The Sizes of Candidate z9-10 Galaxies: confirmation of the bright CANDELS sample and relation with luminosity and mass
Abstract
Recently, a small sample of six z9-10 candidates was discovered in CANDELS that are 10-20× more luminous than any of the previous z9-10 galaxies identified over the HUDF/XDF and CLASH fields. We measure the sizes of these candidates to map out the size evolution of galaxies from the earliest observable times. Their sizes are also used to provide a valuable constraint on whether these unusual galaxy candidates are at high redshift. Using galfit to derive sizes from the CANDELS F160W images of these candidates, we find a mean size of 0.130.02" (or 0.50.1 kpc at z9-10). This handsomely matches the 0.6 kpc size expected extrapolating lower redshift measurements to z9-10, while being much smaller than the 0.59" mean size for lower-redshift interlopers to z9-10 photometric selections lacking the blue IRAC color criterion. This suggests that source size may be an effective constraint on contaminants from z9-10 selections lacking IRAC data. Assuming on the basis of the strong photometric evidence that the Oesch et al. 2014 sample is entirely at z9-10, we can use this sample to extend current constraints on the size-luminosity, size-mass relation, and size evolution of galaxies to z10. We find that the z9-10 candidate galaxies have broadly similar sizes and luminosities as z6-8 counterparts with star-formation-rate surface densities in the range of SFR=1-20\, M~ yr-1\, kpc-2. The stellar mass-size relation is uncertain, but shallower than those inferred for lower-redshift galaxies. In combination with previous size measurements at z=4-7, we find a size evolution of (1+z)-m with m=1.00.1 for >0.3L*z=3 galaxies, consistent with the evolution previously derived from 2 < z < 8 galaxies.
Turn this paper into a lesson
ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.