Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
134 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
10 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
47 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Resolving the Discrepancy of Galaxy Merger Fraction Measurements at z ~ 0 - 3 (1410.3479v1)

Published 13 Oct 2014 in astro-ph.GA and astro-ph.CO

Abstract: We measure the merger fraction of massive galaxies using the UltraVISTA/COSMOS $Ks$-band selected catalog, complemented with the deeper, higher resolution 3DHST+CANDELS catalog selected in the HST/WFC3 $H$-band, presenting the largest mass-complete photometric merger sample up to $z\sim3$. We find that selecting mergers using the $H_{160}$-band flux ratio leads to an increasing merger fraction with redshift, while selecting mergers using the stellar mass ratio causes a diminishing redshift dependence. Defining major and minor mergers as having stellar mass ratios of 1:1 - 4:1 and 4:1 - 10:1 respectively, the results imply $\sim$1 major and $\lesssim$1 minor merger for an average massive (log$(M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) \geqslant 10.8$) galaxy during $z=0.1-2.5$. There may be an additional $\sim 0.5(0.3)$ major (minor) merger if we use the $H$-band flux ratio selection. The observed amount of major merging alone is sufficient to explain the observed number density evolution for the very massive (log$(M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) \geqslant 11.1$) galaxies. We argue that these very massive galaxies can put on a maximum of $6\%$ of stellar mass in addition to major and minor merging, so that their number density evolution remains consistent with observations. The observed number of major and minor mergers can increase the size of a massive quiescent galaxy by a factor of two at most. This amount of merging is enough to bring the compact quiescent galaxies formed at $z>2$ to lie at $1\sigma$ below the mean of the stellar mass-size relation as measured in some works (e.g. Newman et al. 2012), but additional mechanisms are needed to fully explain the evolution, and to be consistent with works suggesting stronger evolution (e.g. van der Wel et al. 2014).

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.