4.7 Article

RESOLVING THE DISCREPANCY OF GALAXY MERGER FRACTION MEASUREMENTS AT z ∼ 0-3

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 830, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/89

Keywords

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: interactions; galaxies: statistics

Funding

  1. Danish National Research Foundation
  2. Lundbeck Foundation
  3. Instrument Centre for Danish Astrophysics (IDA)
  4. ESO [179.A-2005]
  5. 3DHST Treasury Program [GO 12177, 12328]
  6. NASA [NAS5-26555]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We measure the merger fraction of massive galaxies using the UltraVISTA/COSMOS catalog, complemented with the deeper, higher resolution 3DHST+CANDELS catalog, presenting the largest mass-complete photometric merger sample up to z similar to 3. We find that the variation in the mass ratio probe can explain the discrepant redshift evolution of the merger fraction in the literature: 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 reveals a merger fraction with little redshift dependence at z = 1-3. Defining major and minor mergers as having stellar mass ratios of 1: 1-4: 1 and 4: 1-10: 1, respectively, the results imply similar to 1 major merger and similar to 0.7 minor merger on average for a massive (log (M*M-circle dot). 10.8) galaxy during z = 0.1-2.5. There may be an additional similar to 0.5(0.4) 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*M-circle dot) >= 11.1) galaxies. 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 1.5s below the mean of the stellar mass-size relation as measured in some works (e.g., Newman et al.), but additional mechanisms are needed to fully explain the evolution, and to be consistent with works suggesting stronger evolution.

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