inctions derived from a Miller & Scalo IMF and a Salpeter IMF, respectively. Therefore, the small GRB host sample does not allow us to determine whether or not GRB hosts have smaller intrinsic extinctions than young field starburst galaxies. Likewise, comparing GRB host extinctions with those derived for all types of field galaxies does not allow us to determine whether they have different extinction distributions.

Additional tests {#ad_comp}
----------------

As mentioned in Sect. \[sed\] the SED fit of the host of GRB 000418 could indicate a somewhat larger extinction ($A_V=1.4$). We therefore investigated the impact of changing this particular extinction value on the derived probabilities for the extinction corrected specific SFRs. For a Salpeter IMF, the derived 2D K–S probabilities for the same parent distribution are 0.03 and 0.04 for 0.2 Gyr and 0.1 Gyr old HDF starburst, respectively, while Table \[tab:ksprob\] gives 0.004 and 0.04. We therefore conclude that the uncertainty in the GRB 000418 host extinction has little impact on the results.

We also investigated the possibility that other galaxy types might have similar SFRs as the GRB hosts. Selecting young HDF galaxies classified as other spectral types than starbursts, i.e. irregular galaxies or spirals with $t<0.1$ Gyr, gives a 2D K–S probability of 0.002 for the same parent distribution. We note that for the theoretical templates the differences between the templates at such young ages are small. However, comparing the specific extinction corrected SFRs with those of ellipticals, without any age constraint, the probability is also small (2$\times10^{-5}$) which is not surprising as old elliptical galaxies do not have any star formation.

Because of possible differences between bright and faint HDF galaxies, an additional brightness requirement on the HDF galaxies was therefore imposed. We selected HDF galaxies with absolute $B$ band magnitudes as bright or brighter than GRB hosts ($M_B < -18.08$) and the resulting K–S probabilities for the various tests are listed in column 4 and 5 in Table \[tab:ksprob\]. The probabilities now appear to be much smaller than without the brightness selection (apart from the M&S IMF based extinction corrected tests). This is not due to the smaller number of comparison galaxies, but arises because the
inctions derived from a Miller & Scalo IMF and a Salpeter IMF, respectively. Therefore, the small GRB host sample distribution does not leave us to determine whether or not GRB hosts get minor intrinsic extinctions than young playing field starburst galax. Likewise, comparing GRB host extinctions with those derive for all types of field galax does not admit us to determine whether they get different extinction distributions. 

 extra tests { # ad_comp } 
 ---------------- 

 As mentioned in Sect.   \[sed\ ] the SED fit of the master of ceremonies of GRB   000418 could indicate a somewhat big extinction ($ A_V=1.4 $). We therefore investigate the impact of changing this particular extinction value on the derived probabilities for the extinction adjust specific SFRs. For a Salpeter IMF, the derived 2D K – S probabilities for the same parent distribution are 0.03 and 0.04 for 0.2   Gyr and 0.1   Gyr old HDF starburst, respectively, while Table   \[tab: ksprob\ ] gives 0.004 and 0.04. We therefore conclude that the uncertainty in the GRB   000418 host extinction has little impact on the results. 

 We also investigated the possibility that early galax types might have similar SFRs as the GRB hosts. choose unseasoned HDF galaxies classified as other spectral types than starbursts, i.e. irregular galaxies or spiral with $ t<0.1 $ Gyr, gives a 2D K – S probability of 0.002 for the same parent distribution. We note that for the theoretical templates the dispute between the templates at such young ages are small. However, comparing the specific extinction corrected SFRs with those of ellipticals, without any historic period constraint, the probability is also small (2$\times10^{-5}$) which is not surprising as old elliptical galaxy do not have any star formation. 

 Because of potential differences between undimmed and faint HDF galaxies, an additional brightness requirement on the HDF galax was therefore imposed. We choose HDF galaxies with absolute $ B$ band magnitudes as bright or bright than GRB hosts ($ M_B < -18.08 $) and the result K – S probability for the various trial are listed in column 4 and 5 in Table   \[tab: ksprob\ ]. The probability now appear to be much smaller than without the brightness choice (apart from the M&S IMF based extinction correct tests). This is not due to the belittled number of comparison galaxies, but arises because the
inchions derived from a Miluer & Scalo IMF cbd a Selpeter IMF, resoectively. Therefore, the smalp TRB hist sample does not aluow us to determibe wiether or not GRU hosts mcve sjwllex mntrinsic extingtions than young field sdafbbrst galaxies. Likewise, comparing GRB host ectlnctions with jhose qeribvd for all types of field galaxjes doev not allow ux to determine whether thej hage different extinftion distrubutyins.

Additionau tests {#ad_bmmp}
----------------

As mentjoned in Sect. \[sed\] the SED fit of the kost of GRB 000418 ciulf indicate a somerhat larger cqtinctimn ($A_V=1.4$). Wr therefore inyestijatee the impact of changmng this particular gxtinction vclue on the derived peovabilhtiev fof thd estmncfion clrrxcted speciric SFRs. Foe a Salpeter IMF, tht dqgoved 2D K–S prkbabilytyes for the same parent distribution art 0.03 ans 0.04 for 0.2 Gyr and 0.1 Gyr old YDF starburst, respectlvely, whije Table \[tab:ksprob\] gives 0.004 and 0.04. We therefore concluge thet tht mkcergqijty in the GRB 000418 host extinction has little impwdt ok the results.

We clso investigatec hhr possibility jhat otksr galaxy types mighh have fimilqr SFRs af thr GRB hosts. Selecting young HDF galaxief classified as othzr spectral cypes jhan syarbursts, i.e. irregular yalaxiss or spiraps with $t<0.1$ Eyr, gives a 2D K–S prpbdbility of 0.002 for the same pwrent disvribucion. We vote that sor the thforetlwal templates the fiffetences between tje templates at such young ages are small. Howgves, cmmparing the xpecific extigction correctgd SFRs wnth thuse of ellppticals, xithout any wge constraind, the probabinity is wlso smaol (2$\timer10^{-5}$) which is not xurprisiny as ild elliptical galexier do not have anv wtar formation.

Brcajse ov 'ossifne differencas bdtwdrn brkght and falnt HDF galaxies, an additiotal grightness requirekekt on the HDF galwxies was thetefore imposed. We delecved HDH galacief with absolute $B$ band magnituses as brlghb or brighter thak GRF hosts ($M_B < -18.08$) and the resulting K–S probabilities fir the various tesrs are listed in cokmmn 4 and 5 in Tablq \[tab:ksprot\]. The probabilities bow appear to be kuch smaller than witgout tve brlghtness selection (apart from the M&S IMF based extinction corrected tests). This ms not due to the smalnex nbmber os col'arison galaxies, nut arises because the
inctions derived from a Miller & Scalo a IMF, respectively. the small GRB us determine whether or GRB hosts have intrinsic extinctions than young field starburst Likewise, comparing GRB host extinctions with those derived for all types of field does not allow us to determine whether they have different extinction distributions. Additional {#ad_comp} As in \[sed\] the SED fit of the host of GRB 000418 could indicate a somewhat larger extinction We therefore investigated the impact of changing this extinction value on the probabilities for the extinction corrected SFRs. a Salpeter the 2D probabilities for the parent distribution are 0.03 and 0.04 for 0.2 Gyr and 0.1 Gyr old HDF starburst, respectively, while \[tab:ksprob\] gives 0.04. We conclude the in the GRB extinction has little impact on the investigated the possibility that other galaxy types might similar SFRs the GRB hosts. Selecting young HDF classified as other spectral types than starbursts, i.e. galaxies or spirals with $t<0.1$ Gyr, gives a 2D K–S probability of 0.002 for the distribution. We note that the theoretical templates differences the at young ages small. However, comparing the specific extinction corrected SFRs with those of without any age constraint, the probability is also small (2$\times10^{-5}$) not as old elliptical do not have any formation. of possible differences between faint galaxies, requirement the galaxies was therefore imposed. selected HDF galaxies with absolute band magnitudes as bright ($M_B < -18.08$) and the resulting K–S probabilities the various tests are listed in column and 5 in Table \[tab:ksprob\]. The probabilities now appear to be much than without selection (apart from the M&S IMF based extinction tests). This is not to the smaller number of comparison galaxies, but arises the
inctions derived from a MilleR & Scalo IMF aNd a SaLpeTer iMf, resPectIvely. Therefore, THe smAll GRB host sample does noT alloW uS To deTErMine wHether oR NoT grB hOsTs HavE sMAlLer inTriNsic extInctions thAn yOuNg field starbURsT galaxies. LIkeWise, comparinG GRb host eXtIncTIons wIth Those DeriveD For all Types of fiElD GalaxiES does noT ALlOw us To determine whetheR ThEY have different ExtincTiON dISTriButIons.

AdditiOnAl tesTS {#ad_comp}
----------------

aS mENTIonED in Sect. \[sed\] the sED fit of the HOst Of GRB 000418 cOuLd iNDicate A someWhAT laRger extinctIon ($A_v=1.4$). We therefOre invEStigateD The impaCt of chAngIng This PArTiCulAr EXtiNCtIon VAluE on the deRiVeD probAbilITIES for The ExtiNctioN corrected speCifIc SFrS. FoR a SalPeter iMF, tHe DerivEd 2D K–S pRobabIlIties for the same PareNt distribUtiOn Are 0.03 AnD 0.04 for 0.2 GYR and 0.1 GyR olD HDf starbuRst, respECtiVeLY, WHiLe Table \[tab:ksprob\] giVeS 0.004 ANd 0.04. we therefOre conCLuDe THat the unCeRtaInty IN The GRb 000418 hosT ExTinction Has litTLe ImPact on tHe ResultS.

WE alSo iNvestIGateD the poSsibilitY that OTher galaxy typeS Might have simiLAr sfrs AS the gRB Hosts. SelectIng yOUng HdF gaLAxIes CLassiFied aS oTHeR Spectral types than stArBursts, I.e. irrEgular galaxieS or spirals WITH $t<0.1$ Gyr, givEs a 2D k–s pRObability of 0.002 for The saMe parent diSTributioN. We noTe that foR the theorETIcal tempLatEs tHe dIffEREnCes between the TEMplaTeS at such YouNg ages aRe sMalL. HoWevEr, Comparing The speciFiC eXtInCtiOn corREcted SFRS wIth ThOse Of ellIPticalS, withOut aNy AgE ConStraint, THe PRObabIlItY is aLso SmAll (2$\tiMes10^{-5}$) wHIch Is not suRprising aS olD ElliPtIcAl galaxIes do not have aNy Star formatIoN.

BeCause oF POssible dIfferences between bright ANd faint hDF GalaxIes, aN additionAl bRightnEss REquireMent on The HDf gAlaXIEs was THErEfoRe Imposed. We sELEctEd HDF GaLaxiEs with aBsolute $B$ band magnitUDes As bright or briGhtEr thAN gRb hoSTs ($m_b < -18.08$) anD tHE reSULting K–S probabilIties for thE vARiOus tests arE LisTeD in coluMn 4 and 5 in table \[TAb:ksproB\]. The probaBilities nOw AppeAR To bE much smallEr than wiThout the bRIghtnESs SelecTioN (apart FrOm tHe M&S ImF baseD ExtInctiOn corrEcTed tesTs). ThiS iS not due tO the smaller number of compArison GalaxIes, But arises BecAUse The
inctions derived from a Mi ller & Sca lo IM F a ndaSalp eter  IMF, respecti v ely.  Therefore, the smallGRB h os t  sam p le  does  not al l ow u s t ode ter mi n ewheth eror notGRB hostshav esmaller intr i ns ic extinct ion s than young  fi eld st ar bur s t gal axi es. L ikewis e , comp aring GRB  h o st ext i nctions w it h th ose derived for a l lt ypes of fieldgalaxi es do e s  no t a llow us to  d eterm i ne whet h er t h eyh ave different  extinction dis tribut io ns. 
Addit ional  t e sts  {#ad_comp} 
--- --------- ----
A s menti o ned inSect.\[s ed\ ] th e  S ED  fi to f t h ehos t  of  GRB 000 41 8could  ind i c a t e asom ewha t lar ger extinctio n ( $A_V = 1.4 $). W e the refo re  inve stigat ed th eimpact of chang ingthis part icu la r e xt incti o n valu e o n t he deri ved pro b abi li t i e sfor the extinction  c o r re cted spe cificS FR s. For a Sa lp ete r IM F ,  thederi v ed  2D K–Sprobab i li ti es forth e same  p are ntdistr i buti on are  0.03 an d 0.0 4  for 0.2 Gyr a n d 0.1 Gyr old HD F st a rbur st,  respective ly,w hile  Tab l e\[t a b:ksp rob\]  g i ve s  0.004 and 0.04. We  t herefo re co nclude that t he uncerta i n t y in the  GRB 00 0 418 host extin ction  has littl e  impacton th e result s.

We al s o  investi gat edthe  po s s ib ility that ot h e r ga la xy type s m ight ha vesim ila r S FR s as theGRB host s.  S el ec tin g you n g HDF ga la xie scla ssifi e d as o therspec tr al typ es than st a r burs ts ,i.e.  ir re gular  gal a xie s or sp irals wit h $ t <0.1 $Gy r, give s a 2D K–S pr ob ability of  0 .00 2 fort h e same p arent distribution. Wen ote tha t f or th e th eoretical  te mplate s t h e diff erence s bet we ent h e tem p l at esat  such youn g age s are  s mall . Howev er, comparing thes pec ific extincti oncorr e c te d S F Rs wit ht hos e of ellipticals,  without a ny ag e constrai n t,th e proba bilityis al s o small  (2$\time s10^{-5}$ )whic h isnot surpri sing asold ellip t icalg al axies  do  not h av e a ny st ar for m ati on.
Becaus eof pos sible  d ifferenc es between bright and f aint H DF ga lax ies, an a ddi t ion al bright ness  requireme ntonthe H DFg alaxi es w a sthe r efore  imp o sed. We s e le cte d HD F galaxiesw i t h a bsolu te$ B$ ban d ma gnitudes as brigh t  or brighter t hanG R B h ost s  ($M _B  < -18.08$) an d t he r esulting  K –S probabil ities fo rt he va rioustestsare lis t e di n colu mn 4  an d 5 in Ta ble  \ [ tab:ksp ro b\ ] . Theprob ab ilitie s nowa ppea r to be much small er th a n  with o utthe b ri ghtness sele ction (apa rt from the  M&S I MF b asedextinct io n corr ect ed  tests). T h is is not  dueto thesm alle r n umberof c o m paris on g al axi es, but a r i se s  b ec a use  the 
inctions derived_from a_Miller & Scalo IMF_and a_Salpeter_IMF, respectively._Therefore,_the small GRB_host sample does_not allow us to_determine whether or_not_GRB hosts have smaller intrinsic extinctions than young field starburst galaxies. Likewise, comparing GRB_host_extinctions with_those_derived_for all types of field_galaxies does not allow us_to determine_whether they have different extinction distributions.

Additional tests {#ad_comp}
----------------

As_mentioned_in Sect. \[sed\] the_SED fit of the host of GRB 000418 could indicate_a somewhat larger extinction ($A_V=1.4$). We_therefore investigated the_impact_of_changing this particular extinction_value on the derived probabilities for_the extinction corrected specific SFRs. For_a Salpeter IMF, the derived 2D K–S_probabilities for the same parent distribution_are 0.03 and 0.04 for_0.2 Gyr and_0.1 Gyr old HDF starburst, respectively,_while Table \[tab:ksprob\] gives_0.004 and_0.04. We therefore_conclude that the uncertainty in the_GRB 000418 host extinction_has little impact on the results.

We_also_investigated the possibility_that_other_galaxy types_might have similar_SFRs_as the_GRB_hosts. Selecting young HDF galaxies classified_as_other spectral types than starbursts, i.e. irregular_galaxies or spirals with_$t<0.1$_Gyr, gives a 2D_K–S probability of 0.002 for_the same parent distribution. We note_that for_the theoretical_templates the differences between the templates at such young ages are_small. However, comparing the specific extinction_corrected SFRs with those_of ellipticals,_without_any age constraint,_the_probability is_also small (2$\times10^{-5}$) which is not surprising_as old_elliptical galaxies do not have any_star formation.

Because of possible_differences_between bright and faint HDF galaxies,_an additional brightness requirement on the_HDF galaxies was therefore imposed._We_selected_HDF galaxies with absolute $B$_band magnitudes as bright or brighter_than GRB hosts_($M_B < -18.08$) and the resulting K–S_probabilities_for the various tests are listed_in_column 4 and 5 in Table \[tab:ksprob\]._The_probabilities_now appear to be much_smaller than without the brightness selection_(apart from the M&S IMF based extinction corrected tests)._This is not_due to the smaller number_of_comparison_galaxies, but arises because the