format: text

text:
# YOUNG STARS AT LARGE DISTANCES FROM THE GALACTIC PLANE: MECHANISMS OF FORMATION

## 1 Introduction

There exists an anomalous group of early-type -hence mostly young- stars located far from the galactic plane, at z-distances ranging from 1 to more than 10 kpc. First studied were the A-type stars (Rodgers et al. 1981; Lance 1988). Such intermediate-age stars have most recently been studied by Preston and Sneden (2000) and are likely to be blue stragglers. More recently, a number of OB stars have been found, also situated at vertical distances of up to several kpc from the plane (Conlon et al. 1989; Conlon et al. 1990; Conlon 1992; Schmidt et al. 1997; Ringwald et al. 1998). The shorter lifetimes of these stars exacerbate the problems of their interpretation in terms of the standard picture of star formation and galactic evolution. The most extreme examples, if they originated in the plane, must have been ejected with velocities surpassing 1000 km/s, which clearly are unrealistically high values.

Different mechanisms have been put forward to explain the existence of these stars, either within the conventional view, or postulating star formation in the galactic halo itself (see for instance Lance 1988; or Tobin 1991, for extensive reviews). These mechanisms range from arguing that they are misidentified evolved or pathological stars, to postulating powerful ejection mechanisms for young, thin disk stars, or to proposing that they were formed in situ, in the galactic halo, from a mixture of gas acquired while the Galaxy captured a small satellite galaxy, or from collisions between cloudlets, or other possibilities.

It has become clear that the anomalous stars are quite a mixed bag themselves, and that, as a group, they undoubtedly contain some misidentified evolved stars, or some Population II stars posing as young B stars. But the youth of quite a number of them seems well established, as shown by accurate determinations of surface gravities and colors, high resolution spectral studies, detailed abundance determinations, rotational velocities, etc. Among the genuinely young OB stars far from the plane, it is also clear that no single mechanism is capable of explaining all cases. Extreme examples, like PG 1002+506, a Be star with z $`>`$ 10 kpc (Ringwald et al. 1998), PG 009+036, a rapidly rotating normal B star at z $`>`$ 5 kpc (Schmidt et al. 1996), and others, are likely to remain puzzling for the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, Tobin (1991) concludes that dynamical ejection from small clusters in the plane, as envisaged for runaway stars by Poveda et al. (1967) and further studied by Gies end Bolton (1986), Leonard and Duncan (1988,1990), and others, remains the most likely explanation for many of the young stars at large distances from the plane. Clearly, it is then of importance to determine for which stars this mechanism is the likely explanation

## 2 A group of young stars far from the galactic plane

Although there are many more examples of presumably young stars far from the galactic plane scattered in the literature, for the purposes of this work we will focus our attention on the relatively homogeneous group of 32 stars studied by Conlon et al. (1990). The evidence for the youth of these stars comes from detailed, high resolution abundance studies not only of elements of the CNO group, but also of heavier elements. These determinations allow the authors to conclude that their stars are bona fide, normal young B stars, and not evolved, intermediate composition stars, or Population II stars mimicking the spectroscopic characteristics of early type stars.

By means of a rudimentary estimation of the times of flight of these stars, assuming they were dynamically ejected from the plane, Conlon et al. conclude that ejection is indeed the most likely mechanism to explain the majority of them.

## 3 Orbital analysis

We have obtained improved estimates of the times of flight by numerically integrating the galactic orbits of these stars. We have updated the proper motions of the Conlon et al. stars using Hipparcos data. Radial velocities were taken, when available, from the Hipparcos Input Catalogue; otherwise, they were calculated from the data given by Conlon et al. We used their values for the distances. We then proceeded to numerically integrate the galactic orbit of each star. The galactic potential model of Allen and Santillan (1993) was used for the integration of the orbits.

For each of the stars, times of flight since they left the galactic plane were obtained from the orbit computations. These times of flight were then compared with the nuclear lifetimes of disk-composition stars using the models of Schaller et al. (1992). The stellar masses determined by Conlon et al. were used. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 1. Successive columns contain the Hipparcos number of the star, the time elapsed since it left the plane, the mass, the main sequence lifetime, the velocity of ejection from the plane, the estimated error in the computed times of flight, the times of flight if the stars formed at z = 700 pc, and finally, a code tagging the stars that can be explained by the ejection mechanism, or some variants thereof.

Table 1 shows that for 24 out of the 32 stars the times of flight are smaller than the nuclear lifetimes. It is clear, then, that these stars could indeed have been ejected from the plane. They are marked by a ’y’ (for yes) in the last column of Table 1. The ejection velocities, also obtained from the orbital analysis, are shown in Column 5. Their values are quite reasonable, and compatible with the ejection model. The errors in the times of flight, shown in Column 6, were estimated by computing two additional orbits for each star, with the initial conditions modified by the observational errors in distances, proper motions and radial velocities. The uncertainties in the times of flight are fairly small, and are largely due to the estimated errors in the distances.

## 4  Discussion and conclusions

We have shown that the dynamical ejection mechanism is a plausible alternative to explain the majority of the stars in Table 1. However, for 8 stars the times of flight are larger than the nuclear lifetimes, and these stars do not have time to reach the z-distances at which they are observed. We could pose the question as to whether there are ways to prolong the nuclear lifetimes of massive stars. One obvious possibility is rapid rotation, which will induce mixing. However, models calculated with rotation increase the nuclear lifetimes by at most 20 percent (Meynet and Maeder 2000). So, rotation would solve the problem only for three additional stars. They are marked by an ’r’ in the last column of Table 1.

Another possibility we can explore is star formation not on the galactic plane, but a few hundreds of parsecs above or below it. Such a mechanism was proposed by Martos et al. (2000), and is a result of the passage through the disk of a spiral density wave, which can eject sheets of gas to distances of up to 800 pc from the plane. After the spiral density wave passes, the gas will fall back onto the plane; however, in certain cases, Martos et al. showed that conditions are favorable for star formation while the ejected gas is still far from the plane. We can envisage that, as occurs in the plane, star formation will result not in single stars being born, but rather multiples or small clusters, within which the dynamical ejection mechanism could take place. We would then have runaway stars being produced not at z = 0 but at z = 500-800 pc.

Returning to the orbital analysis, we can determine the times of flight not since the star left the plane, but since the star left a region situated 700 pc above or below the plane, where it could have formed according to the Martos et al. scheme. Such times of flight are, of course, shorter than the times of flight from the plane, and could be shorter than the nuclear lifetimes of the problem stars. The stars for which this is the case are marked by an ’f’ (for birth far from the plane). There is a total of five stars for which formation away from the plane, as in the Martos et al. scheme, would make the ejection mechanism a plausible alternative.

To sum up our results, the last column of Table 1 shows that taking into account both the increase in the nuclear lifetimes than can result from stellar rotation, and star formation away from the plane, 29 out of the 32 stars can be explained by the dynamical ejection mechanism. This leaves, however, three stars for which another explanation is necessary.


text:
# On the Invariant Distribution of Galaxies in the rₑ –ₑ plane out to z=0.641footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations collected at European Southern Observatory

## 1 Introduction

Early–type galaxies (ETGs) are known to populate a two-dimensional manifold in the space of their observed quantities. This Fundamental Plane (FP) is usually expressed by a correlation among the effective radius $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$, the mean surface brightness $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ within $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$, and the central velocity dispersion $`\sigma _0`$:

$$\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}=\mathrm{a}\mathrm{log}\sigma _0+\mathrm{b}<\mu >_\mathrm{e}+\mathrm{c}.$$
(1)
Due to the small intrinsic dispersion ($`10\%`$ in $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\sigma _0`$, and $`0.1\mathrm{mag}`$ in $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$), the FP is considered as a powerful tool to measure galaxy distances and to constrain the processes driving galaxy evolution (e.g. Kjærgaard, Jørgensen, and Moles 1993; Jørgensen, Franx, and Kjærgaard 1996; Jørgensen et al. 1999; Kelson et al. 2000).

A relevant projection of the FP is the correlation between $`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$, also known as Kormendy relation (hereafter KR):

$$<\mu >_\mathrm{e}=\alpha +\beta \mathrm{log}\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{e},$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{e}`$ is the effective radius in $`\mathrm{kpc}`$, and $`\beta 3`$ (Kormendy, 1977). Different studies have demonstrated that in the nearby universe bright ETGs define a sharp sequence in the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ plane, with an intrinsic dispersion of $`0.3`$$`0.4`$ in $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ (Hamabe and Kormendy 1987; Hoessel, Oegerle, and Schneider 1987; Sandage and Perelmuter 1991; Sandage and Lubin 2001). Moreover, Capaccioli, Caon, and D’Onofrio (1992) have shown that $`\mathrm{ETGs}+\mathrm{bulges}`$ form two distinct families in the plane of the effective parameters: that of the bright ETGs, following the KR, and another ‘ordinary’ family, whose properties are more disperse and heterogeneous. Recently, Graham and Guzmàn (2003, see also references therein) demonstrated that the claimed dichotomy between the bright and the dwarf ETGs is only apparent and that there is a continuous structural relation between the two classes. In particular, the different behavior of bright and dwarf ETGs in the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ plane, and the change in slope of their relations, do not imply a different formation mechanism but can be interpreted with systematic changes in the profile shape with galaxy magnitude.

In order to understand the processes underlying galaxy formation and evolution, it is crucial to investigate the FP and the other relations between galaxy parameters at different look-back times. In the monolithic formation scenario (Larson, 1974), ETGs form at very high redshifts in a strong burst of star formation, and the distribution of galaxies in the space of observed quantities changes with redshift due to the passive fading of their stars. In the hierarchical framework, bright ETGs form by the progressive merging of smaller units, and the FP relations are built up with redshift. Different works have shown (1) that (dissipation-less) merging seems to move galaxies along the FP (Capelato, de Carvalho, and Carlberg, 1995; Dantas et al., 2002), and (2) that in hierarchical models, the luminosity–weighted ages of stellar populations in cluster galaxies appear to be the same of those predicted for pure passive evolution (e.g. Kauffmann 1996). All these facts suggest that for both scenarios dynamical effects could play a minor role in the evolution of scaling correlations. It is expected that the FP slopes change with redshift mainly for possible differences in properties of galaxy stellar populations (such as age and metallicity) along the early-type sequence, while the zero point varies consistently with the evolution of a passive stellar population. In the hierarchical framework, however, it is also expected that the distribution in the space of observed quantities evolves with redshift, as merging proceeds to larger and larger sizes. Clearly, in order to analyze this subject, large samples of galaxies are needed at different look-back times.

In the recent years, it has become feasible to study the scaling relations at intermediate redshifts. Due to the heavy demand of observing time in velocity dispersion measurements, many studies have investigated pure photometric laws, like the KR. The main effort to constrain the evolution of the KR slope with redshift has been performed by Ziegler et al. (1999), who analyzed ETGs properties in four clusters at $`\mathrm{z}0.4`$ and in one at $`\mathrm{z}=0.55`$, with an average of $`20`$$`30`$ galaxies per cluster. These authors found that the slope is comprised between 2.2 and 3.5 both for the Coma and for the distant clusters, depending on the selection criteria of the samples, and suggested, therefore, that it could not have evolved since $`\mathrm{z}0.55`$.

The evolution of the KR zero point for cluster galaxies has been investigated in different works in order to perform the Tolman surface brightness test for the universal expansion (Sandage and Perelmuter, 1991; Pahre, Djorgovski, and de Carvalho, 1996; Sandage and Lubin, 2001; Lubin and Sandage, 2001a, b, c) and to derive the luminosity evolution of ETGs (e.g. Barger et al. 1998; Ziegler et al. 1999). All these studies concluded that the measured change is consistent with what expected on the basis of cosmological dimming plus passive aging of stellar populations formed at high redshifts.

The KR was investigated at high redshifts for galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field by Fasano et al. (1998), who found that ETGs in the field seem to follow the same restframe KR also at redshifts $`\mathrm{z}23`$.

As shown by La Barbera et al. (2002), it is possible to derive structural parameters of galaxies at intermediate redshifts by using ground–based imaging. In the present work, we use structural parameters in the V-band restframe for a total of $`\mathrm{N}=228`$ spheroids in the clusters $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$ at $`\mathrm{z}=0.21`$, $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$ at $`\mathrm{z}=0.31`$, and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}2942`$ (hereafter $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$) at $`\mathrm{z}=0.64`$, and investigate the evolution of the distribution in the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ plane up to a look-back time of $`6\mathrm{Gyr}`$. Surface photometry for galaxies in $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$, $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$ and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$ is published in La Barbera et al. (2003b).

One of the main challenges of previous works on the subject has been represented by selection effects, which can critically affect the determination of the KR. To work out this problem, we introduce a new fitting procedure, which provides un-biased estimates of the KR coefficients, and allows for the first time to investigate the evolution over redshift of the whole distribution in the plane of effective parameters.

The layout of the paper is the following. In Section 2, we present the samples used for the analysis. Section 3 describes the new fitting procedure and deals with the evolution of the KR slope and the comparison of the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ distributions at different redshifts. Section 4 shows the luminosity evolution inferred by the KR. Conclusions are drawn in section 5. In the following, we will assume the cosmology $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{H}_0=70\mathrm{Kms}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. With these parameters, the age of the universe is $`13.5\mathrm{Gyr}`$, and the redshifts $`\mathrm{z}=0.21,\mathrm{z}=0.31`$, and $`\mathrm{z}=0.64`$ correspond to look-back times of $`2.5,3.5`$, and $`6\mathrm{Gyr}`$ respectively.

## 2 The samples

Photometry for the three clusters of galaxies $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$ ($`\mathrm{z}=0.21`$), $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$ ($`\mathrm{z}=0.31`$), and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$ ($`\mathrm{z}=0.64`$) resides on data collected at the ESO New Technology Telescope (NTT) and at the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT). The data relevant for the present study include images in the R band for $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$ and $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$, and in the I band for $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$, all corresponding approximately to V-band restframe. For $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$ and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$, galaxies were selected according to the photometric redshift technique (see Massarotti et al. 2001, and references therein), while for $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$ we considered the sample of spectroscopically confirmed cluster members from Mercurio et al. (2003a) complemented with photometric data (see below). The relevant information on the samples are summarized in table 1.

Structural parameters were derived as described in La Barbera et al. (2002), by fitting galaxy images with Sersic models convolved with suitable representations of the PSF. Uncertainties on structural parameters were estimated as described in La Barbera et al. (2003b), and typically amount to $`\delta (\mathrm{log}r_e)0.09`$ and $`\delta (<\mu >_e)0.4`$ for $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$, $`\delta (\mathrm{log}r_e)0.14`$ and $`\delta (<\mu >_e)0.55`$ for $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$, and to $`\delta (\mathrm{log}r_e)0.07`$ and $`\delta (<\mu >_e)0.30`$ for $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$. In order to study the KR, we selected the population of spheroids on the basis of the shape of the light profile, as parametrized by the Sersic index $`\mathrm{n}`$. We classified as spheroids the galaxies with $`\mathrm{n}>2`$, corresponding to objects with a bulge fraction greater than $`20\%`$ (see Saglia et al. 1997; van Dokkum et al. 1998a). For each cluster we considered all the galaxies brighter than a given magnitude limit $`\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{c}`$. Few objects with small radii and poorly determined structural parameters were excluded by selecting only galaxies with $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ greater than a given surface brightness limit $`<\mu >_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{c}}`$. The completeness of the spectroscopic sample of $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$ is about $`50\%`$ at $`\mathrm{R}20`$, and falls to zero at $`\mathrm{R}=21`$. A magnitude complete sample was obtained by adding to the spectroscopic data all the spheroids within the colour–magnitude sequence of $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$ (see Mercurio et al. 2003a) down to $`\mathrm{R}20.1`$. We point out that the present samples constitute the largest data set ($`\mathrm{N}=228`$) of cluster galaxies, for which the Kormendy relation is investigated up to a look-back time of $`6\mathrm{Gyr}`$.

In order to compare the distributions in the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ plane at intermediate redshifts with that of nearby galaxies, we took advantage of the large sample of ETGs in the Coma cluster by Jørgensen, Franx, and Kjærgaard (1995a, hereafter JFK95a). Structural parameters for $`\mathrm{N}=147`$ galaxies were taken in JFK95a, who fitted the growth curve of aperture magnitudes with de Vaucouleurs $`\mathrm{r}^{1/4}`$ profiles and corrected the estimated parameters for seeing effects. The typical uncertainties on $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ amount to $`0.08`$ and $`0.3\mathrm{mag}`$, respectively (see table 11 of JFK95a). Since it was not possible to select galaxies in the JFK95a sample by using Sersic indices as for the other clusters, we adopted the relation between Sersic index and central velocity dispersion recently found for nearby galaxies by Graham (2002): $`\mathrm{log}n\mathrm{log}\sigma _0`$. We considered the sample of Coma ETGs with available velocity dispersion from Jørgensen, Franx, and Kjærgaard (1995b, hereafter JFK95b, $`\mathrm{N}=76`$) and from Jørgensen (1999, hereafter J99, $`\mathrm{N}=116`$). Among these galaxies, $`\mathrm{N}=113`$ objects have surface photometry from JFK95a. According to Graham 2002 (Figure 1), we selected galaxies with $`\sigma _0>110\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{n}2`$, resulting in a sample of $`\mathrm{N}=93`$ objects. We also excluded from the calculation of the fitting coefficients the three galaxies with largest size in the JFK95a sample: due to the presence of extended halos the use of a de Vaucouleurs model can give very different parameters with respect to the estimates obtained by the Sersic models. The final sample consists in $`\mathrm{N}=90`$ galaxies brighter than $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{G}15.3`$, where $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{G}`$ is the Thuan–Gunn r-band magnitude 222Since spheroids have very small internal colour gradients at optical wavelengths, the difference between the $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{G}`$ band and the V-band restframe at the $`\mathrm{Coma}`$ redshift is not relevant for the present study. We note that, due to the previous selections, the Coma sample does not constitute a magnitude complete sample of galaxies. This point will be further addressed in Section 3.1.

For $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$, $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$, and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$, mean surface brightnesses were corrected for galactic extinction following Schlegel, Finkbeiner, and Davis (1998), while the cosmological dimming was not removed. For the $`\mathrm{Coma}`$ sample, since both corrections were applied by JFK95a, we added the term $`10\mathrm{log}(1+z)`$ to the $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ values.

## 3 Kormendy relations

The $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ diagrams for $`\mathrm{Coma}`$, $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$, $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$, and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$ are shown in Figure 1. For each cluster, spheroids follow a sharp, well defined KR.

### 3.1 Fitting the KR

Since selection effects can strongly affect the estimate of the KR coefficients (see Ziegler et al. 1999), we fitted the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ sequences by introducing a modified least square procedure (hereafter $`\mathrm{MLS}`$, see appendix A), which corrects the bias due to the different completeness cuts in magnitude and $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ of each sample. The fitting coefficients were derived by minimizing the rms of the residuals with respect to $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ ($`\mathrm{MLS}_{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}}`$ and $`\mathrm{MLS}_{<\mu >_\mathrm{e}}`$ fits), and by applying the bisector regression ($`\mathrm{BMLS}`$, see Akritas and Bershady 1996), which is more stable and effective with respect to the other fitting methods.

In order to illustrate the reliability of the adopted procedure, we applied different magnitude cuts, $`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{L}`$, to the sample of $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$, which has the largest number of galaxies, and for each value of $`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{L}`$ we derived the slope and the zero point of the KR by using the $`\mathrm{MLS}`$ and the ordinary least square ($`\mathrm{OLS}`$) fits. In Figure 2 we show the variations of $`\beta `$ and $`\alpha `$ as a function of $`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{L}`$ for the bisector fit. Similar results are obtained for the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ and the $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ regressions. The completeness cut affects significantly the OLS method, producing the well known Malmquist bias: for lower values of $`\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{L}`$ the slope of the KR is overestimated while the value of $`\alpha `$ decreases systematically. On the contrary, it is evident that the $`\mathrm{MLS}`$ procedure removes efficiently the systematic trends of the $`\mathrm{OLS}`$ method, providing un-biased estimates of the KR coefficients. This implies that the $`\mathrm{MLS}`$ fit allows a straightforward comparison of the slope and of the zeropoint of the KR, ruling out any effect related to the different selection criteria of the samples.

Since the selection criteria for the Coma cluster are different with respect to those of the other clusters, we also verified that the fitting results for this sample are not affected by the cuts in magnitude and velocity dispersion. According to the scatter of the relation between velocity dispersion and Sersic index by Graham (2002)333We assumed a $`2\sigma `$ dispersion of $`50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, we varied the velocity dispersion cut within $`\pm 25\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and re-derived the $`\mathrm{MLS}`$ coefficients. It turned out that the slope $`\beta `$ of the KR changes by few percents, while the corresponding variations of the zeropoint are within $`\pm 0.1\mathrm{mag}`$. These values are fully consistent with the estimates of $`\beta `$ and $`\alpha `$ that are given in Sections 3.2 and 4. A similar result was obtained by changing the magnitude limit of the sample down to $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{g}=14.5`$. It is worth to be noted that the values we obtained for the coefficients of the KR at $`\mathrm{z}0`$ are in very good agreement (see Sections 3.2 and 4) with those of previous works for bright nearby ETGs, spanning a much wider luminosity range (see e.g. Capaccioli, Caon, and D’Onofrio 1992). The selection effects on the local reference sample do not affect, therefore, the present analysis.

Another important point is the correlation between the uncertainties on galaxy parameters: for the effective parameters, we have $`\delta (\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e})=\gamma \delta (<\mu >_\mathrm{e})`$ (see JFK95a), where the value of $`\gamma `$ depends on the methods used to derive $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$, and the corresponding uncertainties. In order to estimate the range of possible values of $`\gamma `$, we compared the uncertainties on $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ for samples of galaxies from different sources (Lucey, Bower, and Ellis 1991; Saglia, Bender, and Dressler 1993; Jørgensen, Franx, and Kjærgaard 1995a; Scodeggio, Giovanelli, and Haynes 1997; Scodeggio, Gavazzi, and Belsole 1998; Mobasher et al. 1999): we found $`0.25\gamma 0.34`$. By using numerical simulations (see La Barbera et al. 2002) and by comparing repeated measurements of $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ (see La Barbera et al. 2003b), we obtained $`\gamma 0.25`$ for the parameters of $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$, $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$, and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$, in agreement with the quoted range of $`\gamma `$ values. The correlation between $`\delta (\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e})`$ and $`\delta (<\mu >_\mathrm{e})`$ and the typical values of the uncertainties on the effective parameters are shown in Figure 1. The effect on the KR coefficients was estimated by using numerical simulations of the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ diagrams, by a procedure analogous to that described in La Barbera, Busarello, and Capaccioli (2000). We found that the bias on the KR coefficients is negligible, amounting at most to $`3\%`$ for $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$. This is in agreement with what found by Hamabe and Kormendy (1987) for the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ relation of nearby bright ellipticals and spiral bulges.

### 3.2 Evolution of the slope

The slopes of the KRs are reported in table 2, while the variation of $`\beta `$ with redshift is shown in Figure 3. The uncertainties were estimated by the bootstrap method and amount to $`4`$$`8\%`$ for $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$, $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$, and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$. We note that the uncertainty for the $`\mathrm{Coma}`$ sample is significantly higher ($`9`$$`12\%`$) due to the smaller range of $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$. Figure 3 clearly shows that the values of $`\beta `$ are fully consistent for each pair of clusters, except for the $`\mathrm{MLS}_{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}}`$ and $`\mathrm{MLS}_{<\mu >_\mathrm{e}}`$ slopes of the $`\mathrm{Coma}`$ sample, which are consistent with the other values at a lower significance level ($`1.5\sigma `$). This is due to the fact that the $`\mathrm{MLS}_{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}}`$ and $`\mathrm{MLS}_{<\mu >_\mathrm{e}}`$ methods are more sensitive, with respect to the $`\mathrm{BMLS}`$ method, to the range of $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ used in the fit444In fact, if we include also the three largest galaxies in the fit of the $`\mathrm{Coma}`$ sample, the bisector method gives $`\beta =2.6\pm 0.4`$, that is fully consistent with the value in table 3.. We conclude, therefore, that no significant evolution in the slope of the KR is found up to $`\mathrm{z}0.64`$. We also note that the weighted means of $`\beta `$ reported in table 3 for the various fitting procedures are in very good agreement with values found by previous studies at $`\mathrm{z}0`$: e.g. $`\beta 2.94`$ (Hamabe and Kormendy 1987), $`\beta =3.14\pm 0.09`$ (Hoessel, Oegerle, and Schneider 1987) and $`2.9\beta 3.4`$ (Sandage and Lubin 2001).

The evolution of the KR slope with redshift, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )`$, carries information on the variation in the properties of the mean stellar populations (SPs) as a function of galaxy radius:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}<\mu >_\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}}\right)=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Delta }(<\mu >_\mathrm{e})}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}}=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}},$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{E}=\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e})`$ is the luminosity evolution between $`\mathrm{z}=0.64`$ and $`\mathrm{z}=0`$ at a given $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$. In appendix B, we use the GISSEL98 synthesis code (Bruzual and Charlot 1993) to derive an approximated analytic expression for $`\mathrm{E}`$ as a function of the age $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}`$ and the metallicity $`\mathrm{Z}`$ of the galaxy SPs. We consider luminosity evolution in the V band, since (1) the filters relative to each sample approximate the V-band restframe and (2) internal colour gradients of spheroids are known to be very small in the optical wavebands and not to evolve significantly at intermediate redshifts (see La Barbera et al. 2003b). For models with formation redshift $`\mathrm{z}_\mathrm{f}[1.8,10]`$ and metallicity $`\mathrm{Z}[0.2,2.5]\mathrm{Z}_{}`$, which are suitable to describe the population of spheroids (see also section 4), we show that $`\mathrm{E}`$ depends mainly on $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{E}\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f})`$, so that Eq. 3 can be approximated as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}}=\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f})\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f})=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{E}/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}`$ is computed as described in appendix B. Assuming that the maximum allowed variation of $`\beta `$ is $`2\sigma _\beta `$ (see table 3), we obtain the relation

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}<2\sigma _\beta /\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}).$$
(5)
For a SSP, $`\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f})[1.3,1.65]\mathrm{mag}/\mathrm{Gyr}`$, and the value of $`2\sigma _\beta /\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f})`$ turns out to be in the range $`[0.1,0.12]`$. This implies that the absolute relative variation of $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}`$ per decade of galaxy radius must be smaller than $`28\%`$ ($`0.12\mathrm{dex}`$). As shown in appendix B, a lower limit is obtained for SP models with a protracted SFR. For an exponential SFR with time scale $`\tau =1\mathrm{Gyr}`$, we find $`\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f})[2,3]\mathrm{mag}/\mathrm{Gyr}`$ and the relative variation of $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}`$ is constrained to be smaller than $`18\%`$.

### 3.3 Evolution of the intrinsic dispersion

Since the values of $`\beta `$ are the same at all redshifts, we adopted as common slope in the KR fit the value relative to the $`\mathrm{BMLS}`$ regression, $`\beta =2.92\pm 0.08`$, and computed for each sample the zeropoint $`\alpha `$ and the scatter $`\sigma _{<\mu >_\mathrm{e}}`$, defined by the rms of the residuals $`\delta `$ in $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$: $`\delta =<\mu >_\mathrm{e}\alpha \beta \mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$. The uncertainties on $`\alpha `$ and $`\sigma _{<\mu >_\mathrm{e}}`$ were obtained by numerical simulations, taking also into account the measurement error on the adopted value of the slope. We estimated the intrinsic dispersion of the relations ($`\sigma _{<\mu >_\mathrm{e}}^{(\mathrm{i})}`$) by subtracting in quadrature to $`\sigma _{<\mu >_\mathrm{e}}`$ the amount of dispersion on $`\delta `$ due to the measurement errors on $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$. To this aim, we took into account the typical uncertainties on $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ (see section 2), and their correlation555The covariance term between the measurement errors on $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$was estimated by the same procedure adopted for the typical uncertainties on structural parameters (see section 2). For the $`\mathrm{Coma}`$ cluster, we adopted the covariance term used for $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$, whose structural parameters have similar uncertainties.. The values are given in table 4. It is clear from the table that the KR has significant intrinsic dispersion also at intermediate redshifts ($`0.4`$ in $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$), and that this dispersion does not change with redshift. The intrinsic dispersion of the KR is consistent with that reported by Hoessel, Oegerle, and Schneider (1987) and Kjærgaard, Jørgensen, and Moles (1993) for nearby galaxies, and is mainly due to neglecting velocity dispersions in the FP relation (Eq. 1).

### 3.4 Comparison of the distributions of effective parameters

To compare the distributions in the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ plane, we first shifted the values of $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ for $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$, $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$, and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$ by matching the zeropoints of the KRs, and then applied to each sample the same cuts in magnitude and $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$. Since the $`\mathrm{MLS}`$ fit provides un-biased estimates of the KR coefficients, this procedure is not affected by the different selection criteria of each sample. The $`\mathrm{Coma}`$ cluster was not considered in order to analyze only the samples with structural parameters derived by the same procedure (see below). The combined $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ diagram for $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$, $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$, and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$ is shown in Figure 4.

For each cluster, we derived the mean value, $`<\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}>`$, and the standard deviation, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}}`$, of the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ distribution by applying the bi-weight statistics (e.g. Beers et al. 1990), which has the advantage to minimize the effect of outliers. As shown in table 5, the values of $`<\mathrm{logr}_\mathrm{e}>`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}}`$ are fully consistent (within $`1\sigma `$) for each pair of clusters666This result is not affected by the difference in the measurement uncertainties on $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ among the clusters. In fact, by subtracting in quadrature the error on $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ from $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}}`$, we obtain the following estimates of the standard deviations: $`0.25\pm 0.04`$, $`0.31\pm 0.06`$ and $`0.30\pm 0.08`$, for $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$, $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$, and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$, respectively.. In order to test the presence of differences in the distributions of effective radii, we also applied the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) test. The probability that the observed samples come from the same parent distribution turned out to be $`30\%`$ for $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$ and $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$, $`42\%`$ for $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$ and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$, and $`35\%`$ for $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$ and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$, indicating that the distribution of galaxy sizes does not change significantly over the explored redshift interval.

In order to verify the presence of possible differences in the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ diagram among the clusters, we used the two-dimensional KS test (Fasano and Franceschini 1987). The test was repeated by using different shifts for each cluster to take into account the uncertainties on $`\alpha `$ reported in table 4. Comparing $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$ with the other two clusters, we found probabilities of the KS statistics between $`10\%`$ and $`25\%`$, while a larger probability ($`50\%`$) was obtained by comparing $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$ and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$. We point out that the last result is of particular interest, since the measurement uncertainties on the parameters of $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$ and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$ are similar and are comparable with the intrinsic dispersion of the KR. Since the error bars for the $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$ data are significantly larger, we also performed the KS test by adding further scatter to the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ diagram of $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$ and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$ in order to mimic the measurement uncertainties on the effective parameters at $`\mathrm{z}0.3`$. In this case, we obtained higher probabilities, between $`50\%`$ and $`80\%`$, that the sample of $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$ is drawn from the same parent distribution of the other two clusters.

By considering also the $`\mathrm{Coma}`$ cluster in the comparison of the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ distributions, we obtain $`<\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}>=0.40\pm 0.03`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}}=0.24\pm 0.03`$, while the KS tests for both the one-dimensional and two-dimensional case give probabilities between $`5\%`$ and $`10\%`$. The fact that the KS probabilities and the value of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}r_e}`$ are lower with respect to those obtained for the other distributions can be explained by the different procedure by which the structural parameters of the $`\mathrm{Coma}`$ cluster are derived, and is therefore not relevant for the present analysis.

The previous results, together with those of Sections 3.2 and 3.3, indicate that the distribution in the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ plane for cluster galaxies does not vary significantly at least back to $`\mathrm{z}0.64`$.

## 4 Luminosity evolution

The evolution of the zeropoint of the KR over redshift is determined (1) by the variation of the distribution of galaxy sizes and of the KR slope with look-back time, (2) by the effect of the cosmological dimming on $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$, (3) by the luminosity evolution of galaxy stellar populations, (4) by the values of cosmological parameters. Point (1) is ruled out by the results of Sections 3.2 and 3.4. Since the investigation of point (4) would require a larger number of cluster samples, we will focus the discussion on points (2) and (3).

We start to note that, as for the KR slope, the value of $`\alpha `$ obtained by the $`\mathrm{BMLS}`$ fit for the Coma sample is consistent with that found by previous studies at $`\mathrm{z}0`$. For example, if we adopt the KR slope obtained by Hoessel, Oegerle, and Schneider (1987, hereafter HOS87) in the $`\mathrm{r}`$ band for a sample of 97 bright nearby early–types ($`\beta =3.14`$), we obtain $`\alpha =18.60`$ for the $`\mathrm{Coma}`$ sample, which is in very good agreement with that of HOS87 reported to our cosmology777We also took into account the k-correction and the cosmological dimming which HOS87 removed from the data.: $`\alpha =18.55\pm 0.13`$.

Suitable corrections were applied to the data in order to convert the $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ values to the same restframe waveband (V) for each cluster. We used the GISSEL98 synthesis code (Bruzual and Charlot 1993) to construct galaxy templates with different age $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}`$ (referred to $`\mathrm{z}=0`$), metallicity $`\mathrm{Z}`$ and time scale $`\tau `$ of star formation. In order to consider a wide range of possible spectral types describing the galaxies in our sample, we chose the following range of parameters: $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}[8,13]\mathrm{Gyr}`$, $`\mathrm{Z}[0.5,1.5]\mathrm{Z}_{}`$ and $`\tau [0.01,5]\mathrm{Gyr}`$. The mean values of the derived corrections and the relative uncertainties are shown in table 6. We notice that the uncertainties are very small ($`0.03\mathrm{mag}`$), i.e. the dependence on the spectral type is negligible, due to the fact that the observed wavebands approximate closely the V-band restframe for each cluster. We also verified that using SSP spectra by Buzzoni (1989) gives values fully consistent with those of table 6. This proves that it is correct to apply the same corrections to all the galaxies in each cluster. The V-band zeropoints ($`<\mu _V>_e`$) of the KR were obtained by adding the values reported in table 6 to the values of $`\alpha `$ (table 4), and the corresponding error budgets were estimated by adding in quadrature the uncertainties on the corrections with $`\sigma _\alpha `$.

In Figure 5 we show the relation between $`<\mu _V>_e`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(1+\mathrm{z})`$. The observed points are well described by a linear relation $`<\mu _\mathrm{V}>_\mathrm{e}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{log}(1+\mathrm{z})`$. A least square fit gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=7.7\pm 0.6`$, or equivalently: $`<\mathrm{I}_\mathrm{V}>_\mathrm{e}(1+\mathrm{z})^{3.08\pm 0.24}`$, where $`<\mathrm{I}_\mathrm{V}>_\mathrm{e}`$ is the mean surface brightness within $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ in linear units. As shown by Lubin and Sandage (2001c), this excludes the relation $`<\mathrm{I}_\mathrm{V}>_\mathrm{e}(1+\mathrm{z})^1`$, which would hold in the case of a non-expanding universe. We compare the relation between $`<\mu _V>_e`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(1+\mathrm{z})`$ with a no evolution sequence, that is with a pure Tolman signal $`<\mathrm{I}_\mathrm{V}>_\mathrm{e}(1+\mathrm{z})^4`$, and with models that include both cosmological dimming and passive luminosity evolution (see Figure 5). These models were constructed by the GISSEL98 synthesis code as follows. We considered galaxy templates with solar metallicity $`\mathrm{Z}=\mathrm{Z}_{}`$, with different formation redshifts ($`\mathrm{z}_\mathrm{f}=1,2,5,10`$), and with two time scales of star formation: $`\tau =1\mathrm{Gyr}`$, which gives a suitable description of the evolution of ETG integrated colours, and $`\tau =0.01\mathrm{Gyr}`$, which reproduces the properties of a simple stellar population. Changing the value of $`\mathrm{Z}`$ in the range $`0.5`$$`1.5Z_{}`$ does not change significantly the results. The models were arbitrarily scaled to fit the data.

According to what found by previous studies (see Lubin and Sandage 2001c), the trend of $`<\mu >_e`$ with redshift is well described by the superposition of the Tolman signal with pure (passive) luminosity evolution. The formation redshift of the stellar populations is constrained to be higher than $`\mathrm{z}_\mathrm{f}2`$ with a confidence level $`2\sigma `$, in agreement with what found by previous studies of the KR (Barger et al. 1998 and Ziegler et al. 1999) and of the FP (Kelson et al. 1997; van Dokkum et al. 1998b; Jørgensen 1999; Pahre, Djorgovski, and de Carvalho 2001).

## 5 Conclusions

We have studied the evolution of the optical, V-band restframe, Kormendy relation in the range $`0\mathrm{z}0.64`$, by using ground-based effective parameters derived in previous works for the clusters of galaxies $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$ ($`\mathrm{z}=0.21`$), $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$ ($`\mathrm{z}=0.31`$), and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$ ($`\mathrm{z}=0.64`$), and published data for the Coma cluster ($`\mathrm{z}0.023`$). Galaxies were selected by the photometric redshift technique for $`\mathrm{AC}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}118}`$ and $`\mathrm{EIS}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0048}`$ and by spectroscopic redshifts complemented with photometric data for $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$.

We introduce a new fitting procedure, the $`\mathrm{MLS}`$ fit, which provides un-biased estimates of the KR coefficients. This allows, for the first time, to investigate the evolution of the slope and of the scatter of the KR, as well as of the whole distribution in the plane of effective parameters.

The results of the present work can be summarized as follows.

Spheroids define a tight sequence in the plane of the effective parameters at least back to $`\mathrm{z}0.64`$.

The slope $`\beta `$ and the intrinsic dispersion $`\sigma _{<\mu >_\mathrm{e}}^{(\mathrm{i})}`$ turn out to be consistent at all redshifts. The mean values of $`\beta `$ and $`\sigma _{<\mu >_\mathrm{e}}^{(\mathrm{i})}`$ are $`2.92\pm 0.08`$ and $`0.40\pm 0.03`$, respectively.

The fact that the KR slopes are the same among all the clusters constrains the possible change in the formation epoch of galaxy stellar populations per decade of radius to be smaller than $`28\%`$ for SSP models, and smaller than $`18\%`$ for populations having an exponential SFR with $`\tau =1\mathrm{Gyr}`$.

The mean value and the width of the distribution of galaxy sizes are consistent for each pair of clusters. Moreover, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests indicate that the whole distribution in the $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$$`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ plane do not vary over redshift.

In agreement with previous studies, the evolution of the KR zeropoint is explained by the superposition of the Tolman signal and the passive evolution of stellar populations with high formation redshift, $`\mathrm{z}_\mathrm{f}>2`$.

These results imply that, whatever the mechanism driving galaxy evolution is, (1) it has already built up the Kormendy relation at $`\mathrm{z}=0.64`$ and (2) it does not affect significantly the properties of spheroids in the plane of effective parameters from that redshift down to $`\mathrm{z}0`$. The fact that the KR slope does not evolve with redshift sets constrains on the differential luminosity evolution along the early-type sequence, and, therefore, on the properties of galaxy stellar populations as a function of galaxy radius. These results should be taken into account by any model aimed at reproducing the physical processes underlying formation and evolution of spheroids.

We are grateful to R. de Carvalho and A. Iovino for the helpful discussions. We thank A. Mercurio for providing us with the photometry of the cluster of galaxies $`\mathrm{A}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}209}`$. Michele Massarotti is partly supported by a ‘MIUR-COFIN’ grant.

## Appendix A The MLS fits

We consider the statistical model:

$$\mathrm{Y}=\mathrm{A}+\mathrm{B}\mathrm{X}$$
(A1)
where $`\mathrm{X}`$ and $`\mathrm{Y}`$ are two random variables describing the distributions of $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$ (or viceversa) and A and B are the zero point and the slope of the KR. In order to derive A and B, we have to take into account the constrains on $`\mathrm{X}`$ and $`\mathrm{Y}`$ arising from the selection cuts. By considering the case of a single cut, we have the following constrain:

$$\mathrm{y}<\mathrm{c}_1+\mathrm{c}_2\mathrm{x}$$
(A2)
where x and y are the outputs of $`\mathrm{X}`$ and $`\mathrm{Y}`$, while the coefficients $`\mathrm{c}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{c}_2`$ describe the selection cut. The direction of the inequality in Eq. A2 is chosen arbitrarily. In the case of the magnitude limit $`\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{c}`$, with $`\mathrm{x}=\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`\mathrm{y}=<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$, we have $`\mathrm{c}_1=\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{c}+2.5\mathrm{log}(2\pi )`$ and $`\mathrm{c}_2=5`$. This follows from the relation $`\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{T}=2.5\mathrm{log}(2\pi )5`$ $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{e}+<\mu >_\mathrm{e}`$, where $`\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{T}`$ is the total magnitude, and from the constrain $`\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{T}<\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{c}`$.

For a fixed value of $`\mathrm{x}`$, the probability to find a point in the interval $`(\mathrm{y},\mathrm{y}+\mathrm{dy})`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{x}(\mathrm{y})\mathrm{d}\mathrm{y}=\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{A},\mathrm{B},\mathrm{c}_1,\mathrm{c}_2)\mathrm{exp}\left[(\mathrm{y}\mathrm{A}\mathrm{B}\mathrm{x})^2/(2\sigma ^2)\right]\mathrm{f}(\mathrm{c}_1+\mathrm{c}_2\mathrm{x}\mathrm{y})\mathrm{d}\mathrm{y}$$
(A3)
where f is a step function, and the coefficient K is derived by imposing $`\mathrm{P}(\mathrm{y})d\mathrm{y}=1`$. Eq. A3 can be directly generalized to the case of multiple cuts and to a more complex shape of the selection function f. We write the likelihood $`L=\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{x}_\mathrm{i}}(\mathrm{y}_\mathrm{i})`$, and derive the coefficients in Eq. A1 by minimizing the function $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ with respect to A and B. We notice that in the ordinary least square fit the function f is absent in Eq. A3. Therefore, the term K does not depend on $`\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{B}`$ and the minimization of $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ reduces to solving a coupled system of linear equations in A and B.

## Appendix B Parameterizing the luminosity evolution

Spectra of galaxy templates were constructed by the GISSEL98 synthesis code, considering models with a Scalo IMF and an exponential SFR, $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{t}/\tau }`$. We considered SSP spectra and models having a protracted SFR, $`\tau =1.0\mathrm{Gyr}`$, with metallicity $`\mathrm{Z}=0.2,0.4,1,2.5\mathrm{Z}_{}`$ and age $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}[4,13]\mathrm{Gyr}`$. The range of $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}`$ was chosen in order to describe the properties of galaxy templates having formation redshift $`\mathrm{z}_\mathrm{f}[1.8,10]`$ (corresponding to a look-back time $`\mathrm{t}_{\mathrm{LB}}[10,13]\mathrm{Gyr}`$), from $`\mathrm{z}=0.64`$ to $`\mathrm{z}=0`$.

For both models, we found that the dependence of the V-band magnitude at $`z0`$ on $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}`$ and $`\mathrm{Z}`$ is well described by a second-order polynomial fit:

$$\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{V}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f},\mathrm{Z})\underset{\mathrm{i}=1,2}{}\mathrm{c}_\mathrm{i}\left[\mathrm{log}\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}\right]^\mathrm{i}+\underset{\mathrm{i}=1,2}{}\mathrm{d}_\mathrm{i}\left[\mathrm{log}\mathrm{Z}\right]^\mathrm{i}+\mathrm{cost},$$
(B1)
with a rms of $`0.02\mathrm{mag}`$. The restframe V-band magnitude at $`\mathrm{z}=0.64`$ is obtained by substituting $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}`$ with $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}\mathrm{t}_{0.64}`$ in Eq. B1, where $`\mathrm{t}_{0.64}`$ is the look-back time corresponding to $`z=0.64`$. We point out that the presence of cross terms in Eq. B1, such as $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{Z}`$, reduces the rms of the fit only marginally, by less than $`0.01\mathrm{mag}`$, and that, therefore, the luminosity evolution $`\mathrm{E}=\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{V}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}\mathrm{t}_{0.64},\mathrm{Z})\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{V}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f},\mathrm{Z})`$ depends mainly on $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}`$, that is $`\mathrm{E}\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f})`$.

The derivative of $`\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f})`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}`$ can be computed analytically from Eq. B1 and is given by the following equation:

$$\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f})=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}}=\mathrm{c}_1\left[\frac{\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}}{\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}\mathrm{t}_{0.64}}1\right]+2\mathrm{c}_2\left[\frac{\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}\mathrm{t}_{0.64})}{\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}\mathrm{t}_{0.64}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f}\right].$$
(B2)
This relation was used to compute the range of values of $`\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{f})`$ in section 3.2.