Paper detail

The evolution of the number density of compact galaxies

We compare the number density of compact (small size) massive galaxies at low and high redshift using our Padova Millennium Galaxy and Group Catalogue (PM2GC) at z=0.03-0.11 and the CANDELS results from Barro et al. (2013) at z=1-2. The number density of local compact galaxies with luminosity weighted (LW) ages compatible with being already passive at high redshift is compared with the density of compact passive galaxies observed at high-z. Our results place an upper limit of a factor ~2 to the evolution of the number density and are inconsistent with a significant size evolution for most of the compact galaxies observed at high-z. The evolution may be instead significant (up to a factor 5) for the most extreme, ultracompact galaxies. Considering all compact galaxies, regardless of LW age and star formation activity, a minority of local compact galaxies (<=1/3) might have formed at z<1. Finally, we show that the secular decrease of the galaxy stellar mass due to simple stellar evolution may in some cases be a non-negligible factor in the context of the evolution of the mass-size relation, and we caution that passive evolution in mass should be taken into account when comparing samples at different redshifts.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 authors2 topics

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.