Paper detail

Compact groups from semi-analytical models of galaxy formation -- III: purity and completeness of Hickson-like catalogues

Many catalogues of isolated compact groups of galaxies (CGs) have been extracted using Hickson's criteria to identify isolated, dense systems of galaxies, with at least three or four galaxies concordant in magnitude and redshift. But is not clear to what extent the catalogues of CGs are complete and reliable, relative to 3D truly isolated, dense groups. Using five different semi-analytical models of galaxy formation (SAMs), we identify isolated dense groups in 3D real space, containing at least three galaxies. We then build mock redshift space galaxy catalogues and run a Hickson-like CG finder. We find that the Hickson-like algorithm in redshift space is poor at recovering 3D CGs of at least 3 galaxies, with a purity of $\sim 10\%$ and a completeness of $\sim 22\%$. Among the $\sim 90\%$ of spurious systems, typically $60\%$ are dense structures that failed the 3D isolation criteria, while the remaining $40\%$ are chance alignments of galaxies along the line of sight, nearly all of which are within regular groups, with some variation with the SAM used for the analysis. In other words, while only $10\%$ of CGs are isolated dense groups, as intended, half are dense structures embedded within larger groups, and one-third are chance alignments within larger groups. The low completeness of the extracted CG sample is mainly due to the flux limits of the selection criteria. Our results suggest that a new observational algorithm to identify compact groups in redshift space is required to obtain dense isolated galaxy systems.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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.

Institutions

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.