Paper detail

A comparison of the morphological properties between local and z~1 infrared luminous galaxies. Are local and high-z (U)LIRGs different?

Ultraluminous and luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs and LIRGs) are the most extreme star-forming galaxies in the universe, and dominate the total star formation rate density at z>1. In the local universe (z<0.3), the majority of ULIRGs and a significant portion of LIRGs are triggered by interactions between gas-rich spiral galaxies, yet it is unclear if this is still the case at high-z. To investigate the relative importance of galaxy interactions in infrared luminous galaxies, we carry out a comparison of optical morphological properties between local (U)LIRGs and (U)LIRGs at z=0.5-1.5 based on the same sample selection, morphology classification scheme, and optical morphology at similar rest-frame wavelengths. In addition, we quantify the systematics in comparing local and high-z datasets by constructing a redshifted dataset from local (U)LIRGs, in which its data quality mimics the high-z dataset. Based on the Gini-M20 classification scheme, we find that the fraction of interacting systems decreases by ~8% from local to z<~1, and it is consistent with the reduction between local and redshifted datasets (6(+14-6)%). Based on visual classifications, the merger fraction of local ULIRGs is found to be ~20% lower compared to published results, and the reduction due to redshifiting is 15(+10-8)%. Consequently, the differences of merger fractions between local and z<~1 (U)LIRGs is only ~17%. These results demonstrate that there is no strong evolution in the fraction of (U)LIRGs classified as mergers at least out to z~1. At z>1, the morphology types of ~30% of (U)LIRGs can not be determined due to their faintness in the F814W-band, and thus the merger fraction measured at z>1 suffers from large uncertainties.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access12 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.