Paper detail

The Major and Minor Galaxy Merger Rates at z < 1.5

Calculating the galaxy merger rate requires both a census of galaxies identified as merger candidates, and a cosmologically-averaged `observability' timescale T_obs(z) for identifying galaxy mergers. While many have counted galaxy mergers using a variety of techniques, T_obs(z) for these techniques have been poorly constrained. We address this problem by calibrating three merger rate estimators with a suite of hydrodynamic merger simulations and three galaxy formation models. We estimate T_obs(z) for (1) close galaxy pairs with a range of projected separations, (2) the morphology indicator G-M20, and (3) the morphology indicator asymmetry A. Then we apply these timescales to the observed merger fractions at z < 1.5 from the recent literature. When our physically-motivated timescales are adopted, the observed galaxy merger rates become largely consistent. The remaining differences between the galaxy merger rates are explained by the differences in the range of mass-ratio measured by different techniques and differing parent galaxy selection. The major merger rate per unit co-moving volume for samples selected with constant number density evolves much more strongly with redshift (~ (1+z)^(+3.0 \pm 1.1)) than samples selected with constant stellar mass or passively evolving luminosity (~ (1+z)^(+0.1 \pm 0.4)). We calculate the minor merger rate (1:4 < M_{sat}/M_{primary} <~ 1:10) by subtracting the major merger rate from close pairs from the `total' merger rate determined by G-M20. The implied minor merger rate is ~3 times the major merger rate at z ~ 0.7, and shows little evolution with redshift.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 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.