Non-parametric analysis of the rest-frame UV sizes and morphological disturbance amongst L* galaxies at 4<z<8

Abstract

We present the results of a study investigating the sizes and morphologies of redshift 4 < z < 8 galaxies in the CANDELS GOODS-S, HUDF and HUDF parallel fields. Based on non-parametric measurements and incorporating a careful treatment of measurement biases, we quantify the typical size of galaxies at each redshift as the peak of the log-normal size distribution, rather than the arithmetic mean size. Parameterizing the evolution of galaxy half-light radius as r50 (1+z)n, we find n = -0.20 0.26 at bright UV-luminosities (0.3L*(z=3) < L < L*) and n = -0.47 0.62 at faint luminosities (0.12L* < L < 0.3L*). Furthermore, simulations based on artificially redshifting our z~4 galaxy sample show that we cannot reject the null hypothesis of no size evolution. We show that this result is caused by a combination of the size-dependent completeness of high-redshift galaxy samples and the underestimation of the sizes of the largest galaxies at a given epoch. To explore the evolution of galaxy morphology we first compare asymmetry measurements to those from a large sample of simulated single S\'ersic profiles, in order to robustly categorise galaxies as either `smooth' or `disturbed'. Comparing the disturbed fraction amongst bright (MUV ≤ -20) galaxies at each redshift to that obtained by artificially redshifting our z~4 galaxy sample, while carefully matching the size and UV-luminosity distributions, we find no clear evidence for evolution in galaxy morphology over the redshift interval 4 < z < 8. Therefore, based on our results, a bright (MUV ≤ -20) galaxy at z~6 is no more likely to be measured as `disturbed' than a comparable galaxy at z~4, given the current observational constraints.

0

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.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…