Paper detail

Evidence for (and Against) Progenitor Bias in the Size Growth of Compact Red Galaxies

Most massive passive galaxies are compact at high redshifts, but similarly compact massive galaxies are rare in the local universe. The most common interpretation of this phenomenon is that massive galaxies have grown in size by a factor of about five since redshift z=2. An alternative explanation is that recently quenched massive galaxies are larger (a "progenitor bias"). In this paper we explore the importance of progenitor bias by looking for systematic differences in the stellar populations of compact early-type galaxies in the DEEP2 survey as a function of size. Our analysis is based on applying the statistical technique of bootstrap resampling to constrain differences in the median ages of our samples and to begin to characterize the distribution of stellar populations in our co-added spectra. The light-weighted ages of compact early-type galaxies at redshifts 0.5 < z < 1.4 are compared to those of a control sample of larger galaxies at similar redshifts. We find that massive compact early-type galaxies selected on the basis of red color and high bulge-to-total ratio are younger than similarly selected larger galaxies, suggesting that size growth in these objects is not driven mainly by progenitor bias, and that individual galaxies grow as their stellar populations age. However, compact early-type galaxies selected on the basis of image smoothness and high bulge-to-total ratio are older than a control sample of larger galaxies. Progenitor bias will play a significant role in defining the apparent size changes of early-type galaxies if they are selected on the basis of the smoothness of their light distributions.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 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.

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.