Paper detail

Spot the difference. Impact of different selection criteria on observed properties of passive galaxies in zCOSMOS 20-k sample

We present the analysis of photometric, spectroscopic, and morphological properties for differently selected samples of passive galaxies up to z=1 extracted from the zCOSMOS-20k spectroscopic survey. This analysis intends to explore the dependence of galaxy properties on the selection criterion adopted, study the degree of contamination due to star-forming outliers, and provide a comparison between different commonly used selection criteria. We extracted from the zCOSMOS-20k catalog six different samples of passive galaxies, based on morphology, optical colors, specific star-formation rate, a best fit to the observed spectral energy distribution, and a criterion that combines morphological, spectroscopic, and photometric information. The morphological sample has the higher percentage of contamination in colors, specific star formation rate and presence of emission lines, while the red & passive ETGs sample is the purest, with properties mostly compatible with no star formation activity; however, it is also the less economic criterion in terms of information used. The best performing among the other criteria are the red SED and the quiescent ones, providing a percentage of contamination only slightly higher than the red & passive ETGs criterion (on average of a factor of ~2) but with absolute values of the properties of contaminants still compatible with a red, passively evolving population. We also provided two revised definitions of early type galaxies based on restframe color-color and color-mass criteria, that better reproduce the observed bimodalities. The analysis of the number densities shows evidences of mass-assembly downsizing, with galaxies at 10.25<log(M/Msun)<10.75 increasing their number by a factor ~2-4 from z=0.6 to z=0.2, by a factor ~2-3 from z=1 to z=0.2 at 10.75<log(M/Msun)<11, and by only ~10-50% from z=1 to z=0.2 at 11<log(M/Msun)<11.5.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access53 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.