Paper detail

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

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 $r_{50} \propto (1+z)^n$, we find $n = -0.20 \pm 0.26$ at bright UV-luminosities ($0.3L_{*(z=3)} < L < L_*$) and $n = -0.47 \pm 0.62$ 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 Sérsic profiles, in order to robustly categorise galaxies as either `smooth&#39; or `disturbed&#39;. Comparing the disturbed fraction amongst bright ($M_{UV} \leq -20$) 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 ($M_{UV} \leq -20$) galaxy at z~6 is no more likely to be measured as `disturbed&#39; than a comparable galaxy at z~4, given the current observational constraints.

preprint2016arXivOpen 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.

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 graph slice

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.