 .5898
Q0142-BM140
z=1.5336
Q0449-BX46
P
2=1.5988
Q2343-BX645
2=1.5396
Q1009-BX183
2=1 .6048
Q1009-BM123
I
z=1 .6269
Q0449-BX103
2=1.6279
Q2343-BM190
2=1.6289
Q1009-BM101
2=1 .6299
Q0449-BM89
2=1 .6429
Q1217-BX77
2=1.6937
Q1700-BX756
2=1.7131
Q2343-BX486
2=1.7141
Q0100-BX165
2=1.8014
f
2=1.8064
2=1.6079
2=1.809
2=1.5617
Q2343-BX347
2=1.6098
Q1009-BX192
2=1.6339
Q2206-BM63
2=1.7302
Q1623-BX402
#
2=1 .7342
2=1.7352
2=1.7382
2=1.7472
2=1.7582
2=1.7603
Q2206-BX114
Q0142-BX174
Q2206-BM59
Q2343-BX431
Q1009-BX197
Q1009-BX167
1
\
m
#
• *
2=1.7683
2=1.7713
2=1.7763
2=1.7863
2=1.7863
2=1.7903
Q1217-BX115
Q1217-BX92
Q1549-BX94
Q2343-BM93
Q2343-BX524
CXD142-BX225
2=1.8134
Fig. 2. — HST WFC3 F160W rest-optical morphologies of the 306 systems in the z = 1.5 — 3.6 star forming galaxy sample, sorted in
order of increasing rcdshift. Images are 3" to a side, oriented with north up and east to the left and centered on the F160W flux centroid.
The color map has been inverted, and uses an arcsinh stretch with the black point set to 27.3 AB pixel^^ (21.8 AB arcsec"'^).
We perform Monte Carlo tests of the statistical micer-
tainty and photometric biases in these magnitudes by
inserting 1000 artificial galaxy models with known to-
tal magnitudes into randomly selected blank-field re-
gions of the images and calculating the accuracy with
which their magnitudes are recovered using Source Ex-
tractor. The galaxy models are constructed using GAL-
FIT (see §3.2) to model the light profiles of five real
galaxies in the Q1700-t-64 field that span a wide range
of effective radii and Sersic index. These tests are per-
formed for 0.5 magnitude bins spanning the range Hiqq =
22 — 25 AB of the galaxy sample, and suggest (Table 2)
that MAGJSOCOR systematically underestimates the
brightness of objects by AHzp ~ 0.05 — 0.08 mag. Af-
ter correcting for this systematic offset, we find that the
magnitudes of 10 isolated, bright (iJieo ^15 — 16 AB),
unsaturated stars in our target fields all agree with values
published in the 2MASS point source catalog (Skrutskie
ct al. 2006) to within the photometric uncertainty of the
catalog.
2.5. SED Fitting
Stellar masses, ages, and star formation rates were cal-
culated by fitting the broadband spectral energy distri-
Law et al.
Q2206-BX127
#
z=1.8137
Q2206-BM48
\
z=1.8194
Q0449-BX105
z=1,8325
Q1700-BX635
Q2343-BX527
Q2206-BX91
Q1700-BX767 Q0449-BX64 Q2206-BX89
m I
#
z=1.8435 z=1.8525 z=1.8565
Q1549-BX67 Q1700-BX720 Q1549-BX59
z=1 .8605
z=1,8605
z=1.8656
z=1.8696
2=1.8726
z=1 .8776
Q1623-BX392
Q1623-BX385
Q1217-BX99
Q2206-BM61
Q1217-BX137
Q2206-BX84
i
z=1 .8789
z=1,8826
z=1.8921
z=1.9127
2=1.915
z=1.9177
Q2206-BM52
Q1217-BX125
Q2343-BX421
Q1623-BX497
02206-8X62
Q1623-BX436
^
«
■*
•
«.
z=1.9187
z=1.9197
z=1 .9307
Z=1.9348
z=1.9358
z=1.9408
Q1549-BX63
Q1217-MD20a
01009-8X133
Q1 623-8X372
Q1549-BX81
Q0449-BX82
z=1.9508
z=1 .9548
z=1 .9809
z=1.9822
z=1 .9839
z=1 .9899
Q1009-BX203
Q0142-BX193
Q0449-BX93
Q0449-BX88
Q0142-BX187
Q1623-BX368
.-^
\
#
•
M
'•I
z=1.9969
z=2.006
z=2.0067
z=2.009
z=2.01
z=2.0104
Q2343-MD59
Q2343-BX521
Q0142-BX188
Q1623-BX429
Q0142-BX161
Q1623-BX547
t
z=2.0116 z=2,0122 z=2.014 z=2.016 z=2.0265 z=2.0517
Q2343-BM175 Q1623-BX428 Q1623-BX524 Q1623-BX452 Q0449-BM72 Q1623-BX355
z=2.0521 z=2,0538 Z=2.0541 Z=2.0595 z=2.0712 z=2.0722
Fig. 2. — Continued
Morphological Properties of ~ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
Q2206-BM54 Q1549-BX113 Q1009-BX177 Q2206-BX92 Q0100-BX212 Q1217-BX146
X %
Z=2.0792
Z=2,0812
z=2.0943
Z=2.1002
Z=2.1073
Z=2.1083
01623-8X412
Q1 009-8X21 8
Q2343-BX435
Q1623-BX472
Q2343-BX551
Q1 623-8X431
• %
• %
z=2.1093
z=2.109e
z=2.1119
z=2.1142
z=2.1143
z=2.1 143
Q1217-MD15
Q0142-BX200
Q1009-BX171
Q1623-BX338
Q1009-BX155
Q1623-BX484
•• ^
z=2.1293
2=2.1323
z=2.1333
z=2.1373
z=2.1434
z=2.1444
Q 1623-8X447
Q1623-BX502
02343-6X389
O2343-BX530
01623-BX536
Q2343-BX660
^ • y
z=2.14ei
02343-BX391
z=2.1557
Q2343-BX429
z=2.1716
Q2343-MD62
z=2.1717
Q0449-MD11
% . •
z=2.174
01623-BX432
z=2.1751
Q1623-BX453
z=2.1752
Q2343-D25
z=2.1755
Q2343-BX484
z=2.1727
Q2343-BX442
z=2.176
Q0449-BX117
z=2.1739
Q2206-BX88
•^
z=2.1797
Q1700-BX691
% • *
z=2.iei7
z=2.182
z=2.ie62.
z=2.ie65
z=2.1885
z=2.1895
Q1217-BX116
Q1549-BX62
Q1217-BX102
Q2206-BIVI64
Q1623-BX553
Q1009-BX222
#
flL
i
!
X
m
• ^
^
^'
V
z=2.1902
z=2.1929
z=2.195
z=2.1955
z=2.2015
z=2.2031
Q0449-BX72
Q2206-BX102
Q2206-BX87
Q2343-BX417
Q1217-BX118
Q2343-BX390
•
#
<
f
f
1
V
Z=2.2086
z=2.2104
z=2.2126
Z=2.2231
Z=2.2266
Z=2.2313
Fig. 2. — Continued
•
I
Law et al.
Q2343-BX480 Q1700-BX632 Q1623-BX511 Q2343-BX587 Q1623-MD93 Q0100-BX209
«
z=2.2313
z=2.2366
z=2.2421
z=2.243
z=2.2447
z=2.2575
Q0449-BX89
Q0100-BX187
Q1009-BX146
Q1623-BX528
Q0100-BX210
Q1623-BX520
• /
z=2.2577
2=2.2633
z=2.2677
z=2.2682
z=2.2771
z=2.2828
Q1549-BX51
ai623-BX506
Q0100-MD32
Q1700-MD109
Q1549-BX95
Q2343-BM168
#
z=2.29
z=2.2908
z=2.2928
z=2.2942
z=2.2998
z=2.3018
Q2343-BX418
Q0449-BX73
Q0100-BX190
Q1700-MD103
Q0142-BX212
Q1217-BX57
# >%ir
•
#
I
z=2.3053
z=2.3068
z=2.3109
z=2.3148
z=2.3159
z=2.3169
Q1549-BX54
00449-8X115
Q0449-BX110
Q2343-BX537
Q0449-BX94
Q1700-BX772
z=2.3214
2=2.3323
z=2.3369
z=2.3396
z=2.3399
z=2.3429
Q0142-BX165
Q0142-BX182
Q0142-BX186
Q2206-BX64
Q2343-BX601
Q1623-BX341
X* t •*
z=2.355
z=2.356
z=2.356
z=2.358
z=2.3769
2=2.3791
Q1549-BX66
Q2343-D29
Q1549-D13b
Q2343-MD86
Q0142-BX150
Q2343-BX585
#
z=2.38
2=2.3871
z=2.3906
z=2.3916
z=2.3951
z=
2.3951
Q1623-BX455
Q1623-BX376
Q0142-BX130
Q0142-BX176
Q1623-BX485
Q1623-BX449
«
•
*
«
•
»
z=2.4074
z=2.4085
z=2.4121
2=2.4132
2=2.4152
2=
2.4188
Fig. 2. — Continued
Morphological Properties of ~ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
Q1623-BX458
Q1623-BX366
Q1700-BX759
Q1623-BX516
Q1217-BX95
Q1700-BX717
%
t
%
%
m
r
z=24194
z=2.4204
z=2.4213
z=2,4236
z=2.4244
z=2.4353
Q1549-BX79
Q1623-BX457
Q1623-MD126
Q1623-BX546
Q1623-BX435
Q1623-BX522
•ft
^
«-
«•
*
m
z=2.4436
z=2.4553
z=2.4593
z=2,4643
z=2,4726
z=2.4757
Q0142-BX196
01549-BX121
Q1009-BX215
Q0100-BX175
Q1549-MD18
Q1623-BX543
%
*
•
*
f
2=2.4914
z=2.5026
w
z=2.5061
z=2.5064
z=2.5109
z=2.5211
Q1623-BX401
Q1009-BX165
Q1623-MD140
Q1623-MD107
Q1623-BX410
Q1623-MD106
*v
*
V
'
%
f
z=2.5215
z=2.5295
z=2.5315
z=2.5373
z=2.5405
z=2.5455
' Q2343-BX341
Q2343-D19
Q1700-MD119
CW100-BX219
Q0100-BX226
Q1217-BX132
¥
Jt
•
«
-♦■•
z=2.5749
z=2.5776
z=2.5816
z=2.5826
2=2.5937
z=2.6097
Q1623-BX340
Q1217-MD16
m
Q1623-BX394
Q1623-BX397
Q1623-BX365
01623-8X438
A
•
•
«
#
•
z=2.6157
z=2.6177
z=2.624e
z=2.6268
z=2.636e
z=2.637
Q1623-BX440
Q1009-MD2B
Q1623-BX462
Q2206-BX135
Q1009-MO24
Q1009-MD23
•
%_
«
M
i
•
2=2.6464
Z=2.6486
Z=2.6511
Z=2.6616
2=2.6528
2=2.6538
Q1623-M28
Q0142-MD26
Q1009-M11
Q2343-BX467
Q1700-MD92
Q0449-D10
#
•
«
^
*
z=2.6569
z=2.6649
z=2.6699
2=2.6786
z=2.6859
z=2.6S79
Fig. 2. — Continued
10
Law et al.
Q0449-D9
Q2206-BX74
Q1549-D15
Q1549-MD19
Q1217-BX62
Q1217-MD17
%.
#
^
-
•
#'
z=2.6889
z=2.691
z=2.6917
z=2.696
z=2.71
z=2.71
Q1549-D17
Q0100-MD33
Q1623-BX538
Q0100-BX204
Q2343-C36
Q0142-D13
#
#
s
«
m
#
z=2.716
z=2.72
z=2.721
z=2.723
z=2.7251
z=2.7281
Q2206-C8
Q1700-BX670
Q0449-C22
Q0449-D7
Q1700-MD104
Q1 700-MD97
•%
i
k
%
«
9
*
#
2=2.7391
Z=2.7406
Z=2.7411
Z=2.7441
2=2.7491
Z=2.7521
Q1700-MD98
Q1217-MD20b
Q0142-D17
Q2206-MD9
Q1623-C54
Q1623-MD112
4
1
i
k
1
«
%
1
4
p
z=2.7521
z=2.7592
z=2.7632
Z=2.7702
z=2.7917
z=2.7963
Q2343-MD64
Q0142-MD27
Q2343-D22
Q0142-M10
Q0142-BX199
Q0142-D15 '
#
1
•
m
i
%
z=2.8013
z=2.8174
z=2.8183
Z=2.8193
z=2.8203
z=2.e213
CXI142-MD23
Q0142-D14
Q1549-C13
Q1549-D13a
Q1549-MD12
Q1549-C15
%
#
i
#
J z=2.8274
z=2.e354
z=2.837e
2=2.8454
z=2.8495
z=2.8524
Q1549-D14
Q0449-C23
Q1623-C60
Q2343-BX618
"51700-044
Q170a-MD126
\
#
f
1
f
1
z=2.854
z=2.8665
z=2.8865
z=2.8926
z=2.8988
z=2.9026
Q1009-D12
Q0142-C12
Q2206-MD15
Q1549-C17
Q1623-D27
Q0449-D11
#
i
%
m
/
%
z=2.9136
z=2.9246
z=2.9357
Z=2.9377
z=2.9567
z=2.9646
Fig. 2. — Continued
Morphological Properties of 2: ~ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
11
Q0100-D13
Q1700-D39
Q1623-C61
Q1623-C49
Q1623-BX545
Q0449-BX96
t
%
-
•
•
z=2.9788
z=2.9858
2=2.9946
2=3,0026
2=3.0129
2=3.0376
Q0100-C7
Q0100-C6
Q1009-C26
Q2343-C42
Q2343-M51
Q1009-D15
«
V
i
1
«>
ft -
«
z=3.039
z=3.0406
z=3.068
z=3.0701
2=3,0836
2=3.1006
Q1009-C18
Q0142-C9
Q0449-C24
Q1623-M23
Q0142-M11
Q1549-D16
#
i
#
1
i^
«
#
2=3.1006
2=3.1062
2=3.1102
2=3.1286
2=3.1316
2=3.1342
Q1217-C7
Q1623-C42
Q2206-MD10
Q0142-C10
Q2206-M5
00449- M5
#
«
#
«
m
2=3.1619
z=3.2001
2=3.3278
2=3.394
2=3.4261
2=3.5635
Fig. 2. — Continued
12
Law et al.
bution (SED) of the galaxies with stellar population syn-
thesis models using a customized IDL code (Reddy et al.
2012, in preparation). In addition to the HST/FmOW
and ground-based UnGTZ photometry many galaxy mod-
els also incorporate J/ Ks-hand data, and in some cases
Spitzer IRAC photometry. The SED fitting process is
described in detail by Shapley et al. (2001, 2005), Erb et
al. (2006c), and Rcddy et al. (2006, 2010); in brief, we
use Chariot & Bruzual (2011, in preparation) population
synthesis models, a Chabrier (2003) initial mass function
(IMF), and a constant (t — cxd) star formation history.
Although the statistical uncertainty of the -ffigo magni-
tudes is small (see Table 2), the true uncertainty in the
continuum magnitudes iJcont is significantly larger due
to the uncertain contribution from nebular line emission
that falls within the F160W bandpass (AA14028 - 16711
A). In order to ensure that the -ffigo magnitudes do not
unduly influence the SED fit with their small formal un-
certainties (see also discussion by McLure et al. 2011)
we attempt to quantify the additional uncertainty due
to nebular emission in a physically motivated manner by
bootstrapping approximate line fluxes from broadband
scaling laws and typical nebular line ratios. We use the
ground-based UnGTZ magnitudes to estimate the rest-
frame monochromatic luminosity L^ at 1500 A, and con-
vert this to a UV star formation rate using the Kennicutt
(1998) relation. This UV SFR is corrected for extinction
by estimating the UV slope /3 from the UnGTZ photome-
try, and converting to an estimated extinction E{B — V)
using the Meurer et al. (1999) relation in combination
with a Calzetti et al. (2000) attenuation law (motivated
by comparison with direct indicators of the dust emission
at 24/im) . We then assume that the extinction-corrected
UV SFR is equal to the Ha SFR (see discussion by Erb et
al. 2006b), and use the Kennicutt (1998) relation to es-
timate the corresponding Ha nebular emission line flux.
Based on standard atomic physics and the observations
of Maiolino et al. (2008) and Erb et al. (2006a), we as-
sume that the other strong rest-optical nebular emission
lines have typical flux ratios given by: Ha/Hf3 — 2.9,
[Oiii]A5007/i7/3 = 4.6, [Oiii]A5007/[Oiii]A4959 = 3.0,
[Oii]A3727/7J/3 = 1.5, [Nii]A6585/iIa = 0.16. AU of
these estimated emission line fluxes are converted to ob-
served values using the extinction coefficients described
above.
The combined fiux AHunc of emission lines that fall
within the F160W bandpass at the redshift of each galaxy
is added to the photometric bias corrected Hiqq magni-
tude to obtain an estimate of the continuum magnitude
^cont = ^160 + Airline • Thcrc are significant uncertain-
ties associated with almost every step of our estimate
of the nebular line-emission correction described above,
not least of which is the strong variation in line fiux ra-
tios (e.g., [Oiii]A5007/F/3) with metalhcity. We there-
fore conservatively estimate the uncertainty in the con-
tinuum magnitudes as CTcont ~ V'^h + ^-^Unc Typi-
cal values of this uncertainty are generally in the range
0.1 < CTcont < 0.3 mag, but values as high as 0.5 mag
can occur in 10% of cases (and 1.0 mag in 1% of cases).
Due to the downweighting of the WFC3 data point when
CTcont ~ 0.5, derived stellar masses in such cases differ by
only 1% on average from stellar masses derived by omit-
ting the WFC3 data point from the SED fit entirely.
3. DEFINING THE MORPHOLOGICAL STATISTICS
Many efforts have been made to quantify the morpholo-
gies of predominantly-irregular high redshift galaxies by
using a combination of qualitative visual analyses, para-
metric Sersic model fits, and non-parametric numerical
statistics (e.g., 'CAS'; Consehce 2003). Here we explore
all of these methods and discuss the physical inferences
that can be gleaned from each.
We describe below our methods for visual classifica-
tion, Sersic profile fitting, and calculating the Gini co-
efficient G, the second order moment of the light dis-
tribution M20, the concentration C, asymmetry A, and
multiplicity ^ statistics. ^° In our discussion of the non-
parametric numerical statistics we define fi as the fluxes
of the N individual pixels in the segmentation map (see
§3.8) with physical location Xi,yi, where i ranges from 1
to N.
3.1. Visual Classification
Our first morphological classification groups galaxies
visually based on the apparent nucleation of their light
profiles and the number of distinct components. As il-
lustrated in Figure 3, we group galaxies from Figure 2
into three general classes:
Type I: Single, nucleated source with no evidence for
multiple luminous components or extended low sur-
face brightness features. 127 galaxies in our sam-
ple.
Type II: Two or more distinct nucleated sources of
comparable magnitude, with little to no evidence
for extended low surface brightness features. 56
galaxies in our sample.
Type III: Highly irregular objects with evidence of non-
axisymmetric, extended, low surface-brightness
features. 123 galaxies in our sample.
Type I galaxies appear consistent with being regu-
lar and isolated systems, while Type II galaxies may
represent either early-stage mergers between two such
formerly isolated systems or intrinsically clumpy sys-
tems with little continuum emission between the clumps.
Type HI galaxies in contrast may represent later-stage
mergers with bright tidally induces disturbances, or
clumpy concentrations within a single extended system
(e.g., Bournaud et al. 2007). Of course, there is signif-
icant overlap between the three classes, and degeneracy
in the classes to which a given galaxy may be assigned.
Galaxies with identical luminosity profile but different
surface brightness may, for instance, be assigned to either
Type I or Type HI depending on whether the low sur-
face brightness features are above or below the limiting
surface brightness of the data, and the division between
Types II and III is similarly unclear. The goal of these
visual classifications is not to provide decisive quantita-
tive divisions however, but simply as a reference point to
describe the general qualitative appearance of galaxies
throughout the following discussion.
^"^ We do not calculate the smoothness parameter (i.e, the 'S' in
'CAS') because it is not robustly defined for galaxies as small and
poorly resolved as those at z ~ 2 — 3 (see discussion by Lotz et al.
2004).
Morphological Properties of 2: ~ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
13
Type I
Q1549-BX81
Type II Type
Q2206-BX92 Q1217-BX99
z=1.9839 z=2.1002 z=1.8921
01623-8X502 O2343-BX390 Q1009-BX155
V
z=2.1557
Q2343-BX660
z=2.1739
z=2.2313
Q1009-BX171
z=2.1333
z=2.1434
Q2343-BX3S9
z=2.1716
Fig. 3. — Visual classification scheme illustrated by three sam-
ple galaxies for each of the three types: Type I (single nucleated
source), Type II (multiple well-defined nucleated sources), Type III
(diffuse and extended emission, possibly hosting multiple clumps).
3.2. Sersic Profiles
In the local universe the surface brightness profiles of
galaxies can often by well-fit by Sersic (1963) models over
a large dynamic range in luminosities (e.g., Kormendy
et al. 2009). While regular ellipsoidal models are clearly
an incomplete description of the irregular galaxy mor-
phologies illustrated in Figure 2, such models nonethe-
less provide a useful description of the characteristic sizes
and surface brightness profiles of the major individual
clumps. We therefore use GALFIT 3.0 (Peng et al. 2002,
2010) to fit the galaxy sample with two-dimensional Ser-
sic profiles described by the functional form
S(r) = EeCxp
- 1
(1)
convolved with the observational PSF. These models are
characterized by the effective half-light radius ri/2 and
the radial index n of the profile. GALFIT actually calcu-
lates the effective half-light radius along the semi-major
axis (r); following a common practice in the literature
(e.g., Shen et al. 2003; Trujillo et al. 2007; Toft et al.
2009) we convert this to a circularized effective radius
Vc = ry^b/a, where b/a is the minor/major axis ratio. As
described in Peng et al. (2002, see their Figure 1), two of
the most commonly observed values of the radial index in
the nearby universe are n = 1, which corresponds to the
exponential disk profile, and n = 4, which corresponds
to a classical de Vaucouleurs profile with steep central
core and relatively flat outer wings typical of elliptical
galaxies and galactic bulges.
We use a median-combined stack of isolated, bright
{HiQo < 20 AB), unsaturated stars from across our
WFC3 imaging fields to define the PSF model. While
the structure of the PSF varies slightly across a given
field, and from field-to-field with the HST-WFC3 roU
angle, we find the details of our PSF model have little
effect on the derived physical properties of our faint and
extended galaxies (see also discussion by Szomoru et al.
2010). Since GALFIT convolves physical models with
the observational PSF it is able to determine effective
radii down to extremely small spatial scales. Following
the method described by Toft et al. (2007), we use a va-
riety of stellar point sources as PSF models to fit Sersic
models to 11 stars in our WFC3 imaging fields, finding
that the mean estimated size of known point sources is
0.16 ± 0.25 pixels. We therefore adopt a 3a limit for
unresolved point sources of 0.16 -I- 3 x 0.25 = 0.91 pix-
els, or 0.073 arcsec, corresponding to 0.62 kpc at rcdshift
z = 2.0.
Our procedure for fitting Sersic models to individual
galaxies is as follows. We used the Source Extractor
segmentation map to mask out all objects not associ-
ated with the target galaxies, replacing these pixels with
Gaussian random noise matched to the noise character-
istics of the image. We then cut out a 5 x 5 arcsec region
surrounding each galaxy and subtracted from it a 'local
sky' estimated from the median of pixels excluded from
the segmentation map. GALFIT is then used to fit the
minimum number of axisymmetric (we do not introduce
bending or Fourier modes) components required to sat-
isfactorily reproduce the observed light distribution. For
the majority of galaxies shown in Figure 2 we use a sin-
gle component, unless there are clearly multiple spatially
distinct clumps or significant asymmetry in the light dis-
tribution. All GALFIT models were inspected by two
of us (DRL & SRN) in order to verify that a consistent
approach was taken throughout the galaxy sample.
Unlike the non-parametric morphological statistics
(which represent an integrated quantity over the entire
light distribution of a galaxy), r^ and n can formally
be multi-valued for galaxies fit by multiple Sersic com-
ponents (i.e., Type II and some Type III galaxies). We
adopt the convention of describing such multi-component
galaxies by the r^ and n of the brightest individual com-
ponent; as we discuss in §5.4, this assumption does not
significantly bias our conclusions. For the few cases for
which a reasonable model cannot be obtained with < 5
Sersic components (e.g., Q1009-MD28, which is in close
physical proximity to the bright Q1009 QSO and turns
out to be a Lya blob based on recent narrowband imag-
ing) we consider re and n to be undefined.
3.3. Gini coefficient G
The Gini coefficient (G; Gini 1912) was introduced into
the astronomical literature by Abraham et al. (2003) and
further developed by Lotz et al. (2004). G measures the
cumulative flux distribution of a "population" of pixels
and is insensitive to the actual spatial distribution of the
individual pixels.
Formally G is defined (Glasser 1962) in the range G —
0-1 as
G =
1
N
fN{N - 1)
^(2*-iV-l)/,
(2)
where / is the average flux and the fi pixel fluxes are
sorted in increasing order before the summation over all
N pixels in the segmentation map. High values of G rep-
resent the majority of the total fiux being concentrated
in a small number of pixels, while low values represent a
more uniform distribution of flux.
3.4. Second order moment M20
14
Law et al.
The spatial distribution of the hght may be quantified
via the second order moment of the hght distribution,
M20, introduced in this context by Lotz et al. (2004).
M20 is defined as the second order moment of the bright-
est pixels that constitute 20% of the total flux in the seg-
mentation map, normalized by the second order moment
of all of the pixels in the segmentation map. Mathemat-
ically,
M.
log (^^), while ^/.<0.2/t.
(3)
where
N
N
Mtot = ^ M, = ^ f,[{x, - x,f + (y, - y,f] (4)
Following Lotz et al. (2004, 2006) we adopt the position
that minimizes Mtot as the center (xc,yc) of the light
distribution.
Typical values of M20 range from ^ —1 (most irregular,
often with multiple clumps) to ^ — 2 (most regular).
3.5. Concentration C
The concentration index C (Kent 1985; Abraham et al.
1994; Bershady et al. 2000; Conselice 2003) measures the
concentration of fiux about a central point in the galaxy.
While slightly different versions have been introduced by
various authors, we adopt the 'C28' standard:
C = Slog
^80
7-20
(5)
where r2o/r8o arc the circular radii containing 20%/80%
respectively of the total galaxy fiux within the segmenta-
tion map. Following Conselice et al. (2008), we adopt the
flux-weighted centroid of the segmentation map as the
center for the concentration calculation. While in many
cases this corresponds naturally to a peak in the flux
distribution, it is not necessarily the case for extremely
irregular galaxies without well-defined central fiux con-
centrations.
Typical concentration values range from ~ 1 (least
compact) to ^ 5 (most compact). We note, however, that
galaxies with two or more clumps (e.g.. Type II galax-
ies) that are each individually compact are not generally
compact in a global sense.
3.6. Asymmetry A
The asymmetry A (Schade et al. 1995; Conselice et
al. 2000) quantifies the 180° rotational asymmetry of a
galaxy. Mathematically, A is calculated by differencing
the original galaxy image with a rotated copy:^^
A =
X] l/0:i ~ /l80,t|
Z) l/o,i
Z) \BaA - Bi8o,i|
Z l/o,j
(6)
11 We note that Schade et ah (1995) and Consehce et al. (2000)
included a factor of two in the denominator of Eqn. 6, while more
recent work by Lotz et al. (2004) and Conselice et al. (2008) do
not. We follow the convention of the more recent literature by
neglecting this factor.
where /o.i represents flux in the original image pixels and
/iso.i flux in the rotated image pixels. Following Con-
selice et al. (2000, 2008) we determine the rotation cen-
ter iteratively by allowing it to walk about an adaptively
spaced grid with 0.1 pixel resolution until converging on
the point that minimizes E \fo,i — /i80.i|- The _Bo.i and
-Bi8o,i terms represent fluxes in nearby background pixels
to which we have applied an identical segmentation map,
and are included to subtract the contribution of noise to
the total galaxy asymmetry. As discussed by Conselice
ct al. (2008), the background sum is minimized similarly
to the original image.
Typical values of A range from for the most sym-
metric galaxies to 1 for galaxies with the strongest 180°
rotational asymmetry.
3.7. Multiplicity *
The multiplicity coefficient, introduced by Law et al.
(2007b), calculates the effective "potential energy" of the
light distribution
N
N
A
actual
2 — 1 j'^2-f-l
^E
(7)
' y
where /i and /j are the fluxes in pixels ij j respectively,
rij is the separation between pixels i and j, and where
the sum runs over all of the N(N — l)/2 i — j pixel
pairs. ^^ This is compared to the most compact possi-
ble rearrangement of pixel fluxes, that by analogy with
a gravitational system would require the most "work" to
pull apart. This compact map is constructed by rear-
ranging the positions of all N galaxy pixels so that the
brightest pixel is located in the center of the distribution,
and the surrounding pixel fluxes decrease monotonically
with increasing radius. Calling r^ the distance between
pixels i and j in this compact map.
N
N
^.
compact
i— 1 j^i^l
hfj
(8)
The multiplicity coefficient 5* measures the degree to
which the actual distribution of pixel fluxes differs from
the most compact possible arrangement, i.e.
* == 100 X logio
^.
compact
V'a
;tual
(9)
As discussed by Law et al. (2007b), values for 5' can
range from (i.e., for which the galaxy pixels are already
in the most compact possible arrangement) to > 10 for
extremely irregular sources. Generally, we find that iso-
lated, regular galaxies in our sample may be described by
^ < 1, galaxies with some morphological irregularities
by 1 < ^ < 2, and galaxies with strong morphological
irregularities or multiple components by ^ > 2.
3.8. Detailed Segmentation Maps
The preliminary segmentation maps constructed in
§2.3 above assign pixels to a given galaxy based on a
^"^ Note that Vactual a-nd i/'compact were defined incorrectly in
Law et al. (2007b) with the sum double-counting each pixel pair.
These factors of 2 would, however, cancel out upon constructing
the final statistic 'I' from the ratio of V'actual to i/'compact .
Morphological Properties of z^ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
15
constant surface brightness threshold tied to the noise
characteristics of the WFC3 data. While such a seg-
mentation map is sufRcient for estimating total source
magnitudes, it is inadequate for calculating quantitative
morphologies using the nonparametric statistics defined
in §3.3 - 3.7 since surface-brightness based pixel selection
produces results that vary with total source luminosity,
redshift, and limiting survey magnitude. Multiple meth-
ods have been adopted in the literature for defining ro-
bust segmentation maps; in the Appendix we discuss four
such methods (Conselice et al. 2000; Lotz et al. 2004;
Abraham et al. 2007; Law et al. 2007b) and calculate
values for G, M20, C, A, and * in each.
In part, this Appendix is provided so that our results
can be directly translated to the readers preferred choice
of segmentation map, but it is also instructive to consider
how the calculated values of the morphological parame-
ters depend upon this choice. While we find that the val-
ues of G, M20, C, A, and ^ are well-correlated between
different segmentation maps, there can be significant sys-
tematic offsets in dynamic range (particularly for G; see
also Lisker 2008) between the systems. We discuss the
implications of such offsets in Section 6 below.
Throughout the following analysis, we choose to calcu-
late our baseline morphologies using the Abraham et al.
(2007) quasi-Petrosian method with isophotal threshold
rj = 0.3 as this method is arguably most well suited to
the irregular morphologies of our target galaxies. Using
the transformation relations presented in the Appendix
however, we convert our values to the Lotz et al. (2004,
2006) systematic reference frame in order to compare to
both recent observational results and numerical simula-
tions (e.g., Lotz et al. 2010ab).
3.9. Robustness
The robustness of our morphological indices has been
discussed in the literature many times before (e.g., Ber-
shady et al. 2000; Lotz et al. 2006; Lisker 2008; Gray et
al. 2009). Generally speaking, such work suggests that
morphological statistics are relatively robust for large,
bright galaxies but that they can become unreliable at
faint magnitudes and for galaxies that are small with re-
spect to the observational PSF. Most of these previous
studies are tailored to the analysis of deep HST/ ACS
imaging in public survey fields however, and in order to
understand the effects of systematic biases on our WFC3
imaging data (and on our specific galaxies) it is necessary
to perform many robustness tests anew.
The details of our analysis exploring the robustness of
each of the five quantitative morphological statistics, and
the Sersic parameters To and n, to total source magnitude
HiQo, the size of the observational PSF, and our choice
of pixel scale are presented in the Appendix. In brief, we
find that:
1. The derived values of six of the seven indices are
fairly robust for galaxies with magnitudes i/igo l£
24.0 (roughly corresponding to total S/N > 100),
but become less reliable at fainter magnitudes. The
exception is the concentration parameter C, for
which the small sizes of many of our galaxies cause
the inner 20% flux isophote to be unresolved at all
magnitudes and therefore C to be unreliable (see
also Bershady et al. 2000). We therefore omit C
from detailed discussion, and restrict our analyses
in the following sections (except where indicated)
to the subsample of galaxies with Hiqq < 24.0, re-
sulting in a sample of 206 galaxies, 59/95/52 in the
z = 1.5 - 2.0, z = 2.0 - 2.5, and z = 2.5 - 3.6 red-
shift bins respectively. The physical implications of
this self-imposed apparent magnitude limit, and of
systematic variations with the observational PSF,
are discussed in the relevant sections below.
2. Six of the seven indices (except C) are robust to our
choice of a 0.08 arcsec pixel scale; our conclusions
would be unchanged if we had drizzled our data to
0.06 arcsec or 0.1 arcsec pixels instead.
3. Given the small size of many of our galaxies,
the nonparametric statistics G, M20, C, A, and
^ can vary systematically with the observational
PSF as morphological features become more or
less well-resolved (sec also discussion by Lotz et
al. 2004, 2008b). In particular, these five statis-
tics will have less dynamic range to their values
than in high-resolution imaging as it becomes pro-
gressively more difficult to distinguish them from
point sources. This complicates quantitative com-
parisons to data obtained at different wavelengths
or local comparison samples, but is less significant
for comparisons within the z ^ 1.5 — 3.6 popula-
tion. In contrast, the Sersic parameters r^ and n
are relatively robust to the PSF because the mod-
eling process convolves theoretical models with the
observational PSF.
4. The uncertainty in each of the seven indices is cal-
culated via Monte Carlo simulations placing GAL-
FIT model galaxies atop different blank-field re-
gions of the WFC3 footprint in order to compare
different realizations of the noise statistics. This
uncertainty varies as a function of both source mag-
nitude and morphological type; averaged over these
considerations, typical uncertainties are 3% in G,
4% in M20, 11% in G, 22% in A, 21% in ^, 2% in
re, and 15% in n.
4. BASIC MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
In Figure 4 we plot histograms of the five nonpara-
metric morphological statistics (G, G, ^, M20, and ^P)
and the Sersic index n divided according to redshift (we
discuss the evolution of the characteristic effective radius
in detail in §5). The typical star forming galaxy is best
represented by a Sersic profile of index n '^ 1, G ~ 0.5,
G ~ 3, * - 2, M20 1.5, and A - 0.25. Despite the
range of rest wavelengths probed by the F160W filter
across the redshift range of our sample (^ 3800 — 6100
A), there is no evidence to suggest systematic variation
with redshift across our sample (whether due to evolution
or to a variable morphological k-correction) . Applying a
Kolmogorov-Smirnoff (KS) test suggests that all six in-
dices arc consistent at > 7% confidence with the null
hypothesis that they are drawn from the same distribu-
tion at all redshifts.
In contrast, there is significant difference between
many of the morphological indices when divided accord-
ing to their apparent visual morphology (Figure 5), indi-
16
Law et al.
Fig. 4. — Histograms of morphological parameters divided ac-
cording to spectroscopic redshift and normalized by the total num-
ber of galaxies in each sample. Galaxies in all three redshift bins
are statistically consistent with G, C, n, 'I', M20, and A being
drawn from identical distributions (minimum confidence in the null
hypothesis 7%).
eating the underlying eorrelation between visual and nu-
merical classification techniques. In particular, we note
the strong correlation between visual type and the 'ir-
regularity' statistics ^, M20, and A. Broadly speaking,
Type I galaxies have ^ < 2, Type III galaxies have
2 < ^ < 5, and Type II galaxies have ^ > 5. While
VP is the statistic most strongly correlated with visual
estimates of irregularity, qualitatively similar results are
apparent for both A and M2o- As expected from our def-
inition of Type III galaxies, this galaxy sample also has
significantly lower mean values of G, and slightly shal-
lower Sersic indices.
4.1. Composite Luminosity Profile
As illustrated by Figures 4 and 5, typical galaxies are
best described by an n ~ 1 Sersic profile. Indeed, only
six galaxies have n > 2.5, of which four have estimated
radii less than our Scr resolution estimate, suggesting that
these galaxies are simply too small to robustly deter-
mine their structure. Focusing our attention on the 200
galaxies with n < 2.5 we find a mean (n) = 0.63 with
standard deviation of 0.39, corresponding to flat inner
regions intermediate between a Gaussian (n — 0.5) and
an exponential profile (n — 1.0), and a steeply declining
profile at larger radii (similar to previous results by, e.g.,
Ravindranath et al. 2006; Conselice et al. 2011b; Forster
Schreiber et al. 2011).
In order to investigate the faint extended structure of
our star forming galaxy sample we create a composite
stack of galaxies (irrespective of redshift and total ilieo
magnitude). We cut out 5x5 arcsec regions around each
galaxy, align all of the flux- weighted image centroids us-
ing sub-pixel bilinear interpolation, and stack the indi-
vidual images together using a 3cr-clipped mean algo-
rithm. The resulting stack for our 127 galaxies of mor-
phological type I (i.e., those galaxies whose morphologies
are most regular and well-defined) reaches a 3cr limiting
surface brightness of 27.8 AB arcsec"^ (31.2 AB for a 5ct
Fig. 5. — Histograms of morphological parameters divided ac-
cording to visual morphological classification and normalized by
the total number of galaxies in each sample. Galaxies in the three
visual classes have drastically different automated morphological
statistics, with only two pairings (G and n for Type I and Type
II galaxies) consistent with the null hypothesis at greater than 2%
confidence.
22
DQ
<
24
26
28
30
Type I:
.■'•»~-.....„i i n=1.38
! !\ XX n=1.18
i i '^ \\ r, = 2.04 kpc
— ! ! " -. '■ X-Xr-
- "^^%
1 "
10
r (kpc)
Fig. 6. — Radial profiles of stacked galaxy samples. The solid
black line represents the radial profile of a stack of 127 type I
galaxies, the solid red line represents the radial profile of a stack of
250 type I-I-III galaxies. Uncertainties at each point represent un-
certainties in the mean. The dotted red/black lines represent the
radial profile of the best-fit Sersic model convolved with the obser-
vational PSF (dashed line), the parameters of each Sersic model
are given. The vertical dot-dashed lines indicate the effective ra-
dius of the stacked images. The light/medium grey shaded areas
represents the 3(t sky background for the stack of 127/250 galaxies
respectively.
detection in a 0.2 arcsec radius aperture).
As illustrated in Figure 6 the stacked radial profile is
well described by an n = 1.38 Sersic model with effective
radius r^ — 1.36 kpc. The profile is a good match to the
Sersic model out to at least 6 kpc (> Are) and deviates
only moderately from the model out to the detection
limit at r ^ 15 kpc. As expected, including the Type III
galaxies (which, by definition, are more extended) in the
Morphological Properties of 2: ~ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
17
Fig. 7. — Histogram of axis ratios hja for the galaxy sample
(solid black line). Error bars represent Bayesian confidence inter-
vals (e.g., Cameron 2011) on the number of galaxies in each bin.
Green lines indicate the distribution of hja expected for inclined
disk models based on Monte Carlo simulations; solid, dotted, and
dashed green lines represent intrinsic disk thicknesses tq = 0.0,
0.2, and 0.4 respectively (x^ = 43.0, 21.5, 16.9). The solid blue line
indicates the expected distribution for a triaxial ellipsoid popula-
tion with intermediate/major and minor/major axis ratios of 0.7
and 0.3 respectively (x^ = 6.2), while the solid red line indicates
the expected distribution assuming a gaussian distribution of in-
trinsic intermediate/major and minor/major axis ratios with mean
0.7 and 0.3, and \a width 0.1 and 0.2 respectively (x^ = 1.2). The
high frequency noise in the model distributions represents statisti-
cal scatter in our Monte Carlo results.
stack results in a slightly larger characteristic effective
radius r^ = 2.04 kpc but a similarly good match to an
n ~ 1 Sersic model.
We caution, however, that while Figure 6 confirms
that n '^ 1 models are a fairly good representation of
z = 1.5 — 3.6 star forming galaxies, the stacked profile
does not account for variability in the size or orientation
of its component galaxies. By effectively discarding in-
formation about the projected ellipticity the stack over-
estimates the mean effective radius of the sample by a
factor ^ ^J {h/a). We discuss the characteristic sizes of
the star forming galaxies in detail in §5.
4.2. Distribution of Axial Ratios
In Figure 7 we plot a histogram of b/a for galaxies
with HiQQ < 24.0, n < 2.5, and both major and mi-
nor axis lengths well resolved (a total sample of 164
galaxies). -^^ The distribution^^ is strongly peaked about
^^ Since the K-S test indicates a greater than 50% likelihood of
the null hypothesis that the 1.5 < z < 2.0, 2.0 < 2: < 2.5, and
2.5 < z < 3.6 samples are drawn from the same distribution we
simply combine these three subsamples. Statistically indistinguish-
able results are obtained if we exclude Type II galaxies from our
analysis, or include galaxies with resolved major but unresolved
minor axes.
We assess the reliability of our b/a measurements using Monte
Carlo simulations. Artificial galaxies with magnitude, radius, Ser-
sic index, and position angle drawn at random from the observed
distributions and b/a uniformly distributed in the range — 1 are
created using GALFIT and placed within our WFC3 fields. We find
that the mean error (|(fe/a)n,odcl - (fe/a)moasurcdl> = 0.02 - 0.03
for values of (fe/a)^,^^^! > 0.3 and (|(fe/a),„odci - (fe/a)moasurcdl> =
0.07 - 0.1 for values of (fe/a)^,^^^! < 0.3.
(6/a)poak ~ 0.6 with tails extending to both extremes
b/a — and b/a = 1. As we demonstrate below, such
a distribution is strongly inconsistent with a population
of thick exponential disks as is commonly assumed in
the literature (e.g., Genzel et al. 2008) and much more
consistent with a population of triaxial ellipsoids.
As discussed by Padilla & Strauss (2008, and references
therein) for a large sample of local galaxies drawn from
the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), a population of
spiral galaxies with random orientations defines a distri-
bution in b/a that is relatively flat above some minimum
value corresponding to the edge-on thickness of the disks.
Taking i to be the inclination of such a disk to the line
of sight (where i = 0° represents a disk viewed face-on) ,
the observed axial ratio (b/a) of a flattened axisymmet-
ric system is given by (see, e.g., Hubble 1926; TuUy &
Fisher 1977):
cos I =
1
where tq is the intrinsic minor/major axis ratio for a
perfectly edge-on system. In the thin-disk approxima-
tion rg = and Equation 10 reduces to the familiar
b/a — cosi. In the local universe, typical values for ro
range from tq ~ 0.20 for Sa-type to ~ 0.08 for Sd-type
galaxies (Guthrie 1992; Ryden 2006), although variations
can also occur with wavelength (e.g., Dalcanton & Bern-
stein 2002). At redshifts z > 1.5 however, star forming
galaxies are known to have signiflcant vertical velocity
dispersion (e.g.. Law et al. 2009; Forster Schreiber et al.
2009), and analysis of five of the most disk-like objects
(based on velocity maps derived from integral field spec-
troscopy) indicates that the median rp ~ 0.34 (Genzel et
al. 2008). For more typical dispersion-dominated galax-
ies {v/a < 1) To might be expected to be even larger.
We perform Monte Carlo tests in which we artificially
observe a sample of 10® fiattened axisymmetric disks
from a random distribution of inclinations.^^ Formally,
we quantify the difference between the observational data
and the model by the statistic
1 ^
(iv,
model
iVobs)'
i=l
N,
obs
(11)
where iVobs is the number of galaxies observed in each
of our I? = 10 bins in b/a, f = 8, and iVmodci is the
number of galaxies expected in each bin according to the
assumed model. We overplot the distribution of b/a ob-
tained using such fiattened axisymmetric disk models on
the observational data in Figure 7. Regardless of the
value of ro adopted, it is not possible to satisfactorily ex-
plain the observed distribution of b/a; ro — 0.0, 0.2, and
0.4 models have x^ — 43.0,21.5, and 16.9 respectively.
In contrast, the peaked distribution of b/a is exactly
the form expected for a population of randomly ori-
ented triaxial ellipsoids such as that found by van den
Bergh (1988) for a sample of local irregular galaxies. We
^^ Strictly, we observe a single model galaxy from random view-
ing angles in the spherical polar coordinate system (6,0), where
the random viewing positions are distributed uniformly in the az-
imuthal coordinate 0° < 6 < 360° and the cosine of the polar
coordinate —90° < </> < 90° , thereby uniformly covering the sky as
seen from the perspective of the model galaxy.
18
Law et al.
r.
y 0.5-
Fig. 8. — Logarithmic plot of y^ of the fit between model and
observed distribution of axis ratios hja as a function of r^ and Vy
scalelengths. Since r^ = 1.0 is fixed, Tx and Vy effectively probe
the range of intermediate/major and minor/major axis ratios in the
range 0.1 - 1.0. The plot is symmetric about the line r^. = Ty since
these parameters are notationally interchangeable. The minimum
of x^ is well-defined at (r-^,r„) = (0.7,0.3) with x^ = 6.2. By
comparison, the x of the 'saddle point'
: 0.5 is x^ = 29.0.
therefore repeat our Monte Carlo analysis assuming the
the galaxies can be characterized as triaxial ellipsoids
with axis lengths r^ , r.
y, '
Calculating the projected
minor/major axis ratio b/a of a triaxial ellipsoidal sur-
face viewed in an arbitrary orientation is an interesting
problem in its own right, and we discuss the details of
this calculation in Appendix B. Since we are only in-
terested in axial ratios rather than the absolute lengths
we set Tj = 1 and consider a grid of values in the range
r^,rj/ = 0.1, 0.2, ...,1.0.
In Figure 8 we show a surface plot of x^ ^-s a func-
tion of r^ and Vy. The best agreement between model
and observations clearly occurs for a well-defined region
around {rx,ry = 0.7,0.3). The expected distribution of
b/a for {rx,ry — 0.7,0.3) is shown in Figure 7. While
this is clearly a better description of the observations
than the axisymmetric disk model (particularly in the
expected number of systems with b/a > 0.8) it is still
imperfect (x^ = 6.2; v = 7), predicting no galaxies with
b/a < 0.3 and a large excess with b/a ~ 0.35 — 0.45.
These remaining imperfections likely reflect the intrinsic
range of morphologies within the galaxy sample- rather
than every galaxy having an identical shape there is un-
doubtedly some range about these values. Permitting a
more realistic distribution of axis ratios (i.e., picking r^
and Ty at random from gaussian distributions with mean
0.7 and 0.3, and la width 0.1 and 0.2 respectively), it
is possible to reproduce the observed distribution of b/a
extremely well (solid red line in Figure 7; x^ = 1-2 with
i/ = 5).
At present, it is meaningless to distinguish between
minor/major axis ratios of 0.2 versus 0.3, or to state
with certainty that a gaussian distribution of intrinsic
axis ratios is appropriate. Our fundamental conclusion,
however, is that the majority of z = 1.5 — 3.6 star forming
galaxies are best represented by triaxial systems rather
than geometrically thick disks (as previously discussed
by Ravindranath et al. 2006 and Elmegreen et al. 2005)
and it is worth asking what this means in a physical
sense.
Given the overall similarity between the rest-UV and
rest-optical morphology (§4.3) it may simply be that light
from clumpy (and asymmetrically distributed) star form-
ing regions within galaxies (e.g., Bournaud et al. 2009)
dominates the emergent flux at both UV and optical
wavelengths. Alternatively, since we derived b/a for the
brightest subcomponent of each galaxy we may be mea-
suring the intrinsic shape distribution of individual giant
star forming clumps. However, the peaked distribution
of b/a persists if we restrict our attention to the most
regular single-component systems (i.e., Type I galaxies)
suggesting that we are observing galaxy scale structures
with characteristic radii ~ 1 — 3 kpc. Similarly, the dis-
tribution of b/a persists for galaxies with stellar masses
greater than IO^^Mq in which stellar continuum emission
should be well detected in the WFC3 imaging data, sug-
gesting that the stellar mass distribution itself is strongly
asymmetric.
Combining our morphological results with observations
(e.g.. Law et al. 2007a, 2009; Forster Schreiber et al.
2009) that typical z ~ 2 — 3 star forming galaxies have
large gas fractions, high velocity dispersions > 50 km
s^^, and velocity fields that are in many cases incon-
sistent with rotationally-supported disk models (espe-
cially at lower stellar masses; see discussion by Law et
al. 2009), we suggest that the distribution of stars and
gas in these rapidly star-forming galaxies may be inher-
ently triaxial rather than residing largely in a geomet-
rically thick disk. Such a distribution of gas would be
gravitationally unstable, suggesting that the life cycle of
z '^ 2 — 3 star forming galaxies may be continually pass-
ing in and out of dynamical equilibrium (e.g., Ceverino
et al. 2010). In such a scenario, gas disks may be only
short-lived and continuously forming from recently ac-
creted gas (whether acquired from mergers or hot/cold
mode accretion; e.g., Dekel et al. 2009a, Keres et al.
2009), rapidly becoming disrupted, and reforming again
until the triaxial stellar component (perhaps a precursor
of modern-day bulges) acquires sufficient mass to stabi-
lize the growth of a long-lived and extended gas disk (e.g.,
Martig et al. 2010). We discuss additional observational
support for such a scenario based on low-ionization gas
phase kinematics in a companion paper (Law et al. 2012,
in preparation).
We note that both our results and conclusions are qual-
itatively consistent with those of Ravindranath et al.
(2006), 16 who used HST/ ACS imaging in the GOODS
iields to demonstrate that the rest-UV morphologies of
star-forming galaxies at z ~ 3 — 4 also have a peaked
distribution of ellipticities. While we found the distri-
bution for rest-optical morphologies to be peaked about
(6/a)poak ^ 0.6 however, Ravindranath et al. (2006)
found (6/a)pcak ^ 0.5/0.3 for galaxies at z = 3/4 respec-
tively as seen in the rest-UV. This difference may be ex-
plained in part by the difference in rest-frame wavelength
probed by the two studies; it is perhaps unsurprising that
the ellipticity of star forming galaxies in the young uni-
verse changes slightly from rest-frame 2000 A(tracing the
regions of most recent star formation) to rest-frame 5000
A(tracing the older stellar population). In contrast, van
der Wei et al. (2011) observed a relatively flat distribu-
tion of b/a (above b/a ~ 0.5) for a sample of 14 massive
(M* > 8 X lO^^Af©) compact quiescent galaxies at z ^ 2.
^^' More recently, see also Yuma et al. (2011).
Morphological Properties of z^ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
19
While this may represent a fundamental structural dif-
ference between the star-forming and quiescent galaxy
samples, we caution that the quiescent galaxies are ten
times more massive than the typical star forming galaxy
in our survey, and note that if increasing stellar mass
stabilizes the formation of disks then star forming galax-
ies of similarly high mass may prove to have similarly
disk-like ellipticities.
4.3. Rest-Optical vs Rest-UV Morphologies
One of our fields (Q1700-I-64) was imaged previously
using HST/ ACS with the F814W filter (GO-10581, PI:
Shapley). This filter (Acff = 8332 A) traces rest-UV
wavelengths ranging from 2000-3000 A, depending on the
redshift of the target galaxy. The detailed morpholo-
gies resulting from this rest-UV imaging program have
already been discussed elsewhere (Peter et al. 2007).
Here we compare the rest-optical and rest-UV morpholo-
gies of galaxies overlapping with our WFC3/IR imaging.
For consistency we rc-rcducc the raw observational data
from GO-10581, drizzling them to a 0.08 arcsec pixel
scale and smoothing them to a FWHM of 0.18 arcsec in
order to match the observational characteristics of our
WFC3/IR imaging data. We calculate that the F814W
image reaches a limiting depth of 28.7 AB for a 5(t de-
tection within a 0.2 arcsec radius aperture, or '-^ 1 mag
deeper than our WFC3/IR imaging data.
We show the morphologies of the 18 star forming
galaxies that overlap between the two samples in Fig-
ure 9. Qualitatively, we note that the morphologies
of most galaxies are similar in both rest-UV and rest-
optical bandpasses; morphological irregularities or mul-
tiple components visible in one bandpass are similarly
visible in the other, resulting in a small morphological k-
correction (see discussion by Conselice et al. 2011b). The
smallest variation is exhibited by galaxies of low stellar
mass (for which the light from young stars might rea-
sonably be expected to dominate both the rest-UV and
rest-optical light of the galaxy), while high- mass galax-
ies exhibit greater differences consistent with the estab-
lishment of an evolved stellar population. In particu-
lar, the galaxies that were observed to be extremely low
surface-brightness, red {TZ — Kg ^3 AB), 'wispy' sys-
tems in the rest-UV tend to be high-mass systems that
are much brighter and well-nucleated in the rest-optical
(e.g., Q1700-MD103, Q1700-BX767). This resuh is sim-
ilar to that found by Toft et al. (2005) for a population
of red star forming galaxies.
We quantify this morphological difference by calculat-
ing the internal color dispersion ^ (Papovich et al. 2005)
after carefully aligning the ACS and WFC3 images using
the measured centroids of 10 stars.
^(.^1' ^2) - ^^77 3T^ ^Tr5 ZWT?. ^1^)
Eih
-j:iB2-aB,]
where /i and I2 are the pixel fluxes in the F814W and
F160W bandpasses, a — Ylih h) / Yli^i) is a scaling
factor describing the overall color of the galaxy, /? ad-
justs for the variable background level, and Bi and
B2 represent blank background sky regions in each im-
age, a is set by minimizing the sum X](-^2 — Oilif'i i-e.
a = X](-^i^2)/ X](-^i )• The sum is performed over all pix-
els in the F160W segmentation map. The background
sums were done by adopting the mean from the calcu-
lation performed on the segmentation map grafted onto
1000 different regions of blank sky.
Values for ^ calculated for each galaxy are quoted in
Figure 9, and confirm our visual impression that the UV
and optical morphologies differ more greatly for high-
mass (alternatively, red) galaxies. At the low-mass end
(M* < 101°Mq) {I) = 0.02, while for galaxies with M* >
lOi°M0 we find (0 = 0.09, peaking at ^ = 0.28 for the
highest-mass galaxy Q1700-BX767 which displays a red
core with a surrounding blue ring. Similar trends were
noted by Labbe et al. (2003), who found significant rest-
UV to rest-optical morphological differences for a sample
of six ii'-bright z '-^ 1.4 — 3 disk galaxies, and Papovich
et al. (2005), who noted that their galaxies with the
highest values of ^ were those with the reddest colors.
We caution that there are relatively few galaxies in our
sample however, and recent work by Bond et al. (2011)
looking at the rest-optical vs rest-UV morphologies of
117 (1.4 < z < 2.9) star forming galaxies in the GOODS-
S field found a similar mean ^ — 0.02 but no evidence for
a correlation with galaxy color. In the near future we
anticipate that the relation between rest-UV and rest-
optical morphology will be greatly refined by the large-
area and multi-band CANDELS survey (Grogin et al.
2011; Koekcmocr et al. 2011).
It is also possible to compare the effective radii r^ de-
rived in each of the two bandpasses. Similarly to But-
ton et al. (2010) and Barden et al. (2005), we find
(Figure 10) that the rest-UV sizes of these galaxies are
21 ± 2% larger on average than their optical sizes, al-
though there is increasing scatter in the relation at large
radii (i.e., large mass) in part because these galaxies are
red [n- Ks^i AB) and poorly defined in the F814W
data. This relation is largely unchanged if the Sersic
index n of the radial profile is kept fixed between the
F160W and F814W data.
5. THE STELLAR MASS RADIUS RELATION
5.1. Observed Relation
In Figure 11 we plot the effective circularized radius Tg
as a function of stellar mass for all galaxies with H^b ^
24.0 and Sersic index n < 2.5, constituting a sample of
59/93/50 galaxies in the z = 1.5 - 2.0/2.0 - 2.5/2.5 - 3.6
redshift ranges respectively. Of these 202 galaxies, 9 (~
4%) have effective radii consistent with an unresolved
point source, and may represent either the compact end
of the galaxy distribution or faint AGN (albeit with no
obvious signature in the UV spectra or broadband SED
out to ~ 7000 A rest frame).
Figure 11 indicates that galaxies occupy a large range
of effective radii at all redshifts z = 1.5 — 3.6 and stel-
lar masses M^, = 10^ — IO^^Mq with the la standard
deviation of the distribution ~ 0.2 dex comparable to
the scatter in the local star forming galaxy relation (e.g.,
Shcnetal. 2003). Despite the large width of the distribu-
tion in Tg, however, there is a mean mass-radius relation
in place at early as z '-^ 3 that evolves with decreasing
redshift. Binning our sample by redshift and stellar mass
we calculate" that (r^) = 1.29 ± 0.11 (1.65 ± 0.18) kpc
for galaxies in the mass range M, < 10^° (> 10^°)Mo
^^ Values represent the 2.5(T-clippcd mean.
20
Q1700-BX635 (z==1.8605)
Law et al.
Q1700-MD104(z=2.7491)
Q1700-BM605 (z=T.5266)
0.54 nm
•
0.28 [im
IV1^= 9e8 Mq
0.4 1 urn
0.21 urn
♦
«
•
M,= 2e9 Ma
^^af'^''_f-''
r
• - 1 .
t
^V^-v
Ql 700-MD97 (z=2.7521 )
Q1700-IVlD119(z=2.5816)
Q1700-BX7S6 (z=1.7382)
0.21 [un
e= 0.02, t -J]
0.43 nm
i
•
0.22 nm
IV1,= 3e9 Mg
1 =a6i * ::
■«
* . ■ ■'.
^ggr w
Q1700-D39(z=2.9858)
Q1700-BX717 (z=2.4353)
Q1700-BX670 (z-2.7406)
0.39 am
•
0.20 urn
lVl^=3e9MQ
%
0.45 nm
•
0.23 nm
M*= 4g9 Mo
ft
^1^
Fig. 9. — Rest-frame UV and optical morphologies are shown (greyscale images) for 18 galaxies imaged with both HST/WFCS-IR and
HST/ ACS in the Q1700-I-64 field, sorted in order of increasing stellar mass. Both images use an arcsinh stretch with the blackpoint set
to 21.8 AB arcsec"^. For each galaxy we indicate the systemic redshift, stellar mass, and the effective rest-frame wavelength probed
by the F160W and F814W filters. The lower left-hand panel for each galaxy represents a RGB color map of the system (R=F160W,
G=B=F814W), the lower-right hand panels are maps of the color dispersion ^.
respectively at redshift z = 2.5 — 3.6, increasing with
cosmic time to {r^) = 1.34 ± 0.07 (1.84 ± 0.13) kpc by
z = 2.0 - 2.5, and to {r^) = 1.56 ±0.11 (2.33 ± 0.20) kpc
by z = 1.5 — 2.0 (see summary in Table 3). These re-
sults are consistent with the early values calculated for a
subset of our sample by Nagy et al. (2011) to within the
estimated uncertainty; the strongest evolution in effec-
tive radius with redshift occurs for higher mass galaxies
M^. > IO^^Mq. Parameterizing the stellar mass-radius
relation as Vc ^ M" we find that the best-fit value of
the powerlaw index a = 0.22 ± 0.05, 0.13 ± 0.05, and
0.09 ± 0.06 for the redshift z = 1.5 - 2.0, 2.0 - 2.5, and
2.5 — 3.6 intervals respectively.
As indicated by the top histogram in Figure 11 the
three redshift samples each probe galaxies with a slightly
different range of stellar masses, and it is therefore use-
ful to calculate a normalized quantity Te/rsDSS for each
galaxy, where rgDSS as a function of M* (solid black line
in Figure 11) is the mean effective circularized radius for
late-type (i.e., n < 2.5) low-redshift galaxies in the SDSS
(Shen et al. 2003). As indicated by Figure 12, typical
star forming galaxies at fixed stellar mass were signif-
icantly smaller at z > 1.5 than in the nearby universe,
with (re/rsDSs) = 0.70±0.04, 0.59±0.03, and 0.45±0.02
for the z = 1.5 — 2.0, 2.0 — 2.5, and 2.5 — 3.6 samples re-
Morphological Properties oi z ^ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
Q1700-MD92 (z=2.6859) Q1700-IV1D98 (z=2.7521) Q1700-BX632{z=2.2366)
21
0.42 \im
m
•
0.22 \\.m
M»= 6e9 Mq
0.4? nm
0.27 nm
J
#
•
M,= 8e9 Me
r-5^
#
i,
r
<■
•(
0.47 iim
•
0.25 \im
M,^=1elOMQ
'i^o.oo
1
Q^ 700-MD1 09 (z=2.2942)
0.47 \im
m
•
0.24 [tm
*
M*= 9e9 Mg
i = 0.0l
w
Qr700-BX720(z=1.8726)
0.54 \im
•
0.28 yym
IVl^=2elOMo
S = 0.06
^
#
Q1700-BX691 (z=2.1895)
0.48 [xm
•
0.25 \xm
M,= 3e10Mg
"t = 0.02
Q1700-BX759 (z=2.4213)
Q1700-MD103 (z:=2.3148)
Q1700-BX767 (z=1.8435)
0.45 y.m
•
0.2J (.1171
lVl^=3e10M©
| = 0.p2 V_
i
t
-* r
046 urn
•
0.24 nm
M»=5elOMa
1 i 0.09
i«
0.54 [.im
•
0.28 ^im
M^t=TeT1 Mq
-i.^0.28
4'
^
*/
Fig. 9. — Continued
(log(M./M0))
(log(M,/MQ))
(log(M./MQ)>
(log(M./MQ))
TABLE 3
Mean Circularized Effective Radii and Stellar Masses
z
M, = 103-"AfQ
M, = lO^-i^Afo
M. = 10"'-"AfQ
1.5-3.6
1.5-2.0
2.0-2.5
2.5-3.6
1.58 ± 0.05 kpc
1.82 ±0.11 kpc
1.60 ± 0.07 kpc
1.35 ±0.09 kpc
1.39 ±0.06 kpc
1.56 ±0.11 kpc
1.34 ± 0.07 kpc
1.29 ±0.11 kpc
1.91 ±0.10 kpc
2.33 ± 0.20 kpc
1.84 ±0.13 kpc
1.65 ±0.18 kpc
(r-c/rsDSs)
(rc/r-SDSs)
(j-c/rsBSs)
(rc/r-SDSs)
1.5-3.6
1.5-2.0
2.0-2.5
2.5-3.6
0.60 ±0.02
0.70 ±0.04
0.59 ±0.03
0.45 ±0.02
0.60 ±0.02
0.68 ±0.05
0.60 ±0.03
0.46 ± 0.03
0.59 ±0.03
0.73 ±0.06
0.57 ±0.04
0.51 ±0.07
1.5-3.6
1.5-2.0
2.0-2.5
2.5-3.6
9.88
9.81
9.96
9.85
9.58
9.52
9.61
9.62
10.38
10.41
10.37
10.45
22
Law et al.
o
o
CD
, , ,
_ Q1700+64
/ ;.
/ °/' '
^''
^''
^
-
/O y
'' u
O
/ 0'
-
/
y
-
/ '
,^
0/ y
X
-
/ ^
Yy
+
/y ^
/_J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L_
1 1 1 1 1 1
r^ [F814W] (kpc)
Fig. 10.— Effective radius for galaxies in the Q 1700+64 field
observed with F160W (rest-frame 4000 - 5000A) versus F814W
(rest-frame 2000 — 3000A). Blue, black, and red points represent
galaxies in the z = 1.5 — 2.0, 2 = 2.0 — 2.5, and z = 2.5 — 3.6 redshift
intervals respectively, while crosses, open boxes, and open circles
represent galaxies of visual type I, II, and III. The grey shaded
regions indicate the 3cr limit on unresolved point sources in each
bandpass. The solid lines indicate 1-1 relations, while the dashed
line indicates rest-UV radii 21% larger than the rest-optical. A
typical uncertainty is indicated by the symbol in the lower right
corner.
spectively.^^ If galaxies at fixed stellar mass in the range
M, = 10^ — 10^^ Mq can be assumed to grow with red-
shift as Te ~ (1 + z)'^, a linear least squares fit to the
data indicates that 7 = —1.07 ± 0.28 between z — 3.6
and z = 1.5 (solid line in Figure 12). This is consistent
with similar determinations 7 = —1.3 and 7 = —1.11
found for massive star forming galaxies by van Dokkum
et al. (2010) and Mosleh et al. (2011) respectively. Ex-
trapolation of this power law suggests that actively star
forming galaxies in the young universe may evolve onto
the local late-type mass-radius relation by z ~ 1 (al-
though see §5.4), consistent with recent evidence that
the mass-radius relation for star-forming galaxies evolves
only weakly in the redshift interval z = — 1 (Barden et
al. 2005).
Individual star forming galaxies, however, grow in both
stellar mass and radius simultaneously and eventually
evolve into typical '^ L* galaxies by the present day as in-
dicated by clustering analyses (e.g., Conroy et al. 2008).
Given the shallow observed mass-radius relation for star
forming galaxies at z = 1.5 — 3.6, it is clearly not pos-
sible for individual galaxies to evolve along this relation
to match the local sample. Rather, galaxies need to add
mass at large radii via steeper growth of the form r ~ M
or r '^ Af^ as illustrated in Figure 13 (see also Figure
8 of van Dokkum et al. 2010). Such growth may be
consistent with expectations for major and minor merg-
ers respectively (e.g., Bezanson et al. 2009, Naab et al.
2009 for early- type galaxies).
5.2. Comparison with Previous Results
^® Since our galaxies were selected from unresolved ground-based
imaging data we do not expect intrinsic size to have an effect on
our selection function.
In Figure 13 we plot the best-fit power law model of
the stellar mass — radius relation for our z = 2.0 — 2.5
galaxy sample against a variety of previous observational
samples available in the literature. ^^ Our results are
generally consistent at the 1 — 2cr level with previous
studies that, due to observational limitations, have typi-
cally been conducted for galaxies with high stellar masses
M* > 101°Mq (e.g., Franx et al. 2008; Toft et al. 2009;
Williams et al. 2010; Targett et al. 2011) and extend
these previous results down to M* ^ IO^Mq.
The most direct comparison can be made to Mosleh et
al. (2011), who used deep ground-based i^-band imaging
across the GOODS-N field to measure the characteristic
sizes of 41 massive (Af* = 10^° - 10'^'^Mq) BM/BX star-
forming galaxies in the redshift range z = 1.4 — 2.7 and
4 LBGs in the redshift range z = 2.7 — 3.5 for which
spectroscopic redshifts have been made publicly avail-
able by Reddy et al. (2006). Although these target
galaxies were selected and spectroscopically confirmed
in a manner identical to our own sample, we find sig-
nificant disagreement with respect to the mean r^. as a
function of stellar mass. As given in their Table 3, the
Mosleh et al. (2011) BM/BX galaxy sample has a me-
dian mass of log(A^*/A^Q) — 10.4 and median radius
of Te — 2.68 ± 0.19 kpc, and the LBG sample a me-
dian mass of log(Af,/Af0) = 10.3 and median radius of
Tc = 2.22 ± 0.61 kpc. Within the same ranges of redshift
and stellar mass, our BM/BX and LBG samples have
2.5(T-clipped mean radii of re,c = 1-91 ± 0.10 kpc and
To = 1.62 ± 0.28 kpc respectively. Ahhough our WFC3
imaging data are significantly deeper {'^ 2.5 mag) and
better resolved (0.18 arcsec vs. ~ 0.5 arcsec) than the
ground-based i^-band imaging, our experience with the
robustness of re (see §A) and tests degrading our images
to the quality of the ground-based data do not suggest an
obvious instrumental reason for the large '^ Aa difference
in the mean values. ^°
A particularly valuable comparison can also be made to
Forster Schreiber et al. (2011), who used 7J5T/NICMOS
F160W (PSF FWHM ~ 0.14 arcsec) to study the rest-
optical morphologies of 6 massive star-forming galaxies
at z = 2.0 — 2.5 selected from the SINS Ha integral-
field kinematics survey (Forster Schreiber et al. 2009).
Each of these six galaxies are plotted as colored circles
in Figure 13; we convert their measurements to circular-
ized effective radii by multiplying by \/b/a as tabulated
in their Table 4.^^ Two of these six galaxies were also
observed as part of our HST/WFC3 imaging program:
Q1623-BX528 and Q2343-BX389. While our measured
effective radii for Q1623-BX528 differ by ~ 30% due to
a different number of morphological components used to
fit the complicated light distribution (Forster Schreiber
et al. 2011 used two components, while we used three),
our radii for the single-component Q2343-BX389 agree
to within 1%, suggesting that there is negligible system-
atic difference between the radii calculated by the two
^^ Where necessary, results have been converted to a Chabricr
IMF and circularized effective half-light radii.
■^^ Likewise, using the median instead of the sigma-clipped mean
makes a negligible difference to our calculations.
■^^ We plot the r^ of the brightest component from their two-
component fit to the galaxy Q1623-BX528 for consistency with
our procedure described in §3.2.
Morphological Properties oi z ^ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
23
10
« = 0.22±0.05
a = 0.13±0.05
c( = 0.09±0.06
O--^
D ^
a
tf^G^d X X ^
n
O " n
X O xO O o >^
X
X X
m m
Q
: ? \/wif M t
Q
X D
„X nCI
J I I I I I I I I
J L
Blue: 1.5^z<2.0
Black: 2.0Sz<2.
Red: 2,5Sz<3,6
xType I
nType II
OType HI
I I I I il
J ll
10'
10
10
10
11
M. {MJ
Fig. 11. — Effective circularized radius Tc as a function of stellar mass M. . Symbols are as in Figure 10, upper limits for unresolved
sources are denoted with arrows. The filled circles and error bars represent the mean value and associated uncertainty for galaxies in
each redshift bin with stellar masses Af* < IO^^A/q and A/, > IO^^A/q. The solid black line and shaded grey region indicate the mean
low-redshift relation and its la scatter for late-type galaxies from Shen et al. (2003), while the blue/black/ red dashed lines indicate the
best-fitting power-law relation of the form re ~ M" for the z = 1.5 — 2.0/2.0 — 2.5/2.5 — 3.6 samples respectively.
surveys. Except for the multicomponent Q1623-BX528
(which Forster Schreiber et al. 2009 classify as a merger
on the basis of kinematic data and multi-component
rest-frame optical continuum morphology) , all of the
galaxies studied by Forster Schreiber et al. (2011) have
radii roughly twice the mean size of their parent color-
selected, spectroscopically confirmed galaxy population
at a given stellar mass and lie in the top 5% of the Tc
distribution for our observed sample of BM/BX galax-
ies at z = 2.0 — 2.5. This suggests that the subset of
galaxies observed by Forster Schreiber et al. (2011), the
majority of which were selected to be the most disk-like
within the SINS z ~ 2 sample, falls among the high Tc ex-
treme of the galaxy population in the stellar mass range
M* '^ 10^° — IO^^Mq (see also discussion by Law et al.
2009; Button et al. 2010), while following some of the
general trends observed at this redshift between size, spe-
cific SFR, and stellar mass surface density (Franx et al.
2008). We expand upon this discussion by relating the
morphologies of these galaxies (plus 12 additional galax-
ies from the OSIRIS and/or SINS kinematic surveys that
fell within our WFC3 imaging fields) to their ionized-
gas kinematics in a forthcoming contribution (Law et al.
2012, in preparation).
5.3. Comparison with Theoretical Simulations
Although theoretical simulations of z ^ 2 — 3 star form-
ing galaxies are still in their infancy, the sizes predicted
by such simulations are in rough agreement with our ob-
served values. In Figure 13 (dotted and dashed lines) we
illustrate the results of two such models from Sales et al.
(2010) and Button et al. (2010) respectively.
Sales et al. (2010) use cosmological A^-body/SPH sim-
ulations to model the growth of baryonic structures in
24
Law et al.
Fig. 12. — Effective circularized radius r^ as a fraction of the
local relation (rgoss) a-t a given stellar mass as a function of red-
shift. Symbols are as in Figure 11; filled circles represent the mean
and associated uncertainty of galaxies in each of the three red-
shift ranges. Parametrizing the evolution of galaxy size with red-
shift as ro ~ (1 + z)'', the solid line indicates the best-fit value
of 7 = —1.07 ± 0.28, while the the dashed/dotted lines represent
the 1(T uncertainties on the index of 7 = —1.35 and 7 = —0.79
respectively.
galaxies for four different feedback prescriptions. Of
these four prescriptions, their "WF2Dec" model most
closely matches both our observations and our physical
understanding of these galaxies; in this model relatively
strong feedback from star forming regions results in the
efficient removal of gas from galaxies via an outflowing
wind with velocity ~ 600 km s^^ . Such peak outflow
velocities are generally consistent with observations for
our BM/BX/LBG galaxy sample (see, e.g., Steidel et al.
2010). As discussed by Sales et al. (2010), as feedback
strength increases it suppresses star formation so that
galaxies of a given stellar mass tend to inhabit larger
haloes and can thus have correspondingly larger char-
acteristic sizes. Assuming that their stellar half-mass
radii roughly correspond to visible-band half-light radii,
and converting to circularized values by multiplying by
{yjb/a) « 0.77, we plot their predicted stellar mass —
radius relation in Figure 13 (dotted line). The model is
generally consistent with our observations, although it
slightly underpredicts the typical galaxy size by ^ 0.1
dex. In contrast, in models with no feedback the ma-
jority of stars form in dense systems at early times, re-
sulting in mean circularized half-light radii ~ 0.5 kpc at
Af, ^ lO^^M© that disagree strongly with our observa-
tions.
Dutton et al. (2010) also study the evolution of scaling
relationships with redshift using a series of semi-analytic
models that roughly reproduce the velocity-mass-radius
relations at z = 0. In particular, they focus on the evolu-
tion of the zero-point calibration of these relations, pre-
dicting that the evolution from z — 2 to z — Q shifts the
mass-radius relation upwards in radius by ^ 0.3 dex. As
illustrated in Figure 13 (dashed line), the magnitude of
this zeropoint shift is consistent with our observations at
M* ~ 10^°Mq (i.e., the mass at which the models also
overlap the observed local relation). ^^
^^ The slope of the Dutton et al. (2010) relation is too steep
to match the observational data, but this is simply because their
study was not intended to address the mass dependence of the
5.4. Caveats
We close by discussing a few of the caveats and com-
plications that can affect the mass-radius relation that
we have derived.
First, the galaxies in the z = 2.5 — 3.6 subsample have
fainter i?i6o magnitudes than galaxies in the lower red-
shift bins (Figure 1), and Figure 22 demonstrated (see
discussion in §A.2) that the recovered value of r^ can
vary as a function of total source magnitude. However,
this effect does not significantly influence our conclu-
sions. First, To is extremely stable for galaxies with
isolated morphologies and small radii characteristic of
much of the observational sample. While Tc is less ro-
bust to i?i6o magnitude for larger and more irregular
galaxies, the majority of the variation occurs for magni-
tudes i?i6o > 24.0 which we deliberately exclude from
our analysis. The mean observed magnitudes of our
1.5 < z < 2.0, 2.0 < z < 2.5, and 2.5 < z < 3.6 samples
are (-ffieo) = 23.1,23.2,23.5 respectively. Across such a
small range Ai/igo = 0.4 mag the change in radius for all
morphological types is < 4%, comparable to the statis-
tical uncertainty in the quoted (?'c/?'SDSs)- Indeed, even
were we to include faint galaxies with i/ieo > 24.0 in
our analysis we find that the mean values of (rc/rsDSs)
change by < la.
It is also possible that our results may be biased due to
our assumption that the radius r^. of a multi-component
system may be characterized by the radius of the bright-
est individual component, while our stellar masses (de-
rived from seeing-limited ground-based photometry and
similarly confused 5pitzer/IRAC photometry) represent
the integral over the light of all of the components. If
we repeat our previous analyses instead assuming that
the stellar mass of these systems is proportional to the
fraction of the iJieo hux in the primary component, or
simply omitting galaxies with multiple well-defined indi-
vidual components from our analysis, we find that values
for (ro/rsDss) in each of the three redshift bins are con-
sistent with their previously calculated values to within
~ 1(7. We are therefore confident that our results are not
significantly affected by our assumption of how to define
To for multi-component systems.
Some of the apparent evolution in characteristic ra-
dius at fixed stellar mass from z ~ 3 to z < 2 may
also be due to the variable iC-correction in our fixed
observational bandpass. With an effective wavelength
of Acff = 15369A, the F160W filter probes rest frame
5548, 4758, and 4044 A emission at the mean redshift of
three samples ((z) = 1.77,2.23,2.80). However, we note
that the effective radii derived for our galaxies in the
Q 1700-1-64 field varied by only ~ 20% from rest- frame
5000A to rest-frame 2500A; linear interpolation suggests
that the change from 5000A to 4000A would be much
smaller, < 8%. Similarly, Dutton et al. (2010) make
theoretical predictions for the difference in effective ra-
dius between a variety of optical/NIR bandpasses; in-
terpolating their results suggests that we might expect
a systematic increase of 0.04 ± 0.03 dex in log(rc) from
the lowest to highest redshift sample (i.e., sizes measured
at longer wavelengths are smaller than those measured
at shorter wavelengths, corresponding to inside-out disk
galaxy mass vs. halo mass fraction.
Morphological Properties of z '-^ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
25
10
1 -
A BOB
X K09
O W09
^ CIO
■ Mil
• F11-BX528
• F11-BX663
O F11-MD41
O F11-BX389
O F11-BX610
• F11-BX482
10'
10
10
10
11
M. (MJ
Fig. 13. — Stellar mass vs. circularized effective radius compared to observational and theoretical results in the literature. The solid line
represents our power law fit to the z = 2.0 — 2.5 relation log(rc/kpc) = 0.131og(M./MQ) — 1.09, with the la uncertainty in the mean and
1(7 width of the distribution indicated by dark/light grey shaded regions respectively. The local late-type galaxy relation from Shen et al.
(2003; S03) is indicated by a solid blue line. Observational data correspond to Buitrago et al. (2008; BOS), Franx et al. (2008; F08), Kriek
et al. (2009; K09), Toft et al. (2009; T09), Williams et al. (2009; W09), Carrasco et al. (2010; CIO), Mosleh et al. (2011; Mil), and
Forster Schreiber et al. (2011; Fll). The selection criteria of each of these studies are discussed in the text, the shaded regions for F08
and T09 correspond to the la uncertainty in the mean. We also plot the "WF2Dec" simulation of Sales et al. (2010; dotted line), and the
simulation of Dutton et al. (2011; dashed line). The arrows represent growth of the form Tc ~ Af* and re ~ M^ for reference.
growth) due to such bandshifting. This is comparable
to the formal uncertainty on our measured (^c/rsoss)
in each of the 3 redshift bins, and would represent only
a minor correction. Likewise, the results of Barden et
al. (2005; see their Fig. 2) suggest that the correction
factor would be < 2%, which is much smaller than our
'^ 5 — 10% uncertainty on (re) in each of our redshift
bins.
Finally, we caution that the precise values derived for
the size evolution of galaxies compared to their low-
redshift counterparts at similar stellar mass is compli-
cated by uncertainties in the local relation. Although
we adopted the Shen et al. (2003) estimate of the lo-
cal mass-radius relation for late type galaxies, we note
that numerous authors (e.g., Barden et al. 2005; Tru-
jillo et al. 2006; Guo et al. 2009) find that Shen et al.
(2003) underestimate their effective radii. This discrep-
ancy is due in part to systematic differences in analysis
techniques (GALFIT modeling vs 1-dimensional radial
profile fitting), definition of early vs late- type galaxies
(n < 3.5 versus n < 2.5), and effective wavelength (r
vs z band) of the observations. Although the measured
discrepancy among radii is less pronounced for low Sersic
indices similar to those of our galaxy sample (Guo et al.
2009), these varied effects may considerably complicate
interpretations of the evolution of the high-redshift mass
radius relation to the present day.
6. QUANTIFYING MERGERS IN THE STAR FORMING
GALAXY SAMPLE
While the irregular and clumpy morphologies of galax-
ies at z > 1.5 may be interpreted as arising from dynam-
ical instabilities within gas-rich systems (e.g., Bournaud
et al. 2008; Dekel et al. 2009b; Genzel et al. 2011), they
have also commonly been taken as indicators of ongo-
ing mergers by numerous authors (e.g., Conselice et al.
2011b; Lotz et al. 2008a; and references therein). In this
section, we discuss the properties of galaxies that can be
identified as mergers via three common morphological
criteria (the quantitative statistics G — A/20 and A, and
the observed fraction of close pairs) and assess how their
relative abundance evolves throughout the redshift range
z ^ 1.5 — 3. Additionally, we discuss the association of
putative mergers with physical quantities such as stellar
mass, SFR, and gas-phase kinematics, finding (similar to
26
Law et al.
Law et al. 2007b) that whether or not a galaxy looks like
a merger makes little difference to many of its physical
properties.
Since our i/igo < 24.0 apparent magnitude cut
(adopted to ensure robustness of the morphological
statistics) introduces a redshift-dependent bias in the
absolute magnitudes of our galaxies, all numerical val-
ues for the merger fraction (and/or merger rate) are cal-
culated for a mass-limited subsample of galaxies with
M* > 1O^°M0 for which > 90% of galaxies at all red-
shifts also fulfill the -ffieo < 24.0 criterion.
6.1. Defining the Mergers
6.1.1. Quantitative Morphologies
One common way of identifying mergers is to use their
morphological asymmetry A, as discussed extensively in
the literature by (e.g.) Conselice et al. (2000, 2003,
2008, 2009), Lotz et al. (2008b, 2010ab), Papovich et
al. (2005), and Scarlata et al. (2007). In Figure 14
we plot C versus A for our magnitude-limited sample
of galaxies (i/igo < 24.0, left panels) and for a mass-
limited subsample (M* > IO^'^Mq, right panels). At low
redshifts ongoing mergers have typically been identified
by the criterion A > 0.35 (e.g., Conselice et al. 2003),
although for less well resolved, lower surface-brightness
galaxies similar to those of our sample Lotz et al. (2008b)
find that A > 0.30 is more appropriate. Adopting the
A > 0.30 criterion, we find that the merger fraction (for
M* > 101°Mq) is 0.32 ± 0.06, 0.43 ± 0.04, 0.41 ± 0.07 in
the 1.5 < z < 2.0, 2.0 < z < 2.5, and 2.5 < z < 3.6
samples respectively.^'^
Another common method of identifying mergers is by
their location in G — M20 space, as originally defined
by Lotz et al. (2004, 2006). In Figure 15 we plot G
versus M20 for our magnitude-limited sample of galaxies
(if 160 < 24.0, left panels) and for a mass-limited subsam-
ple (M, > 1O^°M0, right panels). The merger criterion
defined by Lotz et al. (2008b) for high-redshift galaxies^'*
G > -O.I4M2,
0.33
(13)
gives a merger fraction of 0.14 ± 0.04, 0.23 ± 0.03, 0.24 ±
0.05 at 1.5 < z < 2.0, 2.0 < z < 2.5, and 2.5 < z < 3.6
respectively.
Figures 14 and 15 demonstrate the necessity for cau-
tion when estimating the merger fraction using different
segmentation maps: If we had calculated the morpho-
logical statistics using a segmentation map modeled on
the methods of Conselice et al. (2009), typical points in
these figures would be offset in the direction indicated by
the green arrows. While the effect in the G ~ A plane is
fairly minimal, values of G can change drastically, push-
ing a large number of points over the merger/non- merger
dividing line and resulting in a wildly different derived
^^ Uncertainties arc estimated by a Monte Carlo technique ran-
domizing the individual values of A based on a Gaussian probabil-
ity distribution about the measured values. The Itr width of this
distribution combines the uncertainty in the measured value of A
and the scatter about the mean relation in our transformation to
the Lotz et al. (2006) reference frame.
^"^ There is no merger criterion tailored specifically to our galaxy
sample and angular resolution of WFC3/IR; we adopt the Lotz et
al. (2008b) definition as an approximation given its popularity in
the literature.
merger fraction if the merger/non-merger division is not
made appropriately. As discussed by Lisker (2008), this
offset may in large part account for the discrepancy in
the number of mergers identified in similar observational
samples at z ~ 1 using the G — M20 technique by Lotz
et al. (2008a; see their Figure 10) and Conselice et al.
(2008; see their Figure 8).
6.1.2. Nearby pairs
Another method of identifying mergers is to count the
number of systems with close physical pairs. In prac-
tice, we consider systems with multiple distinct clumps
of comparable ifieo flux (~ 3:1 - 1:1) in their light pro-
files, colors consistent with the rest-UV selection crite-
ria, and well-defined separations in the range 5 < r <
16 kpc (i.e., are classified as Type II galaxies) as phys-
ical pair candidates. ^^ For galaxies with ifieo < 24.0
and M* > IO^^Mq we find that the fraction of pairs
is 0.14lg;J°, 0.23l:J^;;^^, and 0.24i°;i^2 ^^ 1.5 < ^ < 2.0,
2.0 < z < 2.5, and 2.5 < z < 3.6 respectively.^'' Some
fraction of these candidates will not be physical pairs
however, but simply projected angular pairs of galaxies
with different redshifts and no physical association.
One effort to constrain the incidence rate of false pairs
can be made by extrapolating the false pair fraction ob-
served at larger distances for which spectroscopic red-
shifts can be obtained for individual objects. Considering
the 2874 galaxies (across 19 different fields) in our catalog
with spectroscopic redshifts in the range 1.5 < z < 3.5,
we count the number of distinct angular pairs as a func-
tion of separation in comparison to the number of genuine
physical pairs whose spectroscopic redshifts lie within
Az = 0.01 of each other. As illustrated by Figure 16,
extrapolation of this relation to the radii probed by our
WFC3 data suggests that ~ 50% of our observed pairs
should correspond to genuine physical pairs.
Alternatively, we can also estimate the false pair frac-
tion based on the statistical distribution of objects in the
WFC3 imaging fields. Using our Source Extractor cat-
alogs, we evaluate the number of unique pairs with pri-
mary magnitudes in the range ifieo = 22.0—24.0 and sec-
ondary magnitudes within 1 magnitude of the primary as
a function of their separation radius. Assuming that the
majority of such pairs in the WFC3 fields are false pairs,
we estimate that 7±1% of galaxies have false pairs within
r < 16 kpc. Subtracting this 0.07 false pair fraction
from the angular pair fraction calculated above, we ob-
tain the true physical pair fractions 0.07tnn?!, 0.16^°°^
-0.05'
-0.06'
and 0.17t°;J^ at 1.5 < z < 2.0, 2.0 < z < 2.5, and
2.5 < z < 3.6 respectively for separations in the range 5
kpc < r < 16 kpc. We note that these values are consis-
tent to with observational uncertainty with what would
be derived had we simply assumed that 50% of angular
pairs were false pairs.
6.2. Evolution with Redshift
'^'' Of course, not all pairs at redshifts z = 1.5 — 3.6 will be
in our spectroscopic sample, but we do not expect this to bias the
derived pair fraction because the spectroscopic targets were chosen
independently of whether or not they appeared to be in angular
pairs.
^® Uncertainties are estimated using Bayesian binomial confi-
dence intervals (see discussion by Cameron 2011).
Morphological Properties of 2: ~ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
27
Fig. 14. — Concentration (C) vs asymmetry (A) for all target galaxies with Hiao < 24.0 (left panels) and for the subset with stellar
masses M* > 10^" Mq (right panels). Morphological statistics are given with respect to the Lotz et al. (2004, 2006) reference frame using
the transformation equations given in §A.l. Point colors and types are as given in Figure 11, the error bar in the lower left corner of each
panel indicates the typical uncertainty in individual points based on Monte Carlo simulations. The green arrow indicates the approximate
vector that the points would move along if converted to the Conselice et al. (2000, 2008) reference frame. The shaded region above the
dashed line indicates the merger regime. Systems that are indicated to be mergers according to the G — M20 criterion (Figure 15) are
highlighted in bold type.
28
Law et al.
0.6 -
O 0.4 -
0.2
0.6 -
O 0.4 -
0.2 -
0.6
O 0.4
0.2 -
* —
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I
_ M=ALL Q-x A X ^^
z= 1.5-2.0 ^^-skCx
^ —
J_
_L
_L
±
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
M»>lelO Mp— ,T„„
z=2.0~2.5 **"
* -
>i^ -
±
±
±
-0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 -0.5
*20
1 -1.5
'ao
Fig. 15. — Gini vs A/20 for all target galaxies with -ffieo < 24.0 (left panels) and for the subset with stellar masses A/» > 10^'' Mq (right
panels). Morphological statistics are given with respect to the Lotz et al. (2004, 2006) reference frame using the transformation equations
given in §A.l. Point colors and types are as given in Figure 11, the error bar in the lower right corner of each panel indicates the typical
uncertainty in individual points based on Monte Carlo simulations. The green arrow indicates the approximate vector that the points
would move along if converted to the Conselice et al. (2000, 2008) reference frame. The shaded region above the dashed line indicates the
merger regime. Systems that are indicated to be mergers according to the asymmetry criterion (Figure 14) are highlighted in bold type.
Morphological Properties of z^ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
29
a.
0. 0.4
Fig. 16.— Probability P<r (RP | P) that a BM/BX/LBG galaxy
with spectroscopic redshift z^ observed within radius r of another
BM/BX/LBG galaxy with spectroscopic redshift z\ is a real phys-
ical pair with \z2 — z\\ < 0.01. Error bars represent Poissonian
uncertainty based on the number of galaxies observed in each bin
out of a total spectroscopic sample of 2874 galaxies in the redshift
range 1.5 < z < 3.5. The solid black line represents a numerical
fit based on the observed number of physical/apparent pairs as a
function of radius. The vertical dotted line indicates the maximum
radius of pairs identified by the WFC3 morphological sample.
As detailed above, estimates of the merger fraction
/merg derived from all three methods are roughly con-
stant across our three redshift ranges, albeit with mild
evidence (at the ~ 1 — 2cr level) for a decline in the merger
fraction at z < 2 (see Figure 17, left-hand panel). In
order to construct the merger rate from the merger frac-
tion it is necessary to combine the merger fractions with
the estimated timescale T for visibility and the comoving
space density n{z) of the target sample (see, e.g., Lotz
et al. 2008a):
N„
n{z) fmcrg/T
(14)
Estimating the comoving space densities by integrat-
ing the mass functions for the star forming galaxy sample
given by Reddy & Steidel (2009) above M, = IO^OMq,
and adopting Tgm20 = 0.24 ±0.14 Gyr, Ta = 0.76 ±0.16
Gyr, and Tpair — 0.20 ±0.38 Gyr (see discussion in §6.3),
we obtain estimates of the merger rate as shown in Fig-
ure 17 (right-hand panel). Clearly the actual merger
rate of our galaxies is highly uncertain, and for the small
number of galaxies observed in the present sample it is
not possible to comment meaningfully on the evolution
of the merger fraction with redshift (although our re-
sults are consistent with those derived for similar pop-
ulations of galaxies in other studies; see, e.g., Conselice
et al. 2011a and references therein). Even for signifi-
cantly larger galaxy samples (e.g., Faber et al. 2011) it
may prove difficult to constrain the merger rate given the
large uncertainty in observability timescales that require
numerical simulations to constrain.
6.3. Physical Properties of the Mergers
It is not obvious whether it is meaningful from a phys-
ical sense to identify galaxies as mergers on the basis of
their rest-frame optical morphology. As argued by some
authors (e.g., Bournaud et al. 2008; Genzel et al. 2011)
irregular morphologies may instead arise from dynamical
instabilities within gas-rich systems. Additionally, as we
demonstrated in Law et al. (2007b) and expand upon be-
low, merger-like morphologies are poorly correlated with
other physical observables.
There are significant differences between the subsam-
ples of M* > 10"'^''Mq galaxies from our survey selected
as mergers at z = 2.0 — 2.5 according to different cri-
teria. 43 ± 4% of such galaxies are identified as merg-
ers on the basis of their morphological asymmetry, while
23 ± 3% are identified using the G — M20 selection cri-
terion, and 16lg% using pair statistics. As illustrated in
Figures 14 and 15, 76% of galaxies selected as mergers
according to G — M20 are also selected as mergers using
A > 0.30, but only 39% of galaxies selected as mergers
using A > 0.30 are also selected as mergers according
to G — M20- Similarly, 59% (45%) of mergers identified
by G — M20 (asymmetry) are also identified as mergers
based on the presence of a nearby angular pair. Clearly,
while there is a significant overlap between the galaxy
samples, there are also a significant number of galaxies
uniquely selected by each technique.
This difference is unsurprising given that the vari-
ous morphological selection criteria may isolate merg-
ers with different mass ratios and in a different range of
evolutionary phases. Lotz et al. (2008b, 2010ab) per-
formed a series of hydrodynamic simulations to explore
the timescales and visibility of disk galaxy mergers as a
function of morphological selection criterion, mass ratio,
and gas content. Dividing their mergers into six stages
(pre-merger, first-pass, maximal separation, final merger,
post merger, remnant) these authors found that the ob-
servability of mergers at rest-frame 4686 A can vary dra-
matically from stage to stage. For the 'G3gfl' model, ^^
Lotz et al. (2010b) find that G — M20 and pair criteria
tend to have observability timescales Tgm20 — 0.24±0.14
Gyr and Tpair = 0.20 ± 0.38 Gyr (predominantly identi-
fying first-passage mergers) while the A > 0.30 criterion
has a longer observability timescale Ta = 0.76 ± 0.16
(identifying both first-passage and final mergers; see also
Conselice et al. 2006). The greater fraction of galaxies
that we identify as mergers based on their asymmetry
than by the other two methods (Figure 17) may there-
fore simply reflect this large difference in observability
timescales. Further, Lotz et al. (2010a) find that while
A is most sensitive to major mergers like those identi-
fied using our pair selection criteria (~ 3 : 1 — 1 : lifieo
flux ratio), G — M20 detects both major and minor merg-
ers, potentially explaining why we identify more mergers
using G — M20 than with pair selection.
In Figure 18 we plot histograms of various physical
properties for galaxies classified as mergers/non-mergers
according to the G — M20, A, and pair criteria and use a
KS test to evaluate the significance of the null hypothe-
sis that both sets of galaxies (mergers and non-mergers)
were drawn from the same distribution. We conclude
that for almost all physical parameters (stellar mass,
SFR, rest-frame U — B color^^, etc.) there is no signifi-
cant difference (confidence in the null hypothesis > 5%)
2'^ Stellar and gas masses ~ 2 X 10-*^" Mq.
2* Estimated from the best-fit SED.
30
Law et al.
0.6
0.4
E
0.2
"1 — I — [ — r
1 — I — I — r
T — I — I — r
A
J ^ 1.5 h
a
_i_ - n
J L
9
C)_
o
J I I I I I I I I I L
o
0.5 -
1,5 2 2.5
T — I — I — r
T — r
_ [J
J I L
"1 — r
T — I — I — r
I I I L
J I I I I l
1.5 2 2.5
z
Fig. 17. — Evolution of the merger fraction (left-hand panel) and merger rate (right-hand panel) with redshift for the star forming galaxy
sample with M* > 10^" Mq. Filled triangles represent mergers identified according to the G — M20 criterion, open boxes according to the
A > 0.30 criterion, and open circles according to the morphological pair within 5 < r < 16 kpc criterion.
the sky the effects of sample variance are expected to be
greatly reduced compared to surveys over contiguous re-
gions of similar total area. We summarize our principle
scientific conclusions as follows:
between putative mergers and non-mergers. Similarly,
there is no obvious difference in the gas-phase kinematics
between mergers and non-mergers, although our sample
size of 35 galaxies with systemic Ha redshifts and high-
quality UV spectra is too small to conclusively rule out
association. The one notable exception is that galaxies
identified as mergers via the G—M20 or pair classification
schemes have significantly smaller radii and correspond-
ingly higher Ssfr than non-mergers. This may suggest
either that Ssfr peaks around the first-passage during a
major merger event, or that the G — M20 and pair clas-
sification schemes are simply effective at finding galaxies
with small radii.
The lack of correlation observed between morphology
and these physical observables may be unsurprising in
light of both numerical uncertainties in our morpholo-
gies (i.e., exactly where the dividing line between merg-
ers and non-mergers lies) and expectations (e.g., Lotz et
al. 2010ab) that star formation may typically peak af-
ter the major morphological disturbances have subsided.
Regardless, it is unclear whether it is physically mean-
ingful to classify z ^ 2 — 3 galaxies as mergers on the
basis of morphology alone given that there appears to
be little to distinguish these systems (whether observed
in the rest-optical or the rest-UV; see discussion by Law
et al. 2007b, see also Swinbank et al. 2010 for a simi-
lar discussion of submillimeter galaxies) from their non-
merging counterparts. Rather, it may simply be that
most z ~ 2 — 3 star forming galaxies are dynamically
unstable systems driven by the accretion of large quanti-
ties of gas, whether this gas is acquired through mergers,
cold-mode, or hot-mode accretion processes.
7. SUMMARY
We have presented rest-optical morphologies for a sam-
ple of 306 spectroscopically confirmed z — 1.5 — 3.6
star forming galaxies with stellar masses in the range
M, = 10^ — lO^^M©. Since these galaxies were dis-
tributed among 10 different fields widely separated on
1. Typical z ~ 1.5 — 3.6 star forming galaxies have
circularized effective radii Vg « 0.7 — 3 kpc and
a projected n ~ 1 exponential surface brightness
profile that extends out to > 6re in stacked galaxy
images. The observed sizes are consistent with pre-
vious observational estimates (e.g., Buitrago et al.
2008; Kriek et al. 2009) for high-mass galaxy pop-
ulations and with numerical simulations (e.g.. Sales
et al. 2010) that assume strong stellar feedback.
2. A stellar mass - radius relation for star forming
galaxies is observed to exist as early as z ^ 3; at
fixed mass typical sizes evolve with redshift as ^
(1 + z)-i-07±o.28 jj^ ^Yie interval z - 3 to z - 1.5.
These galaxies must grow at least as fast as r '-^ Af »
in order to evolve onto the local late-type galaxy
relation by the present day.
3. The distribution of axis ratios b/a is strongly
inconsistent with a population of axisymmetric
thick exponential disks and more consistent with
a population of triaxial ellipsoids with intrinsic
minor/major and intermediate/major axis ratios
0.3 ± 0.2 and 0.7 ± 0.1 respectively. The typical
ellipticity is qualitatively similar to that previously
found by Ravindranath et al. (2006), but there
may be mild evidence for evolution with wave-
length. The ellipsoidal nature of these galaxies in-
dicates at minimum that the distribution of stel-
lar mass within them is markedly asymmetric, and
(in combination with their high gas fractions and
velocity dispersions) may further suggest that they
are not in stable dynamical equilibrium with short-
lived gas disks (e.g., Ceverino et al. 2010) continu-
ally forming and re-forming from recently accreted
Morphological Properties of 2: ~ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
31
01 2301 2301 23
log(SFR/Ma yr-') log(SFR/Me yr"') logCSFR/M^ yr"')
01 2301 2301 23
log(Age/Myr) log(Age/Myr) log(Age/Myr)
9 10 11
log(MyMj
9 10 11
log(M,/Mj
9 10 11
log(M,/Mj
0.5
(U-BU
1 0.5
1 0.5
(U-B),
Fig. 18. — Physical properties of mergers vs non-mergers. Red/blue histograms represent mergers/non-mergers selected according to
the asymmetry (left panel), G — M20 (middle panel), and nearby pair (right panel) criteria. Vertical dotted lines represent the mean
value in each case, the percentage given in the upper right corner of each panel indicates the significance of the null hypothesis that the
merger/non-merger galaxies are drawn from the same parent distribution.
gas until stabilized (e.g., Martig et al. 2010) by a
sufficiently massive triaxial stellar component.
4. Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Dickinson
2000; Papovich et al. 2005), rest-optical (A --
4000 - 5OOOA) and rest-UV (A - 2000 - 3000 A)
morphology for z ~ 2 star forming galaxies is gen-
erally similar with typical color dispersion ^ ~ 0.02
(although rest-UV radii are larger by 21±2% on av-
erage), while high mass (M* > 3 x 10^^ Mq) galax-
ies tend to exhibit greater morphological differences
with ^ as large as 0.28 (although c.f. Bond et al.
2011). The most massive galaxies in our sample are
typically bright and well nucleated at rest-optical
wavelengths but faint and diffuse in the rest-UV.
5. Finally, we demonstrate that while the nonpara-
metric morphological statistics G, M20, C, A, and
^ calculated using different segmentation maps
commonly adopted in the literature are strongly
correlated with each other, there can be system-
atic offsets that are important to account for when
comparing values between samples or estimating
merger fractions. Merger fractions estimated ac-
cording to the G — M20, A, or pair criteria are
consistent with recent determinations in the liter-
ature (e.g., Conselice et al. 2011a), with evidence
for at most mild evolution with redshift. There
is moderate overlap between galaxies selected as
mergers with these three criteria, but in general
mergers and non-mergers have statistically indis-
tinguishable distributions of measured and inferred
properties (SFR, stellar mass, etc.), with the excep-
tion that mergers selected by the pair and G — M20
statistics have smaller effective radii and corre-
spondingly larger Ssfr- We suggest that most
z '^ 2 — 3 star forming galaxies may be dynami-
32
Law et al.
■"..c/rs
r^.c/fg
^.J^a
-9 -8 -7
log(SSFR/Gyr-')
-9 -8 -7
log(SSFR/Gyr-')
-9 -8 -7
log(SSFR/Gyr-')
1 2
log(E/Mgyr->kpc-2)
1 2
log(S/Moyr-'kpc-2)
1 2
log(S/Mayr-'kpc-2)
cally unstable systems driven by the accretion of
^^^- Mrp; ^'fl^^'i^ffi^s of gas, whether this gas is acquired
through mergers, cold-mode, or hot-mode accretion
processes.
In general, our observations are consistent with inside-
out growth of star forming galaxies in the young uni-
verse. We suggest that mass growth proceeds according
to the following qualitative picture: 'Typical' z ^ 2 star
forming galaxies appear to be gas-rich, compact, triaxial
systems systems that are dominated by velocity disper-
sion between individual star forming regions rather than
systemic rotation, and whose high Ssfr drives strong
outflows into the surrounding IGM. As these galaxies
mature they gain stellar mass, stabilizing the formation
of extended (albeit still thick) gaseous disks in which ro-
tational support plays an increasing role. As the star for-
mation migrates from central regions into these extended
disks the Ssfr drops, and the disk component super-
imposes a zero-velocity component atop the outflowing
absorption line gas (Law et al. 2011, in preparation).
DRL, CCS, and SRN have been supported by grant
GO-11694 from the Space Telescope Science Institute.
Support for DRL and NAR was also provided by NASA
through Hubble Fellowship grant # IIF-51244.01 and
IIF-01223.01 awarded by the Space Telescope Science In-
stitute, which is operated by the Association of Univer-
sities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, un-
der contract NAS 5-26555. CCS has been supported
by the US National Science Foundation through grants
AST-0606912 and AST-0908805 AES acknowledges sup-
port from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
DRL appreciates productive conversations with A. Dut-
ton and E. Bell, and thanks the referee (J. Lotz) for in-
sightful comments that improved the final version of this
manuscript. Finally, we extend thanks to those of Hawai-
ian ancestry on whose sacred mountain we are privileged
to be guests.
REFERENCES
Abraham, R. G., Valdes, P., Yee, H. K. C, & van den Bergh, S.
1994, ApJ, 432, 75
Abraham, R. G., van den Bergh, S., Glazebrook, K., EUis, R. S.,
Santiago, B. X., Surma, P., & Griffiths, R. E. 1996, ApJS, 107,
1
Morphological Properties of z^ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
33
Abraham, R. G., van den Bcrgh, S., & Nair, P. 2003, ApJ, 588,
218
Abraham, R. G., ct al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 184
Adclbcrger, K. L., Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A. E., Hunt, M. P.,
Erb, D. K., Reddy, N. A., & Pettini, M. 2004, ApJ, 607, 226
Harden, M., ct al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 959
HeU, E. F., Haugh, C. M., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., & Lacey, C. G.
2003, MNRAS, 343, 367
Hershady, M. A., Jangren, A., & Conselice, C. J. 2000, AJ, 119,
2645
Hertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393
Hezanson, R., van Dokkum, P. G., Tal, T., Marchesini, D., Kriek,
M., Franx, M., & Coppi, P. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1290
Hond, N. A., Gawiser, E., & Koekemoer, A. M. 2011, ApJ, 729, 48
Hournaud, F., Elmegreen, H. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2007, ApJ,
670, 237
Hournaud, F., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 741
Hournaud, F., & Elmegreen, H. G. 2009, ApJ, 694, L158
Houwens, R. J., lUingworth, G. D., Hlakeslee, J. P., Hroadhurst,
T. J., & Franx, M. 2004, ApJ, 611, LI
Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, L133
Huitrago, F., Trujillo, I., Conselice, C. J., Houwens, R. J.,
Dickinson, M., & Yan, H. 2008, ApJ, 687, L61
Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Hohlin, R. C, Kinney, A. L., Koornneef,
J., & Storchi-Hergmann, T. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682
Cameron, E., CaroUo, C. M., Oesch, P. A., Houwens, R. J.,
lUingworth, G. D., Trenti, M., Labbe, I., & Magee, D. 2010,
arXiv:1007.2422
Cameron, E. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of
Australia, 28, 128
Carrasco, E. R., Conselice, C. J., & Trujillo, I. 2010, MNRAS,
405, 2253
Casertano, S., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 2747
Cassata, P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, L79
Ceverino, D., Dekel, A., & Hournaud, F. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 2151
Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763
CoUey, W. N., Rhoads, J. E., Ostriker, J. P., & Spcrgel, D. N.
1996, ApJ, 473, L63
Conroy, C, Shapley, A. E., Tinker, J. L., Santos, M. R., &
Lemson, G. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1192
Conselice, C. J., Hershady, M. A., & Jangren, A. 2000, ApJ, 529,
886
Conselice, C. J. 2003, ApJS, 147, 1
Conselice, C. J., Hershady, M. A., Dickinson, M., & Papovich, C.
2003, AJ, 126, 1183
Conselice, C. J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, L139
Conselice, C. J., Hundy, K., Ellis, R. S., Hrichmann, J., Vogt,
N. P., & Phillips, A. C. 2005, ApJ, 628, 160
Conselice, C. J. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1389
Conselice, C. J., Rajgor, S., & Myers, R. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 909
Conselice, C. J., Yang, C, & Hluck, A. F. L. 2009, MNRAS, 394,
1956
Conselice, C. J., et al. 2011a, MNRAS, 413, 80
Conselice, C. J., Hluck, A. F. L., Ravindranath, S., Mortlock, A.,
Koekemoer, A., Huitrago, F., Griitzbauch, R., & Penny, S.
2011b, arXiv;1105.2522
Cowie, L. L., & Harger, A. J. 2008, ApJ, 686, 72
Dalcanton, J. J., & Hernstein, R. A. 2002, AJ, 124, 1328
Dekel, A., & Hirnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2
Dekel, A., Hirnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009a, Nature, 457, 451
Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009b, ApJ, 703, 785
Dickinson, M. 2000, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London A, 358, 2001
Dickinson, M., Papovich, C, Ferguson, H. C, & Hudavari, T.
2003, ApJ, 587, 25
Dutton, A. A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1660
Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, H. G., Rubin, D. S., & Schaffer,
M. A. 2005, ApJ, 631, 85
Erb, D. K., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., Steidel, C. C, Reddy,
N. A., & Adelberger, K. L. 2006a, ApJ, 644, 813
Erb, D. K., Steidel, C. C, Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., Reddy,
N. A., & Adelberger, K. L. 2006b, ApJ, 647, 128
Erb, D. K., Steidel, C. C, Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., Reddy,
N. A., & Adelberger, K. L. 2006c, ApJ, 646, 107
Erb, D. K., Pettini, M., Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C, Law,
D. R., & Reddy, N. A. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1168
Forster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1364
Forster Schreiber, N. M., Shapley, A. E., Erb, D. K., Genzel, R.,
Steidel, C. C, Houche, N., Cresci, G., & Davies, R. 2011, ApJ,
731, 65
Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., Schreiber, N. M. F., Wuyts, S.,
Labbe, I., & Toft, S. 2008, ApJ, 688, 770
Genzel, R., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 59
Genzel, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 101
Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C. C, & Macchetto, F. D. 1996, ApJ, 470,
189
Gini, C. 1912, reprinted in Memorie di Metodologia Statistica, ed.
E. Pizetti & T. Salvemini (1955; Rome: Libreria Eredi Virgilio
Veschi).
Glasser, G. J. 1962, J. Am. Stat. Assoc, 57, 648.
Gray, M. E., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1275
Grogin, N. A., et al. 2011, arXiv:1105.3753
Guo, Y., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1129
Guthrie, H. N. G. 1992, A&AS, 93, 255
Hubble, E. P. 1926, ApJ, 64, 321
Jones, T. A., Swinbank, A. M., Ellis, R. S., Richard, J., & Stark,
D. P. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1247
Kennicutt, R. C, Jr. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189
Kent, S. M. 1985, ApJS, 59, 115
Keres, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Dave, R. 2005, MNRAS,
363, 2
Keres, D., Katz, N., Fardal, M., Dave, R., & Weinberg, D. H.
2009, MNRAS, 395, 160
Koekemoer, A. M., Fruchter, A. S., Hook, R. N., & Hack, W.
2002, The 2002 HST Calibration Workshop : Hubble after the
Installation of the ACS and the NICMOS Cooling System, 337
Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C, et al. 2011,
arXiv;1105.3754
Komatsu, E., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18
Kormendy, J., Fisher, D. H., Cornell, M. E., & Render, R. 2009,
ApJS, 182, 216
Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M., lUingworth, G. D., &
Magee, D. K. 2009, ApJ, 705, L71
Kuchinski, L. E., et al. 2000, ApJS, 131, 441
Labbe, L, Rudnick, G., Franx, M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, L95
Law, D. R., Steidel, C. C, Erb, D. K., Pettini, M., Reddy, N. A.,
Shapley, A. E., Adelberger, K. L., & Simenc, D. J. 2007b, ApJ,
656, 1
Law, D. R., Steidel, C. C, Erb, D. K., Larkin, J. E., Pettini, M.,
Shapley, A. E., & Wright, S. A. 2007a, ApJ, 669, 929
Law, D. R., Steidel, C. C, Erb, D. K., Larkin, J. E., Pettini, M.,
Shapley, A. E., & Wright, S. A. 2009, ApJ, 697, 2057
Lisker, T. 2008, ApJS, 179, 319
Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P. 2004, AJ, 128, 163
Lotz, J. M., Madau, P., Giavalisco, M., Primack, J., & Ferguson,
H. C. 2006, ApJ, 636, 592
Lotz, J. M., et al. 2008a, ApJ, 672, 177
Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2008b,
MNRAS, 391, 1137
Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2010a,
MNRAS, 404, 575
Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2010b,
MNRAS, 404, 590
Lowenthal, J. D., et al. 1997, ApJ, 481, 673
Maiolino, R., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 463
Martig, M., & Hournaud, F. 2010, ApJ, 714, L275
McLure, R. J., et al. 2011, arXiv:1102.4881
Melbourne, J., et al. 2008a, AJ, 135, 1207
Melbourne, J., et al. 2008b, AJ, 136, 1110
Melbourne, J., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 141
Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M., & Calzetti, D. 1999, ApJ, 521, 64
Miyaji, T., Hasinger, G., & Schmidt, M. 2000, A&A, 353, 25
Mosleh, M., Wilhams, R. J., Franx, M., & Kriek, M. 2011, ApJ,
727, 5
Naab, T., Johansson, P. H., & Ostriker, J. P. 2009, ApJ, 699,
L178
Nagy, S. R., Law, D. R., Shapley, A. E., & Steidel, C. C. 2011,
arXiv:1105.3954
Oesch, P. A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, L47
Padilla, N. D., & Strauss, M. A. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1321
Papovich, C, Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., Conselice, C. J., &
Ferguson, H. C. 2005, ApJ, 631, 101
C. Y., Ho, L. C, Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ,
124, 266
34
Law et al.
Reddy, N. A., Adelberger,
2007, ApJ, 670, 15
Dalla Vecchia, C,
Thompson, R. I.,
, & Kriek, M. 2005, ApJ,
Forster Schreiber, N. M.
Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C, Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ,
139, 2097
Peter, A. H. G., Shapley, A. E., Law, D. R., Stcidcl, C. C, Erb,
D. K., Reddy, N. A., & Pettini, M. 2007, ApJ, 668, 23
Petrosian, V. 1976, ApJ, 209, LI
Ravindranath, S., et aL 2006, ApJ, 652, 963
Reddy N. A., Steidel, C. C, Erb, D. K., Shapley A. E., &
Pettini, M. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1004
Reddy, N. A., Steidel, C. C, Pettini, M., Adelberger, K. L.,
Shapley A. E., Erb, D. K., & Dickinson, M. 2008, ApJS, 175,
48
Reddy, N. A., & Steidel, C. C. 2009, ApJ, 692, 778
Reddy, N. A., Erb, D. K., Pettini, M., Stcidcl, C. C, & Shapley
A. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 1070
Rix, S. A., Pettini, M., Stcidcl, C. C,
K. L., Erb, D. K., & Shapley, A. E.
Ryden, B. S. 2006, ApJ, 641, 773
Sales, L. V., Navarro, J. F., Schaye, J.
Springel, V., & Booth, C. M. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 1541
Scarlata, C, et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 406
Schade, D., Lilly, S. J., Crampton, D., Hammer, F., Lc Fevre, O.,
& Tresse, L. 1995, ApJ, 451, LI
Sersic, J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de
Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41
Shapley, A. E., Stcidcl, C. C, Adelberger, K. L., Dickinson, M.,
Giavalisco, M., & Pettini, M. 2001, ApJ, 562, 95
Shapley A. E., Steidel, C. C, Erb, D. K., Reddy N. A.,
Adelberger, K. L., Pettini, M., Barmby, P., & Huang, J. 2005,
ApJ, 626, 698
Shen, S., Mo, H. J., White, S. D. M., Blanton, M. R., Kauffmann,
G., Voges, W., Brinkmann, J., & Csabai, I. 2003, MNRAS, 343,
978
Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163
Stark, D. P., Swinbank, A. M., Ellis, R. S., Dye, S., Small, I. R.,
& Richard, J. 2008, Nature, 455, 775
Stark, D. P., EUis, R. S., Bunker, A., Bundy K., Targett, T.,
Benson, A., & Lacy, M. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1493
APPENDIX
A. ROBUSTNESS OF THE MORPHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
A.l Choice of Segmentation Map
Three methods have been generally adopted in the literature for defining robust segmentation maps:
1. Law et al. (2007b) and Peter et al. (2007) used a scaled surface brightness method to select galaxy pixels whose
fiux is at least na, where a is the standard deviation of the sky pixels, and n scales with source redshift as
n — 3 { , , '^^ I , where Zmax — 3.0.^^ This method is independent of galaxy morphology and compensates for
"^ for a fixed observational bandpass)
Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M.,
Dickinson, M., & Giavalisco, M. 2003, ApJ, 592, 728
Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., Adelberger, K. L., Erb,
D. K., Reddy N. A., & Hunt, M. P. 2004, ApJ, 604, 534
Steidel, C. C., Erb, D. K., Shapley A. E., Pettini, M., Reddy N.,
Bogosavljcvic, M., Rudie, G. C., & Rakic, O. 2010, ApJ, 717,
289
Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 234
Szomoru, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, L244
Targett, T. A., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., et al. 2011,
MNRAS, 412, 295
Toft, S., van Dokkum, P., Franx, M.,
lUingworth, G. D., Bouwens, R. J.
624, L9
Toft, S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 285
Toft, S., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P.,
Labbe, I., Wuyts, S., & Marchesini, D. 2009, ApJ, 705, 255
Trujillo, I., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 18
Trujillo, I., Conselice, C. J., Bundy, K., Cooper, M. C,
Eisenhardt, P., & Ellis, R. S. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 109
TuUy R. B., & Fisher, J. R. 1977, A&A, 54, 661
van den Bergh, S. 1988, PASP, 100, 344
van der Wei, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 38
van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 2
van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 1018
Williams, R. J., Quadri, R. F., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P., Toft,
S., Kriek, M., & Labbe, I. 2010, ApJ, 713, 738
Windhorst, R. A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 27
Wright, S. A., Larkin, J. E., Law, D. R., Steidel, C. C, Shapley,
A. E., & Erb, D. K. 2009, ApJ, 699, 421
Yuma, S., Ohta, K., Yabc, K., Kajisawa, M., & Ichikawa, T. 2011,
ApJ, 736, 92
l+z„
cosmological surface brightness dimming (which scales as {l + z)~'^ for a fixed observational bandpass), therefore
giving consistent results across a given redshift interval. However, it is explicitly tied to the noise characteristics
of the observational data, and can yield morphological parameters that vary systematically with total flux for
galaxies with identical morphological proflles but different total luminosities (see, e.g., Figure 9 of Law et al.
2007b, Lotz et al. 2008).
2. Many authors (e.g., Conselice et al. 2000, 2008; Lotz et al. 2004, 2006) start with simple Source Extractor
segmentation maps to either pre-select galaxy pixels or mask foreground/background objects, and apply either
a circular or elliptical Petrosian (1976) selection technique to select pixels independent of total galaxy flux or
background noise characteristics. Conselice et al. (2000, 2008) include in their segmentation map all pixels within
1.5 Petrosian radii (rp, i.e., the radius at which the surface brightness is some fraction rj of the enclosed surface
brightness), while Lotz et al. (2004, 2006) include only pixels with flux greater than the surface brightness at
the Petrosian radius (but following the potentially irregular isophotal contours). While robust to total source
magnitude, cosmological dimming, and observational noise characteristics, these method can sometimes yield
suboptimal results when applied to the often- irregular morphologies of z ~ 2 galaxies (e.g., Figure 2) because of
their ill-defined Petrosian radii.
3. Abraham et al. (2007) generalized the Petrosian pixel selection method to work equally well for galaxies of
arbitrary shapes whose flux components are not necessarily contiguous. As outlined by Abraham et al. (2007),
all pixels in the preliminary segmentation map calculated using Source Extractor are sorted in decreasing order
^^ Although the maximum redshift of our sample is z = 3.6, we
adopt Zmax = 3.0 for consistency with Law et al. 2007b. This
corresponds to a selection threshold of 2cr at z
z = 1.5.
3.6, and 12a- at
Morphological Properties of z^ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies 35
of flux into the array fi, which is then used to construct the cumulative flux array Fi — X]7"=i fj- The quasi-
Petrosian isophote is set by determining the pixel index i at which fi — ri{F,i/i) where Fi/i is the cumulative mean
surface brightness. This quasi- Petrosian segmentation map preserves the advantages of Petrosian-based methods
(i.e., robustness to source magnitude, cosmological dimming, and observational noise) while being applicable to
arbitrary morphology.
We adopt the quasi-Petrosian method of Abraham et al. (2007) as our baseline segmentation method. As described
by these authors, the failure mode of this approach is graceful in that, if the isophotal Petrosian threshold rj is below
the surface-brightness threshold of the initial Source Extractor segmentation map, it simply defaults to the initial map
(§2.3). It is not desirable for this to occur frequently however, since it eliminates the advantages of the Petrosian pixel
selection. The isophotal threshold -q must therefore be set sufRciently high that it is more restrictive than a simple
1.5(7 surface brightness cut, but sufRciently low that it rejects as little information (i.e., pixels) as possible from the
final segmentation maps.
In Figure 19, we plot the critical surface brightness threshold rycrit at which the pseudo-Petrosian algorithm produces
a segmentation map that is more restrictive than the initial Source Extractor l.Scr surface-brightness segmentation
map for each of our 306 galaxies. Intuitively, there is a strong correlation with mean apparent surface brightness ^}j
(defined as the -ffieo magnitude divided by the Source Extractor segmentation map area). We note that for the lowest
mean surface brightness objects (disproportionately galaxies of Type III and/or at redshifts z > 2.5) ?7crit is relatively
high; that is, the galaxy surface brightness decreases only slightly to ~ 40% of its mean value before reaching the 1.5cr
sky background. In contrast, for higher surface brightness objects the dynamic range of the galaxy is greater and can
decrease to ^ 20% or less of its mean value before reaching the sky background. Given these results, a traditional choice
oi rj = 0.2 would result in an unsatisfactorily high ~ 60% of our galaxies defaulting to a simple 1.5cr isophotal pixel
selection. We therefore take r] = 0.3 instead, for which only ~ 23% of galaxies default to the surface-brightness limited
segmentation map. This fraction decreases to ~ 15% when we reject from consideration galaxies with iJieo > 24.0,
for which we find that quantitative morphological statistics are not robust regardless of segmentation map (see §A.2).
In Figures 20 and 21 we compare morphological statistics calculated using the following five segmentation maps:
1 ('QP3'):: Quasi-Petrosian segmentation map with threshold 77 = 0.3, this is the default segmentation map. We
denote statistics calculated using this map with subscripts of the form (e.g.) Gqps.
2 ('QP2'):: Quasi-Petrosian segmentation map with threshold rj = 0.2. We denote statistics calculated using this
map with subscripts of the form (e.g.) G'qp2.
3 ('CPL'):: Elliptical Petrosian segmentation map with threshold rj = 0.2 that includes all pixels with flux greater
than the surface brightness at the Petrosian radius (Lotz et al. 2004, 2006) but following the potentially irregular
isophotal contours. We denote statistics calculated using this map with subscripts of the form (e.g.) Gcpl-
4 ('CPC'):: Circular Petrosian segmentation map with threshold i] = 0.2 that includes all pixels within 1.5 Petrosian
radii irrespective of fiux (Conselice et al. 2000, 2008). We denote statistics calculated using this map with
subscripts of the form (e.g.) Gcpc-
5 ('SB'):: Scaled isophotal (surface brightness) segmentation map of the form adopted by Law et al. (2007b) and
Peter et al. (2007). We denote statistics calculated using this map with subscripts of the form (e.g.) Gsb-
There is generally good correlation among the nonparametric statistics derived using each of these segmentation maps,
especially when restricting our attention to the higher surface brightness systems for which the 77 = 0.2 threshold
is well-defined (blue, black, and red points). In order to aid comparison between morphological properties derived
by different groups in the literature, we present below a series of transformations that relate values calculated using
different segmentation maps. In determining these relations we consider only those galaxies for which the 77 — 0.2
threshhold is well-defined and the morphologies robust to statistical uncertainties (i.e., we require i?i6o < 24.0 and
'ycrit £ 0-2), and perform a linear least squares fit with uniform uncertainties in both quantities.
The greatest variation occurs in the Gini parameter G, which is extremely sensitive to the pixels included in the
segmentation map (see also a previous analysis by Lisker 2008). As illustrated by Figure 20 (bottom left-hand panel),
simply adopting a Petrosian threshold of 77 = 0.2 significantly increases G over the rj — 0.3 case by including more
low-fiux pixels in the segmentation map (note that this effect is not as noticeable for the green-colored points, for
which the dynamic range of the galaxy surface brightness did not permit the Petrosian algorithm to reach the 20% flux
threshold, and defaulted instead to the initial Source Extractor 1.5cr isophotal segmentation map). Similarly, the CPL
map also results in systematically higher values of G than calculated by our default 77 — 0.3 quasi-Petrosian algorithm.
This effect is even more noticeable in the CPC segmentation map; this map increases the mean value of G significantly
by including many more low-surface brightness pixels than the other segmentation maps, and also compresses the
dynamic range of G among the galaxy sample. In contrast, the scaled surface-brightness selection technique (SB)
stretches the dynamic range of G, but corresponds poorly to estimates obtained using other segmentation maps. We
find that the key transformations between these segmentation maps are given on average by:
Gcpl = 1.78Gqp3 - 0.19 (Al)
36
Law et al.
0.5
0.4 -
0.2 -
0.1
-r
T
-r
Blue: 1.5^z<2.0
Black: 2.0^z<2.5
Red: 2.5gz<3.6
X Type I
D Type II
O Type III
"^
VUU/I
X
OOxl^
O ®
X-
^ xla n't) O
xi5
I 0.3
X Q i>^ o< (
X l!^ ^^L) X
X O o.
X
X (g) X
X X
O Jo<
O !0
O
_di
^ X
±
23
23.5 24
/^H (AB arcsec"2)
24.5
Fig. 19. — Critical value r^crit for the pseudo-Petrosian pixel selection method to produce a pixel map that is more restrictive than
the initial surface-brightness bounded segmentation map for the 306 star forming galaxies in our survey as a function of average surface
brightness fin- Higher values of T^crit correspond to galaxies with less dynamic range in surface brightness above the noise floor of the
images. Symbols correspond to different visual morphological types (§3.1) and redshifts as given in the legend.
GcPL = 2.02GCPC - 0.87
(A2)
The second order moment of the hght distribution (M20) is tightly correlated amongst all 5 segmentation maps,
although values calculated using the CPC segmentation map lie at systematically lower values due to the inclusion of
additional low surface-brightness pixels. The key transformations are described by:
(A3)
(A4)
The concentration parameter C exhibits minimal systematic offsets between segmentation maps, but considerably
more scatter than the other morphological statistics. As discussed in §A.3 this is primarily due to the poor sampling
of the inner 20% of the light profile in the z ~ 2 — 3 galaxies, which are small and poorly resolved in comparison to
nearby galaxy samples (see discussion by Bershady et al. 2000). The key transformations are described by:
M20,CPL = 1.04Af20,QP3 - 0.03
M2o,cPL = 0.96M2o,CPC + 0.06
CcPL = 0.84CQP3 + 0.47
CcPL = l.llCcPc - 0.51
(A5)
(A6)
The asymmetry parameter A is also well correlated between different segmentation maps, with relatively little scatter
and no significant systemic shifts amongst 4 of the 5 segmentation maps. There is more scatter and a systematic offset
Morphological Properties of 2: ~ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
37
or
-1.5
-2 -1.5 -1 -2 -1.5 -1 -2 -1.5 -1 -2
-1
M,
ao.QPS
M,
M,
M,
02460246024602468
fqpS
*CP1. *CPC
'SB
0.3 0.4 0.5
^qps
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6
'CPL
G
CPC
'SB
Fig. 20. — Figure comparing G, \I/, and M20 morphologies computed using the 'QP3', 'QP2', 'CPL', 'CPC, and 'SB' segmentation map
techniques. Only galaxies with -ffieo < 24.0 are shown since the morphological statistics are less reliable at fainter magnitudes. Symbol
color and types are as given in Figure 19, except that green colored points represent galaxies with »7crit > 0.2 for which the 77 = 0.2 isophote
is ill-defined. Black lines indicate 1-1 correspondence, the red lines represent the linear least-squares fit to relations that depart significantly
from unity.
38
Law et al.
0.6
'Qpe
6 2 4 6 2
•'GP
'CPC
2 4
Fig. 21. — As Figure 20, but for the C and A statistics.
however when comparing estimates to the CPC segmentation map, with ^cpc systematicahy lower compared to the
other 4 segmentation maps. We find that the mean relations are governed by the equations
AcPL = 0.80^QP3 + 0.03
AcPL = 1.15AcPc+0.03
(A7)
(A8)
The tightest correlation is found for ^, for which all segmentation maps produce nearly identical values with only
minimal scatter about the 1-1 relation.
A. 2 Source Magnitude
We perform Monte Carlo tests to quantify the mean and standard deviation of the morphological statistics for
sources of fixed structure with different total magnitudes. We choose five sources (four galaxies and reference star; see
top row of Figure 22) that are roughly representative of the range of morphologies found within our galaxy sample,
and construct morphological models of them using GALFIT. We scale the total flux of these models to i^igo = 22.0
AB, and insert ten copies of each into randomly selected blank- field regions of the WFC3 images in order to obtain
multiple realizations of the background noise. For each copy, we compute the segmentation maps and morphological
parameters as described above in §3. This exercise is repeated every 0.5 mag in the range i^ieo = 22 — 25 AB.
Figure 22 suggests that while the morphological parameters are relatively robust for -ffieo < 24 AB, at Hiqq > 24
AB most start to break down either in the sense that their mean values deviate significantly from the mean values
derived at brighter magnitudes, or the variance among different realizations of the background noise becomes large
relative to the mean. This behavior for each statistic can be summarized as follows:
• A/20, C*, and A exhibit ^ 1/2/15% uncertainty (averaged over the 4 star forming galaxy models) at the bright
end of the sample (ilieo ^ 22 AB), increasing to 13/15/45% at the faint end (Hieo ~ 25 AB). Mean uncertainty
at the average magnitude of the Hieo < 24 AB sample is 4/11/22% respectively; in the case of C this is sufficient
to confuse the relative ordering between galaxies of different morphologies. There are no systematic variations
with magnitude.
• G has a bright-end uncertainty ^ 2%, a faint-end uncertainty ~ 13%, and a mean uncertainty at the average
magnitude of the -ffieo ^ 24 AB sample of 3%. While the mean value of G remains relatively constant down to
Hieo ^ 24 AB, it decreases systematically at lower magnitudes. This systematic decline is because the 77 = 30%
surface brightness threshold for the quasi- Petrosian pixel decreases below the 1.5cr Source Extractor threshold,
resulting in effective loss of the lowest-flux pixels from the segmentation map.
Morphological Properties of z '-^ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
Q1700-BX759'
39
STAR
Q1009-BX146
Q1700-BX691
0.6
0.4
0.2 -
2 h
-1
I j~l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M. 1.5
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i j I r
. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 -
0.5 -
w 400
200
23 23 24 25
H.so (AB)
T — 1 — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — r
I ' ' ' ' I
I I I I I I I I I I I I TTI I I
22 23 24 25
H,eo (AB)
Fig. 22. — Robustness of the morphological parameters G, M20, C, A, >& and the GALFIT indices re and n to total source magnitude
^160 for five sources selected to span the typical range of morphologies. Solid lines indicate the mean value derived from 10 Monte Carlo
realizations of the noise; shaded regions indicate the Itr deviation alaout the mean. Postage stamps (3x3 arcsec) showing each of the five
test sources are shown at the top, with a colored border corresponding to their respective lines in the lower panels. Note that the stellar
source is not shown in the r^ and n panels since it is not well reproduced by a Sersic model.
• ^I^ has a bright-end uncertainty ^ 7%, a faint-end uncertainty '~ 41%, and a mean uncertainty at the average
magnitude of the Hiqq > 24 AB sample of 21%. '^ systematically increases for i/ieo > 23 AB, most noticeably
for iJieo > 24 AB.
• The Sersic index n and effective circularized radius r^ have mean bright-end uncertainties of ^ 5/1%, faint-end
uncertainties of ^ 54/11%, and mean uncertainties at the average magnitude of the i?i6o £ 24 AB sample
of 15/2% respectively. Both r^ and n decline systematically with magnitude as it becomes progressively more
difficult to distinguish faint outer regions of the galaxies from the background sky (see also Gray et al. 2009).
These effects are particularly pronounced for ffieo > 24 AB. The significance of the decline in r^ varies as a
function of morphology; regular symmetric objects show negligible variation across the full range Hiqq = 22 — 25
AB, while more irregular multi-component galaxies may decline by as much as 30%.
In the interests of measuring physically meaningful morphological statistics, we therefore impose an apparent mag-
nitude cut on our sample of galaxies at ilieo £ 24 AB, corresponding closely to a signal-to-noise ratio cut S/N > 110
(see Figure 23). This is consistent with the analyses of Conselice et al. (2000) and Lisker et al. (2008), who found
40
Law et al.
400
300 -
CO
200 -
100
1 1 1 r
1 1 1 r
° ^^'^ ■<
X X
X
22
23
H
24
25
160
(AB)
Fig. 23. — Signal-to-noise ratio S/N of the galaxies as a function of -ffieo magnitude. Dashed lines denote the close correspondence
between cuts of the form -Hieo < 24 AB and S/N > 110. Symbol color and types are as given in Figure 19.
(respectively) that A became dominated by the background noise and that G becomes less robust below S/N ^100.
A. 3 Pixel Scale
It is also worth investigating the dependence of the calculated morphological statistics on the pixel scale that we
selected to drizzle our WFC3 data onto. We therefore inserted the GALFIT galaxy models (normalized to Hab ^ 22)
from §A.2 into random blank regions of the WFC3 fields, and rebinned the data using linear interpolation (using
the IDL routine CONGRID, with conservation of total flux) to a variety of pixel scales that we could realistically
have chosen. As illustrated by Figure 24, the recovered morphologies are extremely robust to variations '^ a factor
of two in pixel scale, with the exception of the stellar source model (for A, C, M20, and G) and the concentration
parameter C (for the stellar source, Q1009-BX146, and Q1700-BX691). That is, all of the morphological parameters
can vary unsatisfactorily with choice of sampling scale for unresolved objects, or (in the case of C) for objects in which
the innermost region containing 20% of the light is poorly sampled. Indeed, we note that while C is not robust for
Q1009-BX146 and Q17G0-BX691, it is more so for Q170b-BX759 and Q1217-MD20 because these two galaxies are
significantly more spatially extended and the central region containing 20% of the total light correspondingly better
sampled. This resolution dependence of C for the poorly sampled inner radius r2o is well-known in the literature (see,
e.g.. Figure 9 of Bershady et al. 2000).
Given the general robustness of the morphological parameters to the choice of angular sampling scale, we do not
make any corrections to the measured morphologies due to the small (< 10%) change in angular size subtended by a
physical kpc across the redshift interval 1.5 < z < 3.6, but we choose not to use the concentration parameter C in our
analyses.
0.6
u
Morphological Properties oi z ^ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies
Q1009-BX146
41
STAR
•
C
Q1 700-BX691
Q1700-BX759I
%
Q1217-MD20
m
0.4 -
0.8
-1.2
o -1.4
-1.6
-1.8
0.5
0.45
O 0.4
0.35
0.3
0,
1 — I — I — I — r
"T — f — I — I — I — I — r
I I [ I I I I I I I
2
-1 F M 1 I I [ I [ I I I I M I
i I I I I I I I M I I I I I
±
_L
1.5
0.5 -
m 400
cd
» 200 -
3
» 2
1 b
1 — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — r
-\-\-
I I I I [ I [ I
-I-++
I I I I I M I ,
04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Pixel Scale (arcsec/pixel)
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Pixel Scale (arcsec/pixel)
Fig. 24. — As Figure 22, but showing robustness to choice of angular pixel scale.
A. 4 Point Spread Function
We also explore the robustness of the morphological statistics to the width of the observational PSF, which affects
the degree to which spatial structures are resolved. In order to reliably trace structures resolved on scales smaller than
the WFC3/IR PSF we repeat the analysis from §A.2, but using GALFIT models of five sources in the Q1700+64 field
observed with HST/ACS F814W as part of program GO-10581 (PI: Shapley; see description in Peter et al. 2007).
These models are convolved with 2d Gaussian profiles (using the IDL routine FILTER_IMAGE) to mimic observations
with PSF FWHM ranging from 0.1 (i.e., native resolution for the F814W imaging data) - 0.3 arcsec.
As illustrated in Figure 25, there is little change in the statistical uncertainty of the morphological measurements
with PSF FWHM, but most exhibit systematic variations (as noted previously by, e.g., Lotz et al. 2004, 2008b). As
discussed in §A.3, C is poorly behaved since the inner 20% of the light profile is poorly sampled. As PSF FWHM
increases, the dynamic range of ^4, M20, G, and ^P decreases, approaching the limit that when the PSF is large compared
to the size of the galaxies all objects will be unresolved and have indistinguishable morphologies. The compression of the
dynamical range is less pronounced for objects such as ACS/BX1031 which have two well-separated components that
42
Law et al.
0.6
o
2
-1
ACS/STAR
0.4 -
0,2 -
4 -
3 -
-1.2 t
o -1.4
^ -1.6
-1.8
0.5
0.45
O 0.4
0.35
0.3
ACS/BX1087,
ACS/BX782
I
ACS/BX826
I-
ACS/BX1031
i I 1 I I I I I I "rT"i"rT"r'l I I I I I
r ' ' ' I
I ' ' ' ' I
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 1 I [ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I ■ ... I
1.5
1 -
0.5 - _
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
PSF FWHM (arcsec)
0.3
w 400
- 200
-H
4
3
2
1
I I I I ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
PSF FWHM (arcsec)
Fig. 25. — As Figure 22, but showing robustness to PSF FWHM. In order to realistically discuss PSFs smaller than that of the WFC3/IR
data we base our models on four z ~ 2 star forming galaxies and one reference star observed with HST/ACS F814W as part of program
GO-10581 (PI: Shapley).
require a more substantial change in the PSF to lose information about the double morphological structure. Similarly,
the parametric statistics r^ and n are generally quite stable to variations in the PSF since GALFIT incorporates the
observational PSF in its fitting algorithm, although n declines by a few percent from FWHM ^0.1 arcsec to ~ 0.3
arcsec. This effect was previously noted by Buitrago et al. (2008) who found that Sersic indices measured in the
infrared with NICMOS were 13 ± 12% smaller than measured in the optical with ACS.
Since all of our galaxies have been observed with uniform coverage and a PSF that varies by less than ^ 4%, the
trends illustrated in Figure 25 will be unimportant for internal comparisons between the morphologies of galaxies in our
sample. These trends will be important, however, to keep in mind when comparing any of our galaxies to low-redshift
samples, or to similar z ^ 2 galaxies observed with HST in bandpasses tracing the rest-frame UV.
Morphological Properties of z^ 1.5 — 3.6 Star Forming Galaxies 43
B. THE PROJECTED AXIS RATIO OF A TRIAXIAL ELLIPSOID VIEWED IN AN ARBITRARY ORIENTATION
Let the ellipsoid be a surface in 3-space characterized by the scale lengths rx, ry, and Vz- Adopting spherical polar
coordinates, the surface of the ellipsoid is defined by
P{a,f3) — {rxCosacosf3,rySma cos/3, r^sm/S) (Bl)
where a is the azimuthal angle < a < 27r and /3 the polar angle —tt/2 < /? < 7r/2.
Rather than rotating the ellipsoid, consider the identical problem in which the viewer is located at a large distance
along the direction described by 9 and 0, the azimuthal and polar angles respectively. The unit vector in the direction
of the viewer / may be written as
/ = {cos9 cos(f>, sm6 coscj), smcj)) (B2)
At each point on the surface of the ellipsoid there is a corresponding tangent plane; by definition, the 'edge' of the
figure as seen by the viewer is located where the unit vector towards the viewer is parallel to the tangent plane. If
n(a, /3) is the normal to the tangent plane, then the projected ellipse observed by the viewer is described by the set of
a, /3 such that
n • / = (B3)
Since the tangent plane to the ellipsoid is described by the partial derivatives ^ and ^ , the normal to the tangent
plane may be constructed by the cross product of these vectors:
^ dP dP
da dp
Setting n ■ f ~ we obtain the relation
X ^r-r = {ryrzCosacos^/3,rj;rzSmacos^f3,rxryam(3cos(3) (B4)
n I'TyTzCOsacosOcoscI) + rxr^sinasinOcosd)^. ,^_.
tanp = — — r— I (B5j
' xi yaiiiyj
For all 7^ (i.e., viewing the ellipsoid perfectly edge-on), a along the projected ellipse attains all values in the range
— 27r. By setting a = 0°, 0.1°, ..., 359.9° and calculating the corresponding /3 from Equation B5 it is possible to
obtain a set of (a, /3) pairs fully describing the projected ellipse.
The projected radius q of the ellipse, as seen by the viewer, at each (a, /3) is given by the magnitude of the cross
product of the vector P to the point on the surface with the unit vector on the line of sight to the viewer /:
q^P{a,p)xf (B6)
Some computation gives the vector components oi q= {qx, qy,qz) as
qx = rj,sina cos/3 sine/) — r^ sin/3 sin0 cos(/) (B7)
qy — r^svaji cos9 coscj) — Vxcosa cos/3 sin0 (B8)
qz ~ TxCosa cos/3 sin0 coscf) — r^sino: cos/3 coa9 cos(f> (B9)
The magnitude q is then simply
q = \Jqxqx + qyqy + qzqz (BIO)
and the axis ratio of the projected ellipse may be trivially calculated as the ratio of the minimum and maximum value
of q for all (a, /3) coordinate pairs:
6/a^^ (BID
max((7J
It can be verified that in the limit where two axes have equal length Equation Bll gives identical results to the
thick-disk case derived by Hubble (1926) and described by Equation 10.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11