4.7 Article

Relations between the Sizes of Galaxies and Their Dark Matter Halos at Redshifts 0 < z < 3

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 838, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa62a6

Keywords

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: structure; methods: data analysis

Funding

  1. NASA [NAS5-26555]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We derive relations between the effective radii R-eff of galaxies and the virial radii R-200c of their dark matter halos over the redshift range 0 < z < 3. For galaxies, we use the measured sizes from deep images taken with Hubble Space Telescope for the Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey; for halos, we use the inferred sizes from abundance matching to cosmological dark matter simulations via a stellar mass-halo mass (SMHM) relation. For this purpose, we derive a new SMHM relation based on the same selection criteria and other assumptions as for our sample of galaxies with size measurements. As a check on the robustness of our results, we also derive R-eff-R-200c relations for three independent SMHM relations from the literature. We find that galaxy Reff is proportional on average to halo R-200c, confirming and extending to high redshifts the z = 0 results of Kravtsov. Late-type galaxies (with low Srsic index and high specific star formation rate (sSFR)) follow a linear R-eff-R-200c relation, with effective radii at 0.5 < z < 3 close to those predicted by simple models of disk formation; at z < 0.5, the sizes of late-type galaxies appear to be slightly below this prediction. Early-type galaxies (with high Srsic index and low sSFR) follow a roughly parallel R-eff-R-200c relation, similar to 0.2-0.3 dex below the one for late-type galaxies. Our observational results, reinforced by recent hydrodynamical simulations, indicate that galaxies grow quasi-homologously with their dark matter halos.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available