format: text

text:
# Morimoto’s Conjecture for m-small knots

## 1. Introduction

This proceeding article is based on a talk given in Waseda University on the 18 December 2002, about Morimoto’s Conjecture which is concerned with the behavior of Heegaard genus of knot exteriors under connected sum. For a knot exterior, we consider two equivalent decomposition: the first is given by tunnel system, which is a collection of embedded arcs and the other a Heegaard splitting, given by an embedded surface. (See next section for standard definition.) The complexity of a tunnel system is the number of arcs and the complexity of a Heegaard surface is its genus. The complexity of a knot $`KM`$ is the minimal number of tunnels required for a tunnel system (called the tunnel number and denoted $`t(K)`$) or the genus of the minimal genus Heegaard surface (called the Heegaard genus and denoted $`g(X)`$, here $`X=MN(K)`$). It is immediate from definitions that $`g(X)=t(K)+1`$. Let $`K_1M_1`$ and $`K_2M_2`$ be two knots, and let $`K(=K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2)M(=M_1\mathrm{\#}M_2)`$ be the connected sum. In Section 2 we recall the easy fact: $`t(K)t(K_1)+t(K_2)+1`$. (More generally, $`t(K)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^nt(K_i)+(n1).`$) Translating this into the language of Heegaard genus, we get $`g(X)g(x_1)+g(X_2)`$. (More generally, $`g(X)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^ng(X_i).`$) In this paper we use the notation of Heegaard genus which seems simpler than tunnel number. Note that a knot exterior $`X`$ (resp. $`X_i`$) has a distinguished slope, the meridian, denoted $`\mu `$ (resp. $`\mu _i`$). Since we are interested in the knot exterior, instead of studying the connected sum of knots, we consider what happens to the exteriors. It is easy to see that $`X=X_1_AX_2`$, where $`AX_i`$ is an annulus that is a neighborhood of $`\mu _i`$ in $`X_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$). We denote that operation $`X_1X_2`$ but emphasize that $`X_1X_2`$ depends not only on $`X_i`$ but on $`\mu _i`$ as well. It should be noted that the operation $``$ is more closely related to torus decomposition than connected sum.

Y. Moriah and J.H. Rubinstein  showed that there exist knots $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ for which $`g(X)=g(X_1)+g(X_2)`$. K. Morimoto  constructed examples for which $`g(X)=g(X_1)+g(X_2)2`$ and T. Kobayashi  generalized them to examples were $`g(X)=g(x_1)+g(X_2)n`$ for arbitrarily large $`n`$. These and all other known examples have one thing in common: at least one of the two knot exteriors has a minimal genus Heegaard surface with a primitive meridian.

###### Definition 1.1.

A minimal genus Heegaard splitting for a knot exterior $`X`$ has a primitive meridian if there exists a compressing disk for the compression body that intersect a spanning annulus with a meridian slope exactly once.

###### Remark.

A non-minimal genus Heegaard surface, even if it is irreducible, is never said to have a primitive meridian. Otherwise we need to modify Assertion 1.2.

Morimoto further observes that the existence of a primitive meridian guarantees a degeneration of the genus:

###### Assertion 1.2.

Let $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ be two knot exteriors and let $`X=X_1X_2`$ be the exterior of the connect sum.

If $`X_1`$ or $`X_2`$ contains a primitive meridian then $`g(X)g(x_1)+g(X_2)1.`$

###### Proof.

Recall that $`X_1X_2`$ is obtained from $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$ by identifying meridional annuli.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1X_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2X_2`$ be minimal genus Heegaard surfaces, say $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ contains a primitive meridian. After gluing $`X_1`$ to $`X_2`$ we surger the Heegaard surfaces together along an annulus that runs across $`A`$. The component of $`X_1X_2`$ containing the boundary is easily seen to be a compression body: it is simply a neighborhood of the boundary union neighborhoods of tunnels for both knots. The other component is obtained by gluing the handlebody components of $`X_i`$ cut open along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ to each other along an annulus, which is general does not yield a handlebody. However, since $`X_2`$ contained a primitive meridian the annulus is longitudinal there, and a handlebody is obtained. ∎

Before stating our results we define:

###### Definitions 1.3.

1. A surface with non empty boundary, properly embedded in a manifold is called essential if it is incompressible, boundary incompressible and not boundary parallel.
2. A knot exterior is called meridionally small if there is no essential surface with non empty boundary whose boundary forms parallel copies of the meridian; in other words the meridian is not a boundary slope.

We prove two results, the first numerical:

###### Theorem 1.4 (The Numerical Theorem).

Let $`\{X_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ be exteriors of m-small knots and $`X=_{i=1}^nX_i`$ be the exterior of the connected sum. Then:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^ng(X_i)(n1)g(X)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^ng(X_i).$$

###### Remarks.

The assumption required for this bound is in fact weaker than m-smallness: we just need a minimal genus Heegaard surface to weakly reduce to a swallow follow torus. (see Theorems 1.6 and 4.1).

Thus, in contrast to the examples of Morimoto and of Kobayashi mentioned above, the degeneration of Heegaard genus under connected sum is bounded. This result, with a small assumption (that none of the ambient manifolds has a lens space component) was obtained by Morimoto .

In this theorem and throughout the paper we are considering knot exteriors. The statements can be rephrased in the language of manifolds with boundary torus. Let $`(X_i,\mu _i)`$ be the manifold $`X_i`$ with a choice of meridian $`\mu _i`$ ($`i=1,..,n)`$. By Hatcher’s Theorem  $`(X_i,\mu _i)`$ is $`\mu _i`$-small for all but finitely many choices of $`\mu _i`$. Therefore for all other values of $`\mu _i`$ the bound above is valid; we get the following theorem (other theorems in this paper can be modified similarly).

###### Theorem (The Numerical Theorem (1.4) version 2).

Given $`X_i`$ ($`i=1,..,n`$) manifolds with boundary torus, after excluding a finite set of slopes from each $`X_i`$ we get the following inequality for all remaining slopes:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^ng(X_i)(n1)_{i=1}^n(X_i,\mu _i))\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^ng(X_i).$$

Our second result is geometric; it generalizes Morimoto’s Conjecture for the connected sum of $`n`$ knots (we return to the language of knot exteriors):

###### Theorem 1.5 (Morimoto’s Conjecture).

Let $`\{X_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ be exteriors of m-small knots. Then:

If $`g(X)<\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^ng(X_i)`$ there exists some $`I\{1,..,n\}`$ a proper subset so that $`X=_{iI}X_i`$ contains a primitive meridian.

We remark that by saying “$`I`$ is a proper subset” we mean that $`I\{1,..,n\}`$ and $`I\mathrm{}`$.

This theorem too has a second version, again using Hatcher’s Theorem:

###### Theorem (Morimoto’s Conjecture (1.5) version 2).

Given $`X_i`$ ($`i=1,..,n`$) manifolds with boundary torus, after excluding a finite set of slopes from each $`X_i`$ for all remaining slopes we get:

If $`g(_{i=1}^n(X_i,\mu _i))<\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^ng(X_i)`$ there exists some $`I\{1,..,n\}`$ a proper subset so that $`X=_{iI}X_i`$ contains a primitive meridian.

The main tool for proving both these results is:

###### Theorem 1.6 (The Swallow Follow Theorem).

Let $`X_i`$ be a collection of exteriors of meridionally small knots.

Then any Heegaard splitting of $`X`$ (the exterior of the connected sum) weakly reduces to a swallow follow torus.

Acknowledgement: We would like to thank Kanji Morimoto for helpful conversations. The second named author: this research was conducted while I was a JSPS fellow at Nara Women’s University. I would like to thank the university, the math department and particularly Tsuyoshi Kobayashi for wonderfully warm hospitality, and Kouki Taniyama for giving me the opportunity to visit Waseda University.

## 2. Background

We review some standard definitions (see also  or ): let $`M`$ be a closed 3-manifold. A knot $`kM`$ is a smooth embedding of $`S^1`$ into $`M`$. The knot exterior $`X`$ (which is a manifold with boundary torus) is $`MN(k)`$, where $`N()`$ is an open normal neighborhood. A compression body is a manifold $`C`$ with distinguished boundary component (denoted $`_+C`$, and $`_{}C=C_+C`$) so that after compressing $`_+`$ maximally a collection of balls and components of the form ($`_{}C\times [0,1]`$) are obtained. A compressing disk for $`_+C`$ is called a meridian disk. A handlebody (denoted $`H`$) is the special case of compression body where only balls are obtained (equivalently if $`_{}H=\mathrm{}`$). A tunnel system is a collection of arcs properly embedded in the knot exterior whose exterior is a handlebody. It is well known (and an easy consequence of Morse theory) that every knot has a tunnel system. The tunnel number $`t(K)`$ is the least number of arcs required for a tunnel system. If $`T`$ is a tunnel system, $`(N(XT))`$ is a surface that decomposes the knot exterior into a compression body $`C`$ (with $`_{}C=X`$) and a handlebody $`H`$. A closed surface that decomposes $`X`$ into a handlebody and a compression body is called a Heegaard surface (denoted $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(X)=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$). It is well known that any Heegaard surface is given as the neighborhood of some tunnel system. Note that the genus of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (denoted $`g(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$) is exactly one more than the number of tunnels.

A Heegaard splitting is called stabilized if there are meridional disks on opposite sides intersecting exactly once, non-stabilized otherwise. If a Heegaard splitting is stabilized, by cutting along one of the disks a Heegaard splitting of lower genus is obtained (it is a consequence of Scharlemann and Thompson  that the converse is also true). We will be mostly concerned with minimal genus Heegaard splittings which are therefore always non-stabilized.

An extremely important concept for the study of Heegaard splittings is strong irreducibility (see ). A weak reduction for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a pair meridian disks on opposite sides of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that are disjoint. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is called strongly irreducible if there does not exist a weak reduction, weakly reducible otherwise. If after compressing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to both sides an essential surface $`F`$ is obtained we say that $`F`$ was obtained from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by weak reduction. Casson and Gordon  showed that if a non stabilized Heegaard surface weakly reduces, some weak reduction yields an essential surface. This was the first time a Heegaard surface was used to produce an essential surface, but by no means the last.

A connected sum of knots $`K_iM_i(i=1,2)`$ is defined (much like the case $`M_iS^3`$) by removing a small ball around each knot and gluing the spheres obtained so that the endpoint of the arcs match up. After removing the intersection of $`N(K)`$ with the sphere an essential annulus is obtained, called a decomposing annulus. The connected sum is denoted $`K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2`$ and is naturally a knot in $`M_1\mathrm{\#}M_2`$. It is now straight forward to see that $`t(K)t(K_1)+t(K_2)+1`$ by taking the union of tunnel system for $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ and a tunnel that is an essential arc on the decomposing annulus. As noted above the exterior of $`K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2`$ is obtained from the exteriors of $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ by gluing a meridional annulus. We denote the exterior of $`K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2`$ by $`X_1X_2`$ (or just $`X`$), where $`X_i`$ is the exterior of $`K_i`$. Connected sum of $`n`$ knots is defined by induction, and similar notation is used.

Scharlemann and Thompson  refined Casson and Gordon’s weak reduction  in a construction called untelescoping (Kobayashi  showed that untelescoping is strictly finer than weak reduction). We briefly describe untelescoping: by Casson and Gordon any non-stabilized Heegaard splitting can be untelescoped to give a collection of closed, essential surfaces (if the Heegaard surface was strongly irreducible this collection is empty and we are done). Each submanifold obtained by cutting the manifold open along these surfaces inherit a Heegaard splitting (called the induced Heegaard splitting). If the induced Heegaard splitting weakly reduces, apply Casson and Gordon’s result again (see Sedgwick  for the case with boundary) to obtain a larger collection of essential surfaces. We repeat this process that eventually terminates. Scharlemann and Thompson show that the induced Heegaard splitting after this final stage is strongly irreducible. We will be using these facts in an essential way in the proof presented in Section 5 refer the reader to  and  for a more detailed account of untelescoping. Since getting $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ back from the induced Heegaard splittings is the converse of untelescoping, called amalgamating.

## 3. basic constructions

The construction behind all our work is based on the following theorem:

###### Theorem (1.6).

Let $`X_i`$ be a collection of exteriors of meridionally small knots.

Then any Heegaard splitting of $`X`$ (the exterior of the connected sum) weakly reduces to a swallow follow torus.

###### Sketch of proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a Heegaard surface for $`X`$. Let $`A=\{A_j\}_{j=1}^{n1}`$ be some collection of essential annuli so that $`X`$ cut open along $`A`$ is $`_{i=1}^nX_i`$ ($``$ denotes disjoint union). We consider three cases.

We show that this leads to a contradiction. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is strongly irreducible we can then isotope it to intersect $`A`$ in curves that are all essential in both $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (this is a standard application of strong irreducibility and we omit the details). For $`i=1,2`$ let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ be the collection of surfaces obtained by cutting $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ along $`A`$, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_iX_i`$ ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ need not be connected). Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a Heegaard surface for $`X`$ (and $`X`$ is not a compression body) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ compresses into both sides. Let $`D_+`$ and $`D_{}`$ be compressing disks for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on opposite sides of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By minimizing the intersection of $`D_+`$ and $`D_{}`$ with $`A`$, and using innermost and outermost disk arguments, we obtain a compression or a boundary compression from some component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$, and since $`X_i`$ is a torus, boundary compression implies compression (this point requires a little care about components that are boundary parallel annuli, but we ignore that here). We choose a normal direction for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Each component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ inherits a normal direction. Some component of some $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ compresses to one side and some component of some $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$ (possibly $`i=j`$) compresses to the other side. A compression for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ is also a compression for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (recall that all curves of intersection are essential in both). By strong irreducibility the compressing disks must intersect, and therefore both compress the same component of the same $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$. Furthermore strong irreducibility implies that all other components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ are essential. This violates m-smallness of the knot exteriors $`X_i`$. (Compare this with  and : there too the authors produce bounded essential surfaces using Heegaard surfaces.)

Thus we may assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ weakly reduces, and we can maximally untelescope it (, recall Section 2) obtaining a collection of closed essential surfaces denoted $`S`$, with $`S_j`$ denoting a component of $`S`$. Minimize the intersection $`S`$ with $`A`$. Any component of $`S`$ that actually intersects $`A`$ is broken up into pieces that are incompressible, and if some such component is also of negative Euler characteristic, it must be essential, a contradiction similarly to above. (Note that no such component is a disk.) But this would contradict m-smallness. We conclude that each component $`S_j`$ of $`S`$ is exactly one of the following:

1. $`S_jA=\mathrm{}`$, or—
2. each component of $`S_j`$ cut open along $`A`$ is an annulus (these annuli must be boundary parallel).

We are now ready for the remaining two cases:

$`(j)S_jA=\mathrm{}`$. Cutting $`X`$ open along $`S`$ we get a collection of manifolds, one of them containing $`A`$. By the maximality of the untelescoping the Heegaard splitting for this component is strongly irreducible, but in Case One of this proof we showed that if an annular manifold contains a strongly irreducible Heegaard surface then it contains an essential surface with boundary on $`A`$. (In our main paper we show that that proof is valid here as well.) This surface remains essential in $`X`$, and can be used to contradict m-smallness

$`(j)S_jA\mathrm{}`$. We following an argument of Morimoto . $`S_j`$ is cut up to annuli, since any component of negative Euler characteristic would contradict m-smallness. Thus $`S_j`$ is a torus. To conclude this sketch we show that a torus that cannot be disjoint from $`A`$ is a swallow follow torus. After arranging the intersection of $`S_j`$ and $`A`$ to be essential and minimal, an outermost subannulus of $`A`$ cut open along $`S_j`$ is an annulus with one boundary on $`S_j`$ and the other a meridian. Surgering the torus $`S_j`$ along this subannulus we obtain a meridional annulus that must be decomposing. Thus $`S_j`$ was obtained from some decomposing annulus by tubing along the boundary and is therefore a swallow follow torus by definition. This completes the proof.

We obtain the following corollary, see  for a detailed description. This corollary is a restatement of Theorem 1.6 in an easy to use manner.

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`Y`$ be a knot exterior. Then $`\widehat{Y}`$ denotes the manifold obtained from $`Y`$ by drilling out a curve parallel to a meridian on $`Y`$.

###### Corollary 3.2.

Let $`T`$ be the swallow follow torus obtained in Theorem 1.6.

Suppose $`T`$ follows $`X_I=_{iI}X_i`$ for some $`I\{1,..,n\}`$ and swallows $`X_J=_{iJ}X_i`$ (here $`J=\{1,..n\}I`$ and of course $`I\mathrm{}`$ and $`J\mathrm{}`$).

Then $`XX_I_T\widehat{X}_J`$.

Note in the corollary above $`\widehat{X}_J`$ has two boundary components and $`X_I`$ only one. As we shall see, the primitive meridian we are trying to find is in $`\widehat{X}_J`$ and not necessarily in $`X_I`$, so there is no symmetry between the roles of $`X_I`$ and $`X_J`$. More about that later.

## 4. numerical bounds

Corollary 3.2 holds whenever a minimal genus Heegaard surface weakly reduces to a swallow follow torus. We demonstrate its usefulness. In the following theorem we are not assuming that $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are m-small (or even prime).

###### Theorem 4.1.

Suppose a minimal genus Heegaard surface of $`X_1X_2`$ weakly reduces to a swallow follow torus that follows one and swallows the other.

Then $`g(X_1)+g(X_2)1g(X_1X_2)g(X_1)+g(X_2).`$

###### Remark.

Recall that the right hand side inequality is easy and always holds.

Before sketching the proof of Theorem 4.1 we bring two corollaries. The first is obtained as follows: let $`X`$ be the exterior of a connected sum of m-small knots. Then $`X_I`$ and $`X_J`$ described in Corollary 3.2 are exteriors of connected sum of m-small knots as well (perhaps just one summand). By induction we get:

###### Theorem (1.4).

Let $`\{X_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ be exteriors of m-small knots and $`X=_{i=1}^nX_i`$ be the exterior of the connected sum. Then:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^ng(X_i)(n1)g(X)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^ng(X_i).$$

Another corollary is about Morimoto’s examples . Morimoto has examples of knot exteriors so that $`g(X_1)=2`$, $`g(X_2)=3`$ and $`g(X_1X_2)`$ = 3. We get:

###### Corollary 4.2.

Let $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ be knots with irreducible and a-toroidal exteriors.

If $`g(X_1)+g(X_2)5`$ and $`g(X_1X_2)=3`$ then any minimal genus Heegaard surface for $`X_1X_2`$ is strongly irreducible.

The knots $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ in Morimoto’s example are hyperbolic knots in $`S^3`$ and therefore fulfil the assumptions of the corollary above, thus we get an example of a connected sum that has only strongly irreducible minimal genus Heegaard surfaces (this was obtained independently by Y. Moriah  using different techniques).

###### Proof of Corollary 4.2.

Assume for contradiction that a minimal genus Heegaard surface weakly reduces. Then by Casson and Gordon  some weak reduction yields an essential surface $`F`$. The genus of $`F`$ is at most $`g(X_1X_2)2`$, hence at most 1. Our assumptions imply that $`X_1X_2`$ contains no essential sphere, hence $`F`$ must be a torus. If $`F`$ can be isotoped to be disjoint from the decomposing annulus it must be parallel to $`X_1`$ or $`X_2`$, thus a swallow follow torus. On the other hand if $`F`$ cannot be made disjoint from the decomposing annulus, we can arrange the intersection of $`F`$ and the annulus to consist of a non-empty collection of essential curves. As we saw above, surgering $`F`$ along an outermost subannulus yields an essential annulus and therefore $`F`$ is a swallow follow torus. In both cases we conclude that the minimal genus Heegaard surface weakly reduces to a swallow follow torus.

Hence by Theorem 4.1 the genus reduces by one at most, contradiction. ∎

###### Sketch of proof of Theorem 4.1.

Corollary 3.2 gives the decomposition $`X=X_1\widehat{X}_2`$ or $`X=\widehat{X}_1X_2`$ (say the former). Recall that in Theorem 4.1 we assumed the Heegaard surface for $`X`$ is minimal genus. Consider the induced Heegaard surfaces on $`X_1`$ and $`\widehat{X}_2`$. If the induced Heegaard surfaces on $`X_1`$ and $`\widehat{X}_2`$ are not minimal genus, replacing them with a lower genus Heegaard surface and amalgamating we get a lower genus Heegaard surface for $`X`$, contradiction. Using these Heegaard surfaces we get (e.g. ):

(1)
$$g(X)=g(X_1)+g(\widehat{X}_2)g(T)=g(X_1)+g(\widehat{X}_2)1$$

By Definition 3.1 $`X_2`$ is obtained from $`\widehat{X}_2`$ by Dehn filling, and moreover, the core of the attached solid torus is parallel into a meridian curve on $`X_2`$. It is therefore parallel into every Heegaard surface of $`X_2`$. In  this type of filling is called good and it was shown there that for good fillings:

(2)
$$g(\widehat{X}_2)1g(X_2)g(\widehat{X}_2)$$

Equations (1) and (2) complete the proof of Theorem 4.1. ∎

## 5. Morimoto’s Conjecture for $`n=2`$

###### Theorem 5.1.

Suppose $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are m-small knots and that $`g(X)`$ $`<g(X_1)+g(X_2)`$. Then at least one of $`X_1`$ or $`X_2`$ contains a primitive meridian.

###### Remarks 5.2.

1. Morimoto proved Theorem 5.1 for m-small knots in $`S^3`$ (Theorem 1.6 of ).
2. We again emphasize that there is no symmetry between $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$. The the swallow follow torus found in Theorem 1.6 follows one (say $`K_1`$) and swallows the other ($`K_2`$), and as we shall see in the proof, in this case $`X_2`$ contains a primitive meridian. By Moriah and Rubinstein  and Morimoto, Sakuma and Yokota  there exist knots without a primitive meridian. Taking such knot as $`K_1`$ and connecting it with $`K_2`$ a knot that does have a primitive meridian (for example any 2-bridge knot, by Kobayashi ) we always get $`X=X_1_T\widehat{X}_2`$ and never $`X=\widehat{X}_1_TX_2`$. This is used in Section 6.
3. Note that the proof in this section holds in greater generality than stated: all we need is that $`X_2`$ is the exterior of a prime knot, but $`X_1`$ may be the exterior of a connected sum of many components. This too is used in Section 6 (as the induction hypothesis).

###### Sketch of proof of Theorem 5.1.

Let $`X=X_1X_2`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a minimal genus Heegaard splitting for $`X`$. By Theorem 1.6 $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ weakly reduces to a swallow follow torus (say $`T`$). Thus $`X=X_1_T\widehat{X}_2`$ or $`X=\widehat{X}_1_TX_2`$, say the former. Our goal is showing that $`X_2`$ contains a primitive meridian. This follows from the following three statements. In all three we assume that $`X`$ is the exterior of a connected sum of m-small knots; the assumption that $`X_2`$ is prime is used only in Theorem 5.4 (we do not assume that $`X_1`$ is prime).

###### Lemma 5.3.

If $`g(X)<g(X_1)+g(X_2)`$ then $`g(X_2)=g(\widehat{X}_2).`$

###### Theorem 5.4.

Let $`A`$ be the essential annulus in $`\widehat{X}_2`$ with one boundary component a meridian of $`X_2`$ and the other a longitude of $`\widehat{X}_2X_2`$.

Then there is a minimal genus Heegaard surface for $`\widehat{X}_2`$ that intersects $`A`$ in exactly one essential simple closed curve.

###### Remark.

Note that Theorem 5.4 implies that $`\widehat{X}_2`$ has a minimal genus Heegaard surface that separates the boundary components. We do not know if this is always the case.

By Definition 3.1 $`X_2`$ is obtained from $`\widehat{X}_2`$ by Dehn filling; therefore any Heegaard surface for $`\widehat{X}_2`$ is a Heegaard surface for $`X_2`$.

###### Lemma 5.5.

The Heegaard surface found in Theorem 5.4 (when considered as a Heegaard surface for $`X_2`$) contains a primitive meridian.

Theorem 5.1 clearly follows since by Lemma 5.3 the surface found in Theorem 5.4 is minimal genus in $`X_2`$. We conclude this section by indicating the proofs of these statements in the order in which they appeared:

###### Proof of Lemma 5.3.

From the previous section, recall Equations (1): $`g(X)=g(X_1)+g(\widehat{X}_2)1`$, and (2): $`g(\widehat{X}_2)1g(X_2)g(\widehat{X}_2).`$ The lemma follows. ∎

###### Sketch of proof for Theorem 5.4.

This is the most difficult part of the proof and accordingly our sketch is very rough. Let $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2\widehat{X}_2`$ be a minimal genus Heegaard surface. The proof has three cases not unlike the proof of Theorem 1.6.

Since $`A`$ is essential and we assumed $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to be strongly irreducible we can isotope $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to intersect $`A`$ is essential curves only. Denote the subannuli of $`A`$ cut open along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by $`\{A_j\}_{j=0}^k`$, with $`A_0`$ adjacent to $`X_2`$ and $`A_k`$ adjacent to $`\widehat{X}_2X_2`$. Next we fill $`\widehat{X}_2X_2`$ to obtain $`X_2`$, and denote the core of the attached solid torus by $`\gamma `$. Note that we can still consider $`A`$ as an embedded annulus (although not properly) with one curve of $`A`$ a meridian of $`X_2`$ and the other $`\gamma `$. We show that the equator of $`A_1`$ is a core of a 1-handle (of one of the compression bodies obtained by cutting $`X_2`$ open along $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2`$) by compressing $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2`$ maximally into the side containing $`A_1`$ but only along disks disjoint from $`A_1`$. By applying Scharlemann’s No Nesting Lemma , we see that either the surface we obtain is a torus bounding a solid torus with the core curve of $`A_1`$ as its core, or the components of this surface cut open along $`A`$ are essential. Since by cutting $`\widehat{X}_2`$ along $`A`$ we obtain a manifold homeomorphic to $`X_2`$, the latter contradicts m-smallness. The former proves the theorem by isotoping $`\gamma `$ along $`A`$ to the core of $`A_1`$ and drilling it out again.

From now on we assume $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2`$ weakly reduces. We untelescope (see Section 2) $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2`$ to obtain a collection of essential surfaces $`S_i`$ and consider two more cases:

let $`M`$ be the component of $`\widehat{X}_2`$ cut open along $`S=_iS_i`$ containing $`A`$. Since the induced Heegaard splitting is strongly irreducible  as in Case One we can arrange for it to intersect $`A`$ in a single essential curve. By amalgamating, we retrieve $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2`$. We complete the proof by using an explicit description of amalgamation to verify that this can be done without introducing curves of intersection with $`A`$.

(this is similar to an argument of Morimoto ) each component of $`F_j`$ cut open along $`A`$ is incompressible. It is therefore either essential or a boundary compressible annulus (since for surfaces of negative Euler characteristic boundary compression implies compression). Thus $`F_j`$ is constructed by pasting annuli together, and is a torus. By cutting $`\widehat{X}_2`$ and $`F_j`$ along $`A`$ we obtain meridional incompressible annuli in $`X_2`$, that must be boundary parallel by our assumption that $`X_2`$ is a prime knot. This implies that $`F_j`$ is a boundary parallel torus in $`\widehat{X}_2`$. However, a surface obtained by untelescoping a minimal genus Heegaard surface is never boundary parallel. With contradiction we see that Case Three never occurs.

This completes our sketch the proof of Theorem 5.4. ∎

###### Proof of Lemma 5.5.

This is immediate. After filling $`\widehat{X}_2`$ to get $`X_2`$ the meridian of the attached solid torus extends to a meridian of the handlebody that intersects the meridional annulus $`A`$ exactly once. ∎

This completes our sketch of the proof of Theorem 5.1. ∎

## 6. Proof of Morimoto’s Conjecture for m-small knots

The Swallow Follow Torus Theorem (1.6) and the Numerical Theorem (1.4) were proved for the connected sum of any number of m-small knots. We conclude this paper by the inductive step of the proof of Morimoto’s Conjecture:

###### Theorem (1.5).

Let $`\{X_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ be exteriors of m-small knots. Then:

If $`g(X)<\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^ng(X_i)`$ there exists some $`I\{1,..,n\}`$ a proper subset so that $`X=_{iI}X_i`$ contains a primitive meridian.

###### Sketch of proof..

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a minimal genus Heegaard surface for $`X`$. By Theorem 1.6 $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ weakly reduces to a swallow follow torus $`T`$ yielding the decomposition $`X_I_T\widehat{X}_J`$ (with $`IJ=\{1,..,n\},I,J\mathrm{}`$). We assign a complexity to a knot exterior $`Y`$: the number of prime summands, denoted $`n(Y)`$. To the decomposition $`X=X_I_T\widehat{X}_J`$ we assign the complexity $`(n(X),n(X_J))`$ (ordered lexicographically). Suppose $`X=X_I_T\widehat{X}_J`$ is a minimal complexity counterexample to Theorem 1.5.

If $`g(X)=g(X_I)+g(X_J)`$ then, since $`g(X)<\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^ng(X_i)`$, either $`g(X_I)<\mathrm{\Sigma }_{iI}g(X_i)`$ or $`g(X_J)<\mathrm{\Sigma }_{iJ}g(X_i)`$. By the minimality assumption, in the former case some subcollection of $`I`$ has a primitive meridian and in the latter some subcollection of $`J`$. In either case $`X`$ is not a counterexample. This contradiction together with Theorem 4.1 shows:

$$g(X)=g(X_I)+g(X_J)1.$$

If $`n(X_J)=1`$ by (3) of Remark 5.2, $`X_J`$ contains a primitive meridian. So we may assume that $`n(X_J)>1`$. By Theorem 1.6 (applied to $`X_J`$) the minimal genus Heegaard splitting of $`X_J`$ induced by the minimal genus Heegaard splitting of $`X`$ weakly reduces to a swallow follow torus in $`X_J`$, say $`X_J=X_{J_1}_{T_J}\widehat{X}_{J_2}`$. If $`g(X_J)<g(X_{J_1})+g(X_{J_2})`$ then (by the minimality of $`(n(X),n(X_J))`$) some subcollection of $`X_J`$ has a primitive meridian and $`X`$ is not a counterexample, a contradiction. We get:

$$g(X_J)=g(X_{J_1})+g(X_{J_2}).$$

Next we consider $`X_I_TX_{J_1}`$. If $`g(X_I_TX_{J_1})<g(X_I)+g(X_{J_1})`$ then some subcollection of $`\{X_i\}_{iIJ_1}`$ contains a primitive meridian (minimality again) so $`X`$ is not a counterexample, a contradiction. We get:

$$g(X_I_TX_{J_1})=g(X_I)+g(X_{J_1}).$$

Since the Heegaard splitting induced by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $`X_J`$ weakly reduces to $`T_J`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ also weakly reduces to $`T_J`$. This gives $`(X_I_T\widehat{X}_{J_1})_{T_J}\widehat{X}_{J_2}`$. The equations above imply that $`g(X)=g(X_I_T\widehat{X}_{J_1})+g(X_{J_2})1`$. By the minimality, $`(X,X_{J_2})`$ is not a counterexample, and we conclude that $`X`$ itself is not a counterexample at all. With this contradiction we complete the proof. ∎


text:
# Evolutionary SED diagnostics of starburst galaxies: signature of bimodality

## 1 Introduction

Starbursts are an intensive mode of star formation in galaxies (Storchi-Bergmann, Calzetti & Kinney 1994; Kennicutt 1998). Ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs) with $`L_{\mathrm{IR}}10^{12}`$ L are probably the most active and luminous starburst galaxies. Indeed recent ISO observations suggest that many ULIRGs are powered by starbursts with little contribution from AGN (Genzel et al. 1998; Lutz et al. 1998). On the other hand, starburst galaxies of lower activity are HII galaxies and blue compact dwarf galaxies, known as UV-selected starburst galaxies (UVSBGs; Kinney et al. 1993; Storch-Bergmann et al. 1994; Calzetti, Kinney & Storchi-Bergmann 1994; McQuade, Calzetti & Kinney 1995; Gordon, Calzetti & Witt 1997; Takagi, Arimoto & Vansevičius 1999).

Recently, an upper limit of ‘bolometric surface brightness’ was given by Meurer et al. (1997) for a sample of starburst galaxies observed in the rest frame 1) UV, 2) far infrared (FIR) and H$`\alpha `$, and 3) 21 cm radio continuum emission. This limit seems to be physically associated with an instability in gaseous discs (e.g. Toomre 1964; Quirk 1972) as Kennicutt (1989) had already suggested for the star formation in normal disc galaxies. In their study, the effective radii are determined from observations at the different wavelengths for each galaxy. However, if a galaxy is optically thick the observed effective radius strongly depends on the degree of extinction, since the observed light comes out solely from the region in which the optical depth is less than unity. Moreover, many ULIRGs have multiple starburst regions (e.g. Scoville et al. 2000; Surace & Sanders 2000), while most of UVSBGs show only one major central starburst region. These effects suggest that the panchromatic intensity limit on starbursts proposed by Meurer et al. (1997) may not be appropriate for ULIRGs.

To determine the intensity limit of starbursts with various levels of activity ranging from UVSBGs to ULIRGs, it is necessary to estimate both star formation rates (SFRs) and effective radii in a unified manner, whatever the degree of extinction. While typical $`V`$-band optical depths in UVSBGs are $`\tau _V0.32`$ (Takagi, Arimoto, & Vansevičius 1999; Storchi-Bergmann et al. 1994), those in ULIRGs reach $`\tau _V550`$ (Genzel et al. 1998). Such a wide variation in $`\tau _V`$ causes a serious problem in deriving SFRs, since none of the currently used SFR indicators, such as H$`\alpha `$ (or other Balmer lines), UV continuum, or FIR luminosities, are commonly applicable for starbursts ranging from UVSBGs to ULIRGs. The FIR luminosity is not a good measure of bolometric luminosity when starburst regions are optically thin, while H$`\alpha `$ luminosity is difficult to use if the mean surface gas density becomes larger than 50 M pc<sup>-2</sup>, corresponding to $`\tau _V2`$, causing a significant extinction at H$`\alpha `$ (Kennicutt 1998). What is worse, by using Br$`\gamma `$ and FIR luminosities, Kennicutt (1998) has shown that the FIR luminosities give systematically higher SFRs (by a factor of $`2`$) than the Br$`\gamma `$s. Sullivan et al. (2000) compared the H$`\alpha `$\- and UV-derived SFRs of nearby starbursts to find that starburst galaxies are typically over-luminous in the UV for a given H$`\alpha `$ luminosity. The effect is strongest in the less luminous galaxies.

When comparing ULIRGs and UVSBGs, the bolometric surface brightness should be derived for each individual starburst region in ULIRGs. The wealth of ground-based low-resolution imaging surveys have provided little information on the stars in the starburst region near the confusion limit $`<1^{\prime \prime }`$. Even the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) with its higher resolution $`<0.1^{\prime \prime }`$ fails to go deep enough into the starburst regions, which are obscured by dust at optical wavelengths. The Near-Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS) on HST can observe the obscured starburst regions more directly at near infrared (NIR) wavelengths where the effects of dust extinction are reduced significantly compared to visual wavelengths. Scoville et al. (2000) studied the morphologies of 24 ULIRGs with NICMOS and found that light profiles of nine of them were well fit by an $`r^{1/4}`$ law, rather than an exponential profile. The apparent effective radii of ULIRGs tend to be more compact than the extent of gas observed with high-resolution imaging of the CO emission (Bryant $`\&`$ Scoville 1999). This suggests that the distribution of stars is more concentrated than that of dust and gas in the starburst regions. Thus, the dimming of light due to the surrounding dust can be so large that the real distribution of stars deviates from the apparent distribution of the light even the longest observable wavelength with NICMOS of 2.2 $`\mu `$m.

It is thus crucial to establish a measure of both SFRs and the spatial distribution of stars which can be applied to starbursts of any optical depth. Clearly, a new recipe to derive both SFRs and the stellar distributions is required to investigate the physical properties of starbursts comprehensively.

In this paper, we will use spectral energy distributions (SEDs) from the far ultraviolet (FUV) to submillimetre (submm) to derive SFRs of starburst regions. The SED from the UV to submm can represent the bolometric luminosity, irrespective of the dust extinction. We construct an ‘evolutionary’ SED model for starburst regions from a simple but realistic point of view. We show that our SED model can explain a wide variety of SEDs from optically thin starbursts (UVSBGs) to optically thick ones (ULIRGs). It is important to note that our SED model can derive not only the SFR, but also the other starburst properties like the optical depth. Moreover, we can derive the apparent effective radius of starbursts at various wavelengths for a given geometry, since we properly take into account the radiative transfer in a dusty medium. Therefore, the evolutionary stages of starburst galaxies can be investigated in a unified manner for a whole range of activity, which can then be compared with the observations of the SED and the effective radius, directly. The systematic estimation of the SFRs and the effective radius can give an answer to the question: is the panchromatic limit of starburst intensity reported by Meurer et al. (1997) also valid for ULIRGs?

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe our evolutionary SED model for starburst galaxies. In Section 3, we summarize the model properties. In Section 4, we apply our model to a sample of UVSBGs and ULIRGs in the local Universe and describe the resulting properties of nearby starburst galaxies derived from our SED model fitting. Sections 5 and 6 give discussions and conclusions, respectively.

## 2 Evolutionary SED model for Starburst Regions

### 2.1 Star formation and chemical evolution

We consider a model for the chemical enrichment of a starburst region into which gas is supplied continuously. When a large amount of gas is supplied into the central region of a galaxy, a starburst is triggered. Since the details of the gas supplying mechanism are yet to be investigated, it would not be outrageous to suppose that star formation and chemical evolution in the starburst regions are approximately described by an infall model of chemical evolution (Arimoto, et al. 1992). Ubiquitous galactic outflows from the starbursts have been observed with the X-ray emission from the hot gas driving the flow, optical line emission produced by the warm gas, and the interstellar absorption lines (e.g. Heckman et al. 2000; Lehnert $`\&`$ Heckman 1996). Heckman et al. (2000) suggested that most of the outflow gas consists of ambient material which has been ’mass-loaded’ into the hot gas. Therefore, we assume that the amount of gas in the outflow from a starburst region has negligible impact on the chemical evolution as a whole. This is true if the mass loss rate from a starburst region is less than 10% of the SFR. Under this simple evolutionary picture, a starburst is characterized by the rates of gas infall and star formation.

The time variation of gas mass $`M_g(t)`$, total stellar mass $`M_{}(t)`$, and gas metallicity $`Z_g(t)`$ are given by the equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dM_g(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (t)+E(t)+\xi _i(t),`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dM_{}(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (t)E(t),`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(Z_gM_g)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (t)Z_g(t)+E_Z(t)+\xi _i(t)Z_i,`$ (3)
where $`E(t)`$, $`E_Z(t)`$, and $`Z_i`$ are the ejection rates of the gas and the metals from dying stars, and the metallicity of the supplied gas, respectively. We set the initial condition as $`M_g(0)=M_{}(0)=0`$ for all the calculations in this paper. Although some amount of gas and stars unrelated to the starbursts are initially expected in the starburst region, we assume that the amount of initial gas and stars are negligible in both the chemical and photometric evolution of starburst region. For $`Z_i`$, the star formation history before the starburst event is important. We will explicitly note the adopted values of $`Z_i`$ later. We assume $`Z_i`$ is constant during the starburst event.

The SFR $`\psi (t)`$ is given by

$$\psi (t)=\frac{1}{t_{}}M_g(t),$$
(4)
where $`t_{}`$ and $`M_g(t)`$ are the star formation time-scale and the gas mass in the starburst region, respectively. The gas supply rate is given by:

$$\xi _i(t)=\frac{M_T}{t_i}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{t}{t_i}\right),$$
(5)
where $`M_T`$ and $`t_i`$ are the initial gas mass in the reservoir surrounding the starburst region and the time-scale of gas supply, respectively (Arimoto et al. 1992). Physically, the time-scales $`t_i`$ and $`t_{}`$ can be expressed in terms of the dynamical time, sound-crossing time, and cooling time, depending on what triggers the starburst. It is however difficult to ascertain the characteristic time-scale of each starburst from observations. Thus, we hereafter analyse the simplest case, in which a starburst is characterized by only one evolutionary time-scale $`t_0`$, i.e., we adopt $`t_0t_i=t_{}`$.

For all cases in this paper, we adopt the Salpeter initial mass function (IMF) with the lower and upper mass limit of 0.1 M and 60 M, respectively. Equations (1)-(3) are numerically solved by using an evolutionary population synthesis code of Kodama & Arimoto (1997). The adopted stellar libraries and evolutionary tracks are the same as those in the original code. Details of nucleosynthesis prescription is given there.

The effect of dust on the SEDs is significant and predominant in starburst regions. In this paper, we adopt a simple model in which the dust-to-metal ratio $`\delta _0`$ is constant; i.e., $`M_D(t)=\delta _0Z_g(t)M_g(t)`$. As described below (Section 2.3), we use three types of dust model for the Milky Way (MW), Large and Small Magellanic Clouds (LMC; SMC). The adopted values of $`\delta _0`$ for MW, LMC and SMC are 0.40, 0.55, 0.75, respectively (Takagi 2001). Starbursts could be the most ideal case for constant $`\delta (t)`$, since 1) only type II supernovae contribute to the supernova rate and 2) the gas fraction in molecular clouds is large (see Dwek 1998).

### 2.2 Model geometry of starburst region

We consider a starburst region in which stars and dust are distributed within a radius $`r_t`$. We introduce a mass-radius relation for the starburst region;

$$\frac{r_t}{1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}}=\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\frac{M_{}}{10^9\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^\gamma ,$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a compactness factor which expresses the matter concentration; the mean density becomes higher for smaller $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Starburst galaxies are characterized by a large surface brightness, which are roughly constant (Armus, Heckman & Miley 1990; Meurer et al. 1995, 1997). In the adopted mass-radius relation, $`\gamma =1/2`$ gives the constant surface brightness for constant $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Therefore, we adopt $`\gamma =1/2`$ throughout this paper. A variation in the surface brightness can be expressed by the different values of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in our model. Note that not only the surface brightness but also the SED feature is preserved for different values of $`M_{}`$ if $`\gamma =1/2`$, since the source function within the starburst is conserved. Therefore, multiple systems with the total stellar mass of $`M_{}`$, in which each component has the same surface brightness, have the same SED as that of a unit system with a stellar mass of $`M_{}`$.

We assume that the stellar density distribution $`\rho (r)`$ is given by a generalized King profile;

$$\rho (r)=\rho _0\left[1+\left(\frac{r}{r_c}\right)^2\right]^\beta ,$$
(7)
where $`\rho _0`$ is the stellar density at the centre of starburst region and $`r_c`$ is a core radius of stars. We adopt the stellar density distribution of typical elliptical galaxies; i.e., the concentration parameter $`c\mathrm{log}(r_t/r_c)=2.2`$, and $`\beta =\frac{3}{2}`$ (Combes et al. 1995). Recently, Scoville et al. (2000) and James et al. (1999) presented $`K`$-band images of starburst galaxies, and demonstrated that luminosity profiles of starbursts are well represented by the $`r^{1/4}`$ profile which is quite similar to those of elliptical galaxies. However, in order to derive the stellar density distribution in starbursts, it is important to eliminate the effects of dust extinction, since the effect of radiative transfer can easily alter the luminosity profile from the original one. As we will show later, this effect is not negligible even in the $`K`$-band in ULIRGs (see Section 3.3). Therefore, the true density distribution of stars in starburst galaxies is difficult to determine directly, and we therefore adopt the typical density profile of elliptical galaxies as a first guess. This topic is further discussed in Section 3.3 and 4.4.

Following Takagi et al. (1999), we assume that dust is distributed homogeneously within a radius $`r_t`$ of the starburst region. It is plausible that the dust distributes more diffusely than the stars, due to feedback from supernovae. When the light from centrally concentrated stars dominates the SED, i.e., optically thin case, this geometry results in a similar SED to the case of shell geometry, which is suggested for UVSBGs by Gordon et al. (1997), Meurer, Heckman & Calzetti (1999), Witt & Gordon (2000). However, in the optically thick case, like ULIRGs, the shell geometry results in the spectral cut-off around NIR (see the results by Rowan-Robinson & Efstathiou 1993), and therefore UV-NIR SED of ULIRGs cannot be reproduced with this geometry without invoking the other components, like underlying stellar populations and/or AGNs. As we show in Section 4.2, our model can essentially reproduce UV-NIR SEDs of ULIRGs only with starburst stellar populations. These SED fitting results are confirmed with emission line measurements and the observed effective radii in Section 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. Therefore, we believe that the adopted geometry is suitable to approximate the real geometry of starburst regions with various optical depths.

### 2.3 Dust model

The dust model is adopted from Takagi (2001) who successfully reproduced the extinction curves observed in MW, LMC and SMC, as well as the spectrum of Galactic cirrus. The difference among the MW, LMC and SMC extinction curves is attributed to the variation of the ratio of carbonaceous dust (graphite and PAHs) to silicate grains.

The extinction curve is given by the cross-section per hydrogen:

$$\sigma _{0\lambda }^\mathrm{H}=\frac{1}{n_\mathrm{H}}\underset{k}{}\sigma _{\lambda ,k}^e(a)\frac{dn_k}{da}𝑑a,$$
(8)
where $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ is the number density of hydrogen, $`\sigma _{\lambda ,k}^e(a)`$ is the extinction-cross section of dust particle with the dust constituent $`k`$ and size $`a`$. The size distribution of each dust constituent $`dn_k/da`$ is taken from Takagi (2001). For a constant dust-to-metal ratio, the extinction curve at starburst age $`t`$ is given by:

$$\sigma _\lambda ^\mathrm{H}(t)=\frac{Z^\mathrm{H}(t)}{Z_0^\mathrm{H}}\sigma _{0\lambda }^\mathrm{H},$$
(9)
where $`Z^\mathrm{H}(t)`$ is the gas metallicity with respect to hydrogen mass (as opposed to the total gas mass) and $`Z_0^\mathrm{H}`$ is the metallicity of the ISM under the same definition. We adopt $`Z_0^\mathrm{H}=0.024`$, 0.011, 0.0034 for the MW, LMC and SMC extinction curves, respectively (Pagel 1997; Lequeux et al. 1979). The time variation of optical depth $`\tau _V(t)`$ is given by $`n_\mathrm{H}(t)\sigma _\lambda ^\mathrm{H}(t)r_t(t)`$. Note that $`r_t(t)`$ is defined by the time dependent total stellar mass $`M_{}(t)`$. According to the adopted mass-radius relation, $`\tau _Vn_\mathrm{H}r_tM_Hr_t^2f_HM_Tr_t^2f_HM_T(f_{star}M_T)^1f_Hf_{star}^1`$ where $`M_H`$ and $`f_H`$ are the total mass of hydrogen and the mass fraction of hydrogen, respectively; therefore, $`\tau _V`$ does not depend on the value of $`M_T`$.

### 2.4 Intrinsic SED and radiative transfer

We calculate unobscured stellar SEDs by using the population synthesis code of Kodama & Arimoto (1997), in which the effect of stellar metallicity is fully taken into account. We solve the equation of radiative transfer by using a computational code developed by Takagi (2001). Isotropic multiple scattering is assumed and the self-absorption of re-emitted energy from dust is fully taken into account. The temperature fluctuation of very small dust particles is calculated consistently with the radiative transfer.

We assume no gradient of the stellar population along the radius of starburst region. Although gas emission is not considered in our model, a modification of the total SED due to gas emission is not significant unless a starburst is considerably younger than 10 Myr (Leitherer & Heckman 1995; Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange 1997). The contribution from gas emission to the continuum light is especially important in the NIR. As we will show later, no systematic discrepancies in the NIR flux are found between model results and observations. Therefore, we believe that starburst galaxies are old enough to have negligible contribution from gas emission to the continuum.

## 3 Model Properties

### 3.1 Evolutionary properties

Fig. 1 shows how chemical properties and $`\tau _V`$ evolve as a function of $`t/t_0`$, for $`t_0=10,20,50,100`$, and $`200`$ Myr. The gas mass fraction $`f_{gas}`$, stellar mass fraction $`f_{star}`$, and metal mass fraction $`f_{metal}`$ are defined as $`M_g/M_T`$, $`M_{}/M_T`$, and $`Z_gM_g/M_T`$, respectively. The luminosity-weighted mean metallicity is expressed as (Arimoto & Yoshii 1987):

$$<Z_{star}>=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }Z_{star}L_{star}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }L_{star}},$$
(10)
where $`Z_{star}`$ and $`L_{star}`$ are the metallicity and luminosity of each star, respectively. In this section, we simply adopt $`Z_i=0`$, unless otherwise explicitly noted.

The variation of $`f_{gas}`$ and $`f_{star}`$ as a function of $`t/t_0`$ is almost independent of $`t_0`$. After $`t/t_02`$, the evolution of $`f_{metal}(f_{gas}Z_g)`$ and $`\tau _V`$ depend little on $`t_0`$. Dust mass evolves in proportion to $`f_{metal}`$, but $`\tau _V`$ evolves somewhat differently, since $`r_t`$ increases gradually as stellar mass accumulates. The effect of $`Z_i`$ on $`\tau _V`$ is negligible for $`t/t_0>1`$.

Fig. 2 shows the evolution of $`L_{bol}`$, $`L_{IR}`$, $`\psi (t)/L_{bol}`$, $`L_{FIR}/L_H`$, $`BH`$, $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, and $`T_D^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective optical depth at $`V`$-band defined as $`L_V=L_V^0\mathrm{exp}(\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}})`$, where $`L_V^0`$ and $`L_V`$ are the intrinsic and attenuated luminosity, respectively. $`T_D^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective dust temperature which gives the same peak wavelength of dust emission as that of a model SED with an emissivity law $`\lambda ^2`$.

We summarize the model properties as follows:

1) The IR luminosity evolution suggests that starburst galaxies should be found mostly in the late phase ($`t/t_02`$), after the SFR and the dust mass become maximum. The asymptotic relation between SFR $`\psi (t)`$ and $`L_{bol}`$ for the late phase $`t/t_0>2`$ is

$$\frac{L_{bol}}{1.7\times 10^9\mathrm{L}_{}}=\frac{\psi (t)}{1\mathrm{M}_{}\text{yr}^1}\frac{t}{t_0}.$$
(11)
We also derive an asymptotic relation for the mass-to-light ratio for the late phase $`t/t_0>2`$;

$$\frac{M_{}}{L_{bol}}=8.05\times 10^3\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{1.8}\left(\frac{t_0}{100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{r}}\right)^{0.8}\frac{\mathrm{M}_{}}{\mathrm{L}_{}}.$$
(12)
These ratios will be used in the analysis of starbursts later (Section 5).

2) The variation of $`L_{FIR}/L_H`$ as a function of $`t/t_0`$ is nearly independent of $`t_0`$. $`L_{FIR}/L_H`$ decreases monotonically with time. Due to this weak dependence of SED quantities on $`t_0`$, it is difficult to determine the absolute starburst age from the SED fitting alone.

3) The dependence of $`BH`$ on $`t_0`$ is similar to that of $`\tau _V`$ and $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

Fig. 3 shows the SED evolution for $`t_0=100`$ Myr, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=1`$, the MW extinction curve, and $`Z_i=0`$. The SEDs are quite similar to each other at $`t/t_0<2`$. At $`t/t_0>2`$, the peak wavelength of dust emission increases and the FIR excess ($`L_{FIR}/L_H`$) decreases.

### 3.2 Dependence on compactness factor

Fig. 4 shows how the characteristic SED quantities depend on the compactness factor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. While $`L_{FIR}`$ is not sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, $`L_{FIR}/L_H`$ increases significantly for $`\mathrm{\Theta }<1`$. At a small $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (i.e., optically thick), the SED at optical wavelengths asymptotically reaches the source function of the stellar light, since the light mainly comes from near the surface for such a highly obscured region. This is the reason why a starburst region becomes bluer for $`\mathrm{\Theta }0.5`$.

There are two possible reasons for large values of $`\tau _V`$; 1) starbursts occur in metal rich clouds ($`Z_i>0.1Z_{}`$) and are still very young ($`t/t_0<0.3`$) as shown in Fig. 1b, and 2) geometry of starbursts is compact ($`\mathrm{\Theta }<1`$) as shown in Fig. 4d. If the former reason is the case, ULIRGs should be younger than UVSBGs, systematically. However, we find no such systematic difference as we show in Section 4. Instead, SED fitting results in smaller $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ for ULIRGs than those of UVSBGs. Thus, the variation of $`\tau _V`$ in starbursts is mainly caused by the geometrical effect; i.e., $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. This result is reasonable, since the luminosity evolution suggests that starbursts are less luminous in the early phase of starbursts. In later phases, the high luminosity and large fraction of life time during this phase as a starburst would increase the chance of the starbursts being observed. The importance of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on the variation in starburst SED is illustrated clearly in Fig. 5.

### 3.3 Effective radius in various wavelengths

Fig. 6 shows the growth curve of the apparent surface brightness at 0.22, 0.7, 1.1, 2.2, and 100 $`\mu `$m for the models of UVSBGs ($`t/t_0=2.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=1.5`$ and the MW extinction curve) and ULIRGs ($`t/t_0=2.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0.4`$ and the SMC extinction curve). Here we adopt the typical values of model parameters for each UVSBGs and ULIRGs, which are derived from the SED fitting described in the next section. At most of the observed wavelengths, as seen in Fig. 6, the apparent effective radii are systematically larger than the intrinsic effective radius which corresponds to the case without any extinction. In the FUV to NIR wavelength region in which the dust emission is negligible, the apparent effective radius increases with decreasing wavelength. This is because the contribution from stars in the central region decreases with increasing optical depth toward the shorter wavelength region. Therefore, only the growth curve in 2.2 $`\mu `$m follows that of the input stellar distribution for the case of UVSBGs. Meurer et al. (1995) presented the surface brightnesses of UVSBGs at FUV (0.22 $`\mu `$m) obtained with the HST/Faint Object Camera (FOC). These surface brightness is not well represented by the $`r^{1/4}`$ or exponential profile. This result is consistent with the model for UVSBGs in which the growth curve at 0.22 $`\mu `$m is significantly different from the intrinsic growth curve (dashed line). Note that both the $`r^{1/4}`$ and exponential profile have been used for normal galaxies in which the effect of dust is not significant, compared to starburst galaxies. On the other hand, in the case of ULIRGs, the apparent effective radius even at 2.2 $`\mu `$m becomes twice the intrinsic effective radius, although the growth curve is somewhat similar to the intrinsic one. In both UVSBGs and ULIRGs, the effect of scattering on the growth curve is negligible. The apparent effective radius at 100 $`\mu `$m is also different from the intrinsic effective radius, since it is determined by the distribution of dust, rather than that of stars.

## 4 SED fitting to UVSBGs and ULIRGs

We apply our evolutionary SED model to two samples of local starburst galaxies; UVSBGs and ULIRGs. All models are calculated with $`t_0=100`$ Myr, $`Z_i=0.1Z_{}`$. A definitive value of $`t_0`$ is only important for the absolute time scale of starburst events which is not discussed here. The value of $`Z_i`$ should vary for each starburst galaxy, since $`Z_i`$ depends on the star formation history in precursors of a starburst galaxy. We expect that the gas fraction in precursors of starbursts should be large, and therefore assume that the level of chemical enrichment in precursors is low and comparable to that in the SMC. Our conclusions are independent of the choice of $`Z_i`$.

Fitting parameters are the starburst age $`t`$, and the compactness factor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. We choose the best-fitting extinction curve from the MW, LMC and SMC type. The SEDs are normalized by the initial mass $`M_T`$ of a gas reservoir. The best-fitting model for each galaxy is sought by a standard least square method. We adopt the cosmology of $`H_0`$ = 75 km sec<sup>-1</sup> Mpc<sup>-1</sup> and $`q_0=0.5`$ throughout this paper.

### 4.1 UVSBGs

We analyse the same sample of UVSBGs analysed by Takagi et al. (1999). Photometric data from FUV to NIR are taken from Gordon et al. (1997) who presented a homogeneous sample of aperture-matched SEDs of $`30`$ starburst galaxies. All of the sample was detected by the IUE satellite. UV-selected starbursts are relatively bright in the UV and expected to be less attenuated by dust. The aperture size of the FUV-NIR photometry is $`10^{\prime \prime }\times 20^{\prime \prime }`$, which is equal to $`4.5`$ kpc at their median distance of $`60`$ Mpc. The IRAS flux densities are taken from NED (NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database). The IRAS fluxes are derived for the total galaxy, while the UV-NIR photometric data are aperture limited in the central region of starburst galaxies on average. Nevertheless, the aperture correction does not change our main conclusions, since the FIR emissions tend to concentrate at galactic centre in the galaxies analysed here (Calzetti et al. 1995). We fit the SEDs of 16 galaxies out of 30, which were detected in all four IRAS bands (12$`\mu `$m, 25$`\mu `$m, 60$`\mu `$m and 100$`\mu `$m).

First, the best-fitting model is determined by the SED fitting from the $`U`$-band to the FIR, i.e., without FUV data obtained with the IUE satellite. The fitting results from the $`U`$-band to the FIR are shown in Fig. 7 with dashed lines. All the best-fitting models result either in reasonable fits or in underestimates to the FUV data.

This discrepancy in the FUV flux can be reasonably explained by the effect of photon leakage. Although we consider a homogeneous distribution of dust, regions with low gas density are naturally expected in the starbursts, because of a cavity produced by successive supernova explosions, for example. The effect of photon leakage is expected to be more significant in the FUV compared with the longer wavelength region, since the starburst population is intrinsically luminous in the FUV. Therefore, the fitting results are consistent with our proposed picture of the starburst region.

We estimate the effect of photon leakage as follows. Although various levels of extinction for leaking photons are expected, depending on the degree of inhomogeneity in the dust distribution, the contribution of leaking photons from optically thiner regions could be much more significant. Therefore, for simplicity we assume that the extinction of leaking photons is negligible. We define the energy fraction of photons which leak out from the stars directly through the starburst region, $`f_{\mathrm{leak}}`$, as:

$$F_\lambda ^{\mathrm{obs}}=(1f_{\mathrm{leak}})F_\lambda (\tau _\lambda )+f_{\mathrm{leak}}F_\lambda (\tau _\lambda =0),$$
(13)
where $`F_\lambda ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is the observed flux, and $`F_\lambda (\tau _\lambda )`$ is the model flux for a given optical depth without considering the photon leakage. By using $`F_\lambda (\tau _\lambda )`$ and $`F_\lambda (\tau _\lambda =0)`$ for each starburst galaxy derived from the $`U`$-band to FIR SED (i.e., without FUV data), we determine the most plausible value of $`f_{\mathrm{leak}}`$ by the least square method by using all photometric data including the FUV; i.e., in this fitting process, we use $`f_{\mathrm{leak}}`$ as a free parameter. Also, $`M_T`$ is re-adjusted to give the least square value for the SED with the leakage correction, which is necessary to derive a more accurate bolometric luminosity, and therefore SFR.

The best-fitting models with the photon leakage are indicated by solid lines in Fig. 7. As a whole, these models show a good agreement with the observed SEDs. For most of the sample galaxies, the SEDs in the FUV can be reproduced with a $`f_{\mathrm{leak}}`$ less than 0.1. Note that the correction of SED due to the photon leakage effects only the FUV. In Table 1, the best-fitting parameters are given together with the resulting $`L_{bol}`$, $`M_{}`$, $`M_D`$, SFR and $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. From the SED fittings with our adopted evolutionary time-scale $`t_0=100`$ Myr, most of the derived starburst ages are within $`200400`$ Myr. As we already noticed, starbursts are most luminous during the ages of $`t/t_024`$. Therefore, the derived ages with the SED fittings are reasonable for the starbursts. For all the sample but three, we found that the MW extinction curve is most suitable for UVSBGs. Note that the absorption feature at 2175Å is not used to determine the extinction curve. The MIR colours are important for the resulting extinction curve, since the difference in the relative fraction of dust constituents can effect the MIR SED in which very small graphite grains and PAHs play significant role. The mean value of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is 1.6, corresponding to $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}=1.2`$ for $`t/t_0=2.0`$ in the case of the MW extinction curve.

Some galaxies, such as NGC5236, NGC6052 and NGC6217, show a notable excess of 100 $`\mu `$m flux compared to the model SEDs. As we noted, the aperture size adopted for IRAS data is larger than those of the FUV – NIR data. Therefore, it is likely that the FIR emission from cold dust, heated by the interstellar radiation field generated by the underlying stellar populations, contributes to the 100 $`\mu `$m flux.

For IC214, the model with the photon leakage still underestimates the FUV fluxes. Since this galaxy along with NGC1614 is the faintest in FUV among the UVSBG sample, the signal-to-noise ratio of the $`IUE`$ observation is low (3.2 for 1515Å; Kinney et al. 1993). A more sensitive observation would be necessary for a detailed discussion on the origin of this discrepancy.

### 4.2 ULIRGs

The sample of galaxies with $`L_{\mathrm{IR}}>10^{12}`$ L, i.e., ULIRGs, analysed here were originally studied by Sanders et al. (1988). Although a starburst is the only energy source in our model, we also apply it to Seyfert galaxies in which the AGN could considerably contribute to the dust heating. According to Veilleux et al. (1999a), IRAS05189, Mrk231 and Mrk273 are Seyfert galaxies, although the line-to-continuum ratio of the 7.7 $`\mu `$m emission feature indicates that Mrk273 is a starburst-dominanted ULIRG (Rigopoulou et al. 1999).

All photometric data from the $`B`$-band to the submm wavelengths are taken from Rigopoulou, Lawrence & Rowan-Robinson (1996). The adopted aperture size is 5<sup>′′</sup> for all ULIRGs, corresponding to $`5`$ kpc for the mean redshift. The adopted aperture is the smallest among those tabulated in Sanders et al. (1988), where the original photometric data are taken from. Although IRAS and submm data are obtained with larger apertures, the compactness of emission source ensures negligible corrections for the aperture mismatch (Sanders et al. 1988; Wynn-Williams & Becklin 1993; Soifer et al. 2000).

For ULIRGs, galaxies with secure FUV photometry are relatively rare. Thus, we simply determine the best-fitting model for all the photometric data available. We find that our models again give a flux lower than that observed in the shorter wavelength region. We estimate $`f_{\mathrm{leak}}`$ for ULIRGs by attributing this deficiency to the photon leakage.

The best-fitting models without considering the leakage are shown in Fig. 8 with dashed lines. Our model can reproduce the observed SEDs especially well at wavelengths longer than NIR, except for IRAS05189 and Mrk231, which are candidates for AGN powered ULIRGs. For both galaxies, it is found that the observed flux from NIR to MIR show clear excess comparing with the best-fitting model, which could be accounted for by the emission from hot dust around AGN. Thus, our fitting results are consistent with the spectroscopic classification of ULIRGs. All of starburst powered ULIRGs are best-fit with the SMC type extinction curve except for IRAS08572. This shows a clear contrast to the results for UVSBGs, in which the MW extinction curve is found to be better. All the best-fitting models are characterized by the small compactness factor $`\mathrm{\Theta }0.5`$, corresponding to $`\tau _V20`$; as a result, the strong silicate absorption feature at 9.7 $`\mu `$m is a common factor in ULIRGs. This result suggests that the starburst regions of ULIRGs are much more compact in size compared with the UVSBGs.

As already mentioned above, we can see that the best-fitting models tend to give a flux in the optical region lower than the observed one. Following our treatment of UVSBGs, we determine $`f_{\mathrm{leak}}`$ with the least square method, assuming negligible extinction for leaking photons. The best-fitting models with the leakage are shown in Fig. 8 with solid lines. The resulting fitting parameters are given in Table 2. Due to the simple assumption that the extinction is negligible for the leaking photon, the resulting SEDs in the UV are significantly bluer. Although the values of $`f_{\mathrm{leak}}`$ are smaller than those for UVSBGs, the effect of the leakage on the SED is prominent because of heavy obscuration of the stellar continuum. In order to verify the fitting results, we plot the FUV photometric data (Trentham et al. 1999; Goldader et al. 2002) for some of the ULIRG sample with open circles in Fig. 8. For Mrk273, IRAS08572 and IRAS12112, the FUV data taken by the HST are consistent with the best-fitting model without considering the leakage (dashed line), while for IRAS15250 and IRAS22491 the FUV data can be explained by the best-fitting model with the leakage (solid line). Only for Arp220, the FUV data cannot be explained by both cases. According to Goldader et al. (2002), these data are problematic due to uncertainty of sky level, since the angular size of Arp220 is large enough to cover entire field of view of $`HST`$/STIS. Thus, fitting results are consistent with FUV observations, except for the problematic case of Arp220, when we consider the derived value of $`f_{\mathrm{leak}}`$ as the upper limit for some galaxies.

As mentioned earlier, starburst ages are difficult to assign, but our resulting ages are in the range of $`50500`$ Myr, which shows no systematic deviation from those derived for UVSBGs. For starburst dominated ULIRGs, the mean value of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is 0.46 and 4.9, respectively. Thus, ULIRGs are more compact than UVSBGs by a factor of 3.5.

For most of the ULIRGs, the SMC extinction curve is found to provide the best fit. Note that neither the observations of silicate absorption features nor the bump at 2175 Å are used to distinguish the type of extinction curve in the SED fitting. The SED from MIR to submm wavelengths can be better reproduced with the model in which the self-absorption of MIR emission by dust is significant; i.e., the model with the SMC extinction curve.

### 4.3 Comparison with emission line measurements

#### 4.3.1 Star formation rate

In Fig. 9, we compare the resulting SFRs with the observed values derived from H$`\alpha `$ luminosities for UVSBGs (Storchi-Bergmann et al. 1994) and from the FIR luminosity of ULIRGs by using the relation presented by Kennicutt (1998). The SFRs in our model are basically determined from the bolometric luminosity from UV to FIR. Therefore, the observed SFRs for ULIRGs should be almost identical to those from the SED fitting since the emission from the FIR dominates the SED of ULIRGs. Thus, we can see clearly this agreement at the high SFRs. On the other hand, our SFR derivation is independent of that from H$`\alpha `$ line emission for UVSBGs. Although the difference between the model results and observation becomes large for galaxies with the SFR $``$ 1 M yr<sup>-1</sup>, the resulting SFRs for UVSBGs agree well with those derived from H$`\alpha `$ and IR luminosities over three orders of magnitude without any systematic difference. Therefore, the SFR estimated by the SED fitting can be applied well to any starburst galaxy regardless of their optical depth.

Our SED model suggests that leaking photons contribute to the UV luminosities of starbursts. Therefore, if the UV luminosity is corrected for dust extinction without considering this contribution, the UV-derived SFR can be easily overestimated. This effect may explain the excess of UV luminosities for a given H$`\alpha `$ luminosity, reported by Sullivan et al. (2000). We emphasize that, in order to derive SFRs from the continuum emission, bolometric luminosity should be used to avoid systematic effects.

#### 4.3.2 Optical depth and extinction

The effective optical depth can be determined independently of the SFR. In Fig. 10, we compare the effective optical depth at $`V`$-band $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ with the colour excess $`E(BV)_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ derived from the Balmer line ratios. We see that $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is consistent with $`E(BV)_{\mathrm{gas}}`$. Calzetti et al. (1994) suggested that the extinction inferred from the line ratios in starburst galaxies is typically twice as high as that derived from the stellar continuum. For optically thick UVSBGs in our sample, the resulting $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ tends to be slightly less (within a factor of 2) than the expected value for the MW extinction curve and therefore, consistent with the results of Calzetti et al. (1994).

The observed colour excesses $`E(BV)_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ of ULIRGs should be derived from the less attenuated lines, such as Paschen and Brackett lines, since the Balmer line ratios could be saturated due to the large optical depth. Veilleux et al. (1999b) presented $`E(BV)_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ measurements derived from both Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$. Both are plotted in Fig. 10, connected with dotted lines for each galaxy. Half of our sample of galaxies have the observed Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\alpha `$. Except for IRAS22491, $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of the ULIRG sample are consistent with the simply extrapolated relation from the less attenuated UVSBGs. For IRAS22491 (the only HII galaxy in our sample), $`E(BV)_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ derived from Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ differs in the opposite sense. Galaxies showing such anomalous behaviour are predominantly Seyfert 2 galaxies in the sample studied by Veilleux et al (1999b), and HII galaxies constitute only a small fraction. The extinction of ULIRGs could be investigated more accurately by spectroscopic studies at longer wavelengths with higher sensitivity, by future FIR satellite missions, such as SIRTF and ASTRO-F.

In summary, the SED fitting model can reproduce well the relation between $`E(BV)_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ and $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, and therefore, the dimming and reddening effects of the light from starburst regions are consistently introduced in the model.

### 4.4 Comparison of apparent effective radius

Since we applied the model not to a whole galaxy, but to the central starburst region, the effective radius derived from the SED fitting should be compared with that of the central starburst region. For the UVSBG sample, unfortunately no homogeneous presentation of effective radii of starburst regions is found in the literature. Prugniel & Heraudeau (1998) presented a catalogue of aperture photometry of 7744 galaxies and derived $`B`$-band effective radii for a whole galaxy, including all our sample UVSBGs, but three. Note that these effective radii cannot be compared with the model results directly, since the underlying population could enlarge the $`B`$-band effective radii, systematically. It is found that $`B`$-band effective radii published by Prugniel & Heraudeau (1998) are systematically larger than those derived from the SED fitting by a factor of three. However, it is not yet clear whether the contribution from underlying population is enough to explain this discrepancy or not. This discrepancy may be partly due to the adopted concentration parameter $`c`$ being too large for UVSBGs. Alonso-Herrero et al. (2001) studied NGC1614 in detail with HST/NICMOS observations, and presented a surface brightness profile of the central starburst region in the $`K`$-band. We compare the $`K`$-band surface brightness profile of NGC1614 with that of the best-fitting SED model in Fig. 11. Clearly, the model result is in good agreement with the observation. Since this galaxy is relatively luminous and obscured for a typical UVSBG, we need a more comprehensive study using images with high spatial resolution to confirm the stellar distribution of UVSBGs unambiguously.

Scoville et al. (2000) presented NIR images of ULIRGs obtained with the HST/NICMOS, and derived the effective radii at $`1.1\mu `$m, $`1.6\mu `$m and $`2.2\mu `$m. In most cases, the observed effective radii are less than 1<sup>′′</sup>, and are therefore consistent with the adopted aperture size as starburst regions (5<sup>′′</sup>) in the SED fitting. We focus on the ULIRGs for which the effective radii are determined for isolated major starburst regions, since the multiple structure could enlarge the effective radius, systematically. In Fig. 12, the effective radii of the models for ULIRGs are compared with the apparent effective radii from the HST/NICMOS images. As a result, we can see that the radii from the models and the observations are consistent with each other within a factor of 2. As shown in the Fig. 12, the effective radius of isolated starburst region in the $`K`$-band is $`<0.7`$ kpc, which corresponds to an intrinsic effective radius (i.e., for the case without dust) of $``$0.3 kpc. Scoville et al. (2000) have shown that the light profiles of these ULIRGs can be also fitted well with the $`r^{1/4}`$ law, which can be reproduced by the King profile. Thus, the stellar distribution in a starburst region can be roughly represented with our model geometry of the King profile with $`\mathrm{log}(r_t/r_c)=2.2`$ for ULIRGs.

As shown by Scoville et al. (2000), many ULIRGs have multiple starburst regions – such as Arp 220. As long as each starburst region has a constant surface brightness, the SED feature is not affected by this multiplicity as remarked in the model description (Section 2.2). Thus, the model geometry can still work as long as the stellar distribution of individual starburst regions are considered.

### 4.5 Correlations between starburst properties: signature of bimodality

In Fig. 13a, the SFR is plotted against $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\tau _V`$. Clearly, we can see a power-law correlation between SFR and $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$; SFR $`(\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}})^3`$. A similar trend has already been shown by Heckman et al. (1998) and Adelberger & Steidel (2000) between $`L_{\mathrm{FIR}}/L_{\mathrm{UV}}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{UV}+\mathrm{FIR}}`$, which are related to the reddening effects and SFR respectively, although the dispersion of the correlation they presented was much larger than that shown in Fig. 13a. This trend seems to suggest the Schmidt law for star formation, in which SFR increases with increasing gas density. However, note that not $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, but $`\tau _V`$ is proportional to the gas column density in the starburst regions. The discrepancy between $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\tau _V`$ can be clearly seen at high optical depth $`\tau _V5`$; as a result, the SFR seems to saturate at $`\tau _V5`$. This suggests that the mode of starburst activity changes at a critical column density corresponding to $`\tau _V5`$.

Such bimodal feature can be seen in the relation between the SFR and the compactness factor as shown in Fig. 13b, in which we can also find a critical compactness factor $`\mathrm{\Theta }^23`$. Both bimodal features of the SFR against the column density and the compactness suggest that the gas density in the starburst regions can directly affect the starburst activity since in general the geometrical compactness with the high column density implies the existence of a high density region.

In Fig. 13c, we plot $`f_{\mathrm{leak}}`$ against $`\tau _V^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\tau _V`$. There is an anti-correlation between these properties for $`\tau _V5`$, while this anti-correlation breaks for larger $`\tau _V`$. Feedback in starbursts with low ISM density, such as UVSBGs, may naturally generate regions of porous ISM that provide pathways for UV photon leakage even from central region of starbursts. On the other hand, for starbursts with a high density ISM such as ULIRGs, leakage can be expected only from the outermost surface of a starburst region and may have little to do with the main starburst (Goldader et al. 2002). Thus, the break of anti-correlation between $`f_{\mathrm{leak}}`$ and $`\tau _V`$ can be explained by the feedback effects on different ISM density.

## 5 Discussion

In this section, we will discuss the bimodality found in the correlations between starburst properties with our SED diagnostics. First, we focus on the correlation between the intrinsic surface brightness and the size of starburst region, which shows the bimodality with a clear limit on the size of starburst regions. Then, we investigate the origin of the bimodality in the starburst activity by considering the physical processes of starburst regions, such as gravitational instability of the disc and feedback effects.

### 5.1 Bimodal starburst intensity

In Fig. 14, the bolometric luminosities of starburst galaxies are plotted against the effective radii. Filled circles and squares are bolometric luminosities and intrinsic effective radii (i.e., for the case without dust) derived from the SED model of UVSBGs and ULIRGs, respectively. The bolometric surface brightnesses of UVSBGs are found to be almost constant at 10<sup>12</sup>Lkpc<sup>-2</sup>. On the other hand, a clear limit on the intrinsic effective radius can be seen at $`0.3`$ kpc. Moreover, the bolometric surface brightnesses of ULIRGs are an order of magnitude higher than those of UVSBGs. This suggests that the mode of starbursts could change at $`L_{bol}10^{11}`$ L and $`r_e0.3`$ kpc.

A limiting bolometric starburst intensity $`L_{bol}r_e^2=2\times 10^{11}`$ Lkpc<sup>-2</sup> was proposed by Meurer et al. (1997). From this intensity limit, they also proposed a global star formation limit $`\psi r_e^245`$Mkpc<sup>-2</sup>yr<sup>-1</sup>. In Fig. 14, all open symbols other than open squares indicate the original data used by Meurer et al. (1997). For open squares, we adopt the effective radii of ULIRGs observed with the HST/NICMOS at $`2.2\mu `$m taken from Scoville et al. (2000). These effective radii are systematically smaller than those derived from $`R`$-band images (Lehnert & Heckman 1996; small open diamonds) and from images of H$`\alpha `$ emission (Armus et al. 1990; small open triangles), although the similar class of galaxies is investigated. Thus, from the observational results it is suggested that the observed surface brightness depends on the observed wavelength. For UVSBGs, the bolometric surface brightness calculated with the intrinsic effective radius is higher by a factor of 5 than the proposed value by Meurer et al. (1997). The difference between the intrinsic and observed surface brightness is more remarkable for ULIRGs and indicates a bimodal starburst activity.

Actually, the limit on bolometric surface brightness we derive depends on the precise value of adopted concentration parameter $`c`$. In Fig. 14, we adopt $`c=2.2`$ for all cases. As discussed in Section 4.4, it is possible that this concentration parameter could be large for UVSBGs. In Fig. 14, we show the correction factor for the intrinsic effective radius in the case of $`c`$=1.0 and 1.5 by arrows at the bottom left corner. Nevertheless, the derived limit on the surface brightness is robust for active starburst galaxies, since we confirmed in Section 4.4 that for ULIRGs and relatively luminous UVSBGs the adopted value $`c`$=2.2 is reasonably consistent with observed effective radii. Note that even if less active starbursts have the smaller value of concentration parameter, the bimodal feature of starburst activity shown in Fig. 14 still remains.

In summary, the SED diagnostics find that 1) UVSBGs have an intrinsic effective surface brightness $`L_{bol}r_e^210^{12}`$ Lkpc<sup>-2</sup>, and 2) there is a limit on the size of the starburst region of around $`0.3`$ kpc. Considering these results, we will propose a picture of bimodal starburst activity which consists of mild starburst activity in UVSBGs with a regulated surface intensity around $`L_{bol}r_e^210^{12}`$ Lkpc<sup>-2</sup> and an intensive mode of starbursts in ULIRGs confined in the region of $`r_e0.3`$ kpc. In the next subsection, we will discuss the physical origin of this bimodality.

### 5.2 Origin of bimodal starbursts

#### 5.2.1 Disc instability in UVSBGs

The regulating mechanisms for the mild starburst intensity have already been proposed by Meurer et al. (1997). Following Kennicutt (1989), they showed that the gas surface density is somewhat close to a critical value at which gas discs would be unstable to self-gravity. According to Toomre (1964) and Quirk (1972), Kennicutt (1989) proposed the critical surface density for inducing star formation with the instability is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_c=\frac{\alpha \kappa \sigma _g}{\pi G},$$
(14)
where $`\sigma _g`$ is the velocity dispersion of the gas and $`\kappa `$ is the epicyclic frequency. The parameter $`\alpha `$ is a constant empirically determined as $`0.63`$. With angular frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)=V(r)/r`$, the epicyclic frequency is given by

$$\kappa =\left(r\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{dr}+4\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right)^{1/2}.$$
(15)
While Kennicutt (1989) considered the instability around the flat part of the rotation curve in disc galaxies, Meurer et al. (1997) applied it for the nuclear starbursts near the peak of the rotation curve in inner discs. We also apply the technique of Meurer et al. to interpret the bimodal trends of SFRs in Fig. 14. If we consider that the inner disc to be a rigid rotator with a angular frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the dynamical time of the disc is given by

$$t_{dyn}=\frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(16)
With a constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for the inner disc, the critical surface density is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c=2\alpha \sigma \mathrm{\Omega }/(\pi G)`$. With the estimations for the dynamical time and the surface density, the maximum star formation intensity can be expected as

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}{t_{dyn}}=9\times 10^5\alpha \sigma \mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{M}_{}\text{yr}^1\text{kpc}^2,$$
(17)
where $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are in units of km s<sup>-1</sup> and km s<sup>-1</sup> kpc<sup>-1</sup>, respectively.

With $`\psi (t)/L_{bol}`$ from Eq. (11), the bolometric surface brightness limit can be introduced as

$`L_{bol}r_e^2`$ $``$ $`3.1\times 10^5\alpha \sigma \mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{L}_{}\text{kpc}^2`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`3.7\times 10^{12}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{0.61}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{20\text{km s}^1}}\right)`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{10^3\text{km s}^1\text{kpc}^1}}\right)^2\mathrm{L}_{}\text{kpc}^2,`$
where we take $`t/t_0=2`$ as a typical observable starburst age.

Since most of disc galaxies have a central HI velocity dispersion $`\sigma _g1520`$ km s<sup>-1</sup> (e.g. Dickey, Hanson & Helou 1990) and angular frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }<10^3`$ km s<sup>-1</sup> kpc<sup>-1</sup> (e.g. Armus et al. 1990), this limiting bolometric surface brightness ($`3.7\times 10^{12}\mathrm{L}_{}\text{kpc}^2`$) corresponds well to the limiting intensity of UVSBGs as seen in Fig. 14. Thus, starbursts in UVSBGs can be triggered by the self-gravitational instability in inner gas discs as already pointed out by Meurer et al. (1997). This instability seems to induce only mild starburst activity, since the unstable region should have a scale of the disc thickness, and the whole gas in the disc cannot concentrate into the unstable region due to the centrifugal force from the disc’s rotation. This means that the maximum size of starburst regions is expected to be similar to the disc thickness $`0.3`$ kpc, and therefore consistent with the SED fitting results in which no starbursts with $`r_e0.3`$ kpc are found.

The surface brightness of ULIRGs are an order of magnitude larger than that expected from the disc instability. Therefore, ULIRGs should be triggered by another mechanism which can induce a stronger concentration of gas. As indicated by Eq. (18), the surface brightness of starburst regions in UVSBGs are related to the physical properties of parent galaxies. On the other hand, the strong mass concentration in the central region of ULIRGs should result in the strong self-gravity of starburst region, and therefore the starburst region in ULIRGs can be dynamically isolated from parent galaxies. In such a case, the surface brightness of ULIRGs should be controlled by the relative strength of the self-gravity and its feedback.

#### 5.2.2 Self-gravity vs. feedback in ULIRGs

For a starburst with a typical duration of $`t_0`$, the kinetic energy of gas clouds with random velocity $`v_g`$ can be written as $`1/2M_gv_g^2L_{kin}t_0`$, where $`L_{kin}`$ is the kinetic luminosity due to feedback. Assuming that $`L_{kin}`$ is proportional to the bolometric luminosity with a constant efficiency $`f_{kin}`$, i.e., $`L_{kin}=f_{kin}L_{bol}`$, we can write the kinetic energy per a unit mass as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_g^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L_{kin}t_{dyn}}{M_g}}=f_{kin}{\displaystyle \frac{L_{bol}}{\psi }}.`$ (19)
By using the relation between $`L_{bol}`$ and SFR $`\psi `$ in Eq. (11), the typical velocity can be written as

$`v_g=454\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{kin}}{0.01}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{1/2}\text{km s}^1.`$ (20)
Note that the effect of feedback is independent of the mass in the starburst regions and also in the host galaxies, even though a larger gas supply can induce a more active starburst. On the other hand, the gravitational effect becomes more prominent in more massive systems. This means that too massive starbursts cannot be sustained by feedback against strong self-gravity.

This limiting effect of feedback against self-gravity can be estimated by the comparison of $`v_g`$ with the escape velocity $`v_{esc,c}`$ ($`v_{esc,c}^22GM(<r_e)r_e^1`$), which indicates the depth of the gravitational potential well. A critical mass-radius relation is expected for the condition, $`v_{esc,c}=v_g`$. This relation can be rewritten to another luminosity-radius relation by using the mass to light ratio of starburst regions \[Eq. (12)\]. We can then introduce a limiting bolometric luminosity

$`L_{bol,c}`$ $``$ $`1.2\times 10^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{1.8}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ (21)
$``$ $`1.5\times 10^{12}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{kin}}{0.01}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{M_{}(<r_e)}}\right)`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{r_e}{1\text{kpc}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}\right)^{0.8}\mathrm{L}_{},`$
for $`t_0=100`$ Myr, where we use $`M(<r_e)=2M_{}(<r_e)`$. The total mass within $`r_e`$ is somewhat uncertain, since a realistic distribution of gas and the contribution from the dark matter is important. Therefore, we simply assume $`M(<r_e)=2M_{}(<r_e)`$. At a typical starburst stage $`t/t_0=2`$, we take a limiting bolometric luminosity $`L_{bol,c}1.7\times 10^{12}(r_e/1\text{kpc})`$ L. The feedback effect cannot sustain the starburst region against self-gravity when the bolometric luminosity exceeds this limit. This limiting luminosity is indicated by the dashed line in Fig. 14, which crosses the line of limiting luminosity of the starbursts induced by the disc instability around 0.3 kpc. Fig. 14 shows that all the ULIRGs are above the dashed line where the feedback effect cannot sustain the starburst region against the self-gravity, while all the UVSBGs but one are below the dashed line. Therefore, the mode of starburst in ULIRGs can be different from that in UVSBGs as expected.

The SED diagnostics for ULIRGs indicate a strong mass concentration in the starburst regions as shown in Fig. 13 b). Furthermore, the analysis of self-gravity and feedback allow us to specify that starburst regions in ULIRGs are too massive to be sustained by the feedback effect. Such a system in ULIRGs should be dynamically unstable, which can be confirmed by the observed kinematical signature. With the mass and effective radius derived from the SED fitting, we can estimate the velocity dispersion as $`\sigma _{fit}=(GM(<r_e)/2r_e)^{1/2}`$, which is independent of the direct kinematical estimation from line observations. If a starburst region is dynamically stable as a virialized system, the observed velocity dispersion should be close to this value. In Fig. 15, we compare $`\sigma _{fit}`$ with observed velocity dispersions. The observed velocity dispersions are derived from the emission lines of CO(1$``$2) and HI at 21cm, and the absorption line of CO at 2.3$`\mu `$m. These velocity dispersions are tabulated in Table 3. The velocity dispersions by 2.3$`\mu `$m CO absorption are most suitable to probe the gravitational potential in the starburst region, since the effect of bulk motion on the CO absorption feature is less important than that on gas emission lines. Comparing to the HI 21 cm lines, the emission line of CO molecules seems to be more suitable for our purpose, since these molecules are more concentrated in the starburst region in general. However, we also rely on the measurements of HI 21cm line, since the observation of this line can be found in the majority of our sample galaxies, and HI line widths correlate well with the other kinematical tracers such as H$`\alpha `$ and O\[II\] which are strong in the starburst region (Kobulnicky & Gebhardt 2000). Note that cool gas is kinematically decoupled with the outflowing gas which is indicated by triangles in Fig. 15.

We can see in Fig. 15 that the sequence of the velocity dispersion seems to be bimodal, again. The deviation of the observed velocity dispersion is most remarkable for ULIRGs. This means that, for ULIRGs, the whole starburst region is dynamically unstable since the observed velocity dispersion is not enough to support it against the gravity due to large masses derived from the SED diagnostics. Such a dynamically unstable state for ULIRGs cannot be caused by the local disc instability as in UVSBGs, since it requires large mass concentration into the whole starburst region. Therefore, the dynamical disturbance of a galactic scale is necessary to activate ULIRGs. The merging of galaxies can be the most plausible trigger mechanism of ULIRGs.

## 6 Conclusions

We develop an evolutionary SED model of starburst regions in which the stellar and chemical evolution, including dust, are taken into account consistently. We investigate the basic properties of nearby starburst galaxies, such as the SFR, optical depth and apparent effective radius by using this evolutionary SED model. We studied the SED of various starburst galaxies with a SFR of 0.5 – 300 M yr<sup>-1</sup>, classified as UVSBGs or ULIRGs. Our SED model essentially reproduces all the SEDs of analysed starburst galaxies over the whole range of starburst activity. For starburst galaxies having AGN, we find a clear excess of MIR emission when compared with the best-fitting SED model. The fitting results are confirmed by comparing the derived SFRs and optical depths with the emission line measurements. Irrespective of the degree of reddening, our model can derive the SFR of starburst regions in a unified manner. The apparent effective radii derived from the SED fitting are found to be consistent with observations. Thus, our model can derive both the SFR and intrinsic effective radius from the SEDs.

The variety of the starburst SEDs is caused mainly by the compactness of starburst regions, not from the starburst age. From the SED diagnostics, we find bimodal correlations between the SFR and the compactness/optical depth; more active starburst regions tend to be more compact and heavily obscured.

The bimodal starbursts consist of mild state with a limiting intrinsic surface brightness $`L_{bol}r_e^210^{12}`$ Lkpc<sup>-2</sup> and intense state with a characteristic scale of $`r_e0.3`$ kpc. The mild starburst can be triggered by the disc instability as proposed by Meurer et al. (1997). For ULIRGs, the surface brightness is an order of magnitude larger than that of UVSBGs. A simple analysis of the feedback allows us to derive a critical luminosity over which starburst regions cannot be sustained by the feedback against self-gravity. This limitation of the feedback causes the bimodality of starburst activity, in which the size of starburst region has a clear limit of $`r_e0.3`$ kpc. According to this analysis, all of the ULIRG sample is identified as self-gravity dominated starbursts. Furthermore, we compare the velocity dispersions inferred from the SED fitting results with observations to find that starburst regions in ULIRGs are dynamically unstable. In order to produce the dynamically unstable starbursts with strong mass concentration, a violent trigger mechanism is required, rather than the disc instability. As suggested by various imaging observations, the most plausible trigger mechanism of ULIRGs would be galaxy merging which can cause the dynamical disturbance over a galactic scale.

## Acknowledgements

TT would like to thank to N. Shibazaki, V. Vansevičius, T. Matsumoto and M. Rowan-Robinson for their encouraging supports. We would like to thank the anonymous referee for the sensible comments. We are grateful to C. Pearson for his careful reading of the draft. This work was financially supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for the Scientific Research (No.11640230, 13011201 $`\&`$ 14540220) by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Science. This research has been supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for the Center-of-Excellence (COE) research. Also, TT acknowledges the support of PPARC. We acknowledge the use of Lyon-Meudon Extragalactic Database (LEDA). This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.