Edge-on galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field
aa r X i v : . [ a s t r o - ph . GA ] O c t Astronomy Letters, 2019, Vol.45, No.9, pp.565-575Transl. from Pis’ma v Astron. Zh., 2019, Vol.45, No.9, pp.607-617
Edge-on galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field
V.P. Reshetnikov , , P.A. Usachev , , S.S. Savchenko , St.Petersburg State University, Universitetskii pr. 28, St.Petersburg, 198504 Russia Special Astrophysical Observatory, Russian Academy of Sciences, Nizhnii Arkhyz, 369167 RussiaWe studied a sample of 58 edge-on spiral galaxies at redshifts z ∼ selected in the Hubble UltraDeep Field. For all galaxies we analyzed the 2D brightness distributions in the V and i filters andmeasured the radial ( h r ) and vertical ( h z ) exponential scales of the brightness distribution. We obtainedevidence that the relative thickness of the disks of distant galaxies, i.e., the ratio of the vertical scaleheight and radial scale length ( h z /h r ), on average, exceeds the relative thickness of the disks of nearbyspiral galaxies. The vertical scale height h z of the stellar disks of galaxies shows no big changes at z ≤ .The possibility of the evolution of the radial scale length h r for the brightness distribution with redshiftis discussed. Keywords: galaxies, photometry, evolution
1. Introduction
A study of edge-on spiral galaxies allows a numberof important problems of extragalactic astronomy tobe investigated: the structure and stability of galac-tic disks, the properties and distribution of dust inthem, the contribution of dark matter to the struc-ture of galaxies, the large-scale distribution of galax-ies, etc. (see, e.g., van der Kriut and Searl 1981; Zasovet al. 1991; de Grijs 1998; Mosenkov et al. 2010, 2016;Bizyaev et al. 2017; Makarov et al. 2018; and refer-ences therein). The preceding papers were devotedmostly to edge-on galaxies in the local Universe. Onlyin a few papers the vertical structure of distant ob-jects was studied. For example, Reshetnikov et al.(2003) investigated edge-on galaxies in the Hubbledeep fields north (HDF-N) and south (HDF-S). Theyfound that the relative thickness of the stellar disksof galaxies at redshifts z ∼ exceeds the relativethickness of the disks of nearby galaxies by a factorof 1.5–2. This conclusion was confirmed when ana-lyzing the structure of galaxies in the Hubble UltraDeep Field (hereafter HUDF) (Elmegreen et al. 2005;B. Elmegreen and D. Elmegreen 2006).The goal of our paper is a photometric study ofedge-on spiral galaxies in the HUDF. The main dif-ferences between our paper and the previously pub- lished studies are: an analysis of the complete two-dimensional (2D) brightness distributions instead ofthe one-dimensional profiles, using the spectroscopicredshifts for most objects, and a larger size of thesample of edge-on galaxies.All of the numerical values in our paper are givenfor the cosmological model with the Hubble constantof of 70 km s − Mpc − and Ω m = 0 . , Ω Λ = 0 . .
2. The sample of galaxies and datareduction
To study the edge-on spiral galaxies, we used theHUDF frames in the F606W (hereafter V ) andF775W ( i ) filters (Beckwith et al. 2006). In thesecolor bands the HUDF images are deeper than thosein other original filters. The pixel size is 0.03 ′′ . Inthe first step, on the field image in the V filterwe selected 901 galaxies with an apparent flattening b/a ≤ . , an area ≥
24 pixels, and
S/N > ineach pixel using the SExtractor package (Bertin andArnouts 1996). Such a soft constraint on the flatten-ing was used in order not to throw away the galax-ies with close neighbors. In several cases, SExtractordoes not separate them, but detects them as a sin-gle object. Next, based on a visual examination ofthe images for the objects in different filters and with V.P. Reshetnikov, P.A. Usachev, S.S. Savchenko: Edge-on galaxies in the HUDF different brightness contrasts, we left 77 candidatesfor edge-on galaxies in the sample.To analyze the photometric structure (decompo-sition) of the galaxies, we used the
Imfit package(Erwin 2015) with the PSF (point spread function)generated for the HUDF by the Tiny Tim code (Kristet al. 2011). A comparison of the PSF with the sampleobjects images showed that the disks of all galaxiesare resolved with confidence in both radial and verti-cal directions.In the selected candidates for edge-on galaxies thebulges are noticeable approximately in a quarter ofthe objects. In most cases, these bulges are faint andare on the verge of resolution. Therefore, to describethe photometric structure of the galaxies, we chosethe simplest model of an edge-on double exponentialdisk (see, e.g., van der Kriut and Searl 1981): I ( r, z ) = I , (cid:18) rh r (cid:19) K (cid:18) rh r (cid:19) e − z/h z , where I , , h r , and h z are the central surface bright-ness, radial and vertical exponential scales of the disk,respectively, and K is a modified first-order Besselfunction. The bulges, if they were visible, were fittedby a S´ersic function. The nearby objects projectedonto the galaxies under study were masked before the Imfit operation. If, however, the area of the hamper-ing objects was too large, then during the decompo-sition they were fitted by a combination of differentmodel functions and were subtracted.An analysis of the residual images (the original im-age minus the model one) revealed that 19 of the77 galaxies either are not edge-on galaxies or have avery complex and asymmetric structure. These ob-jects were excluded from the subsequent considera-tion. Thus, the final sample of edge-on galaxies stud-ied in our paper consists of 58 objects. Examples ofour photometric analysis for three galaxies are givenin Fig. 1.For 33 sample galaxies we took their spectroscopicredshifts from Inami et al. (2017) and Rafelski et al.(2015). For 23 objects we used the photometric z fromRafelski et al. (2015) (BPZ redshifts). For two galax-ies the redshifts were not found.The final characteristics of the candidates for edge-on galaxies in the HUDF are listed in Table 1. Column1 in the table gives the object ordinal number in thesample, columns 2 and 3 provide the coordinates ofthe galactic center on the original HUDF image inpixels, the next columns give the galaxy number fromCoe et al. (2006) and its apparent F606W magnitude in the AB system of magnitudes (Rafelski et al. 2015).Column 6 gives the redshifts, with the photometric z being marked by colons. For galaxy N 47 the photo-metric z is very low (0.04). This value leads to implau-sible characteristics of the galaxy and, therefore, wedo not use it in the subsequent analysis. Columns 7and 8 in Table 1 provide the classes introduced by us,which reflect the subjective probability that a galaxybelongs to edge-on ones ( eon ) and the quality of thephotometric decomposition ( f it ) (1 means the high-est probability and quality, 3 means a low one).The decomposition results are summarized in thelast columns of the table. (We are interested in thescales of the brightness distribution h r and h z , sothat the central surface brightnesses of the galaxiesare not discussed in the paper.) For both exponentialscales the first and second numbers refer to the V and i filters, respectively. For three galaxies (N 1,N 15, and N 47) the results in Table 1 are presentedin arcseconds. The typical measurement error of thescales yielded by the Imfit code is less than 10%.
3. Results and discussion
Figure 2 shows the distributions of the galaxies by theredshift and apparent V magnitude. The mean red-shift of the galaxies we consider is h z i = 1 . ± . (here and below, the unbiased sample variance isgiven as an error). The galaxies with spectroscopic z are, on average, nearer than the objects with pho-tometric estimates ( h z i = 1 . ± . vs. h z i =1 . ± . ) and are brighter (Fig. 2).For the cosmological model adopted in this paperthe redshift z = 1 . corresponds to the time elapsedafter the beginning of cosmological expansion, ∼ z ≈ ) are spaced more than 8 Gyr apart.It is hoped that on such a long time scale we will beable to find evidence for the evolution of the globalstructure of disk galaxies.Figure 3 shows the distribution of the galaxies at z ≤ in luminosity. The redshift constraint was used,because the photometric z (only these are known forgalaxies at z > ) for distant galaxies are generallyless accurate than those for nearer ones. To find theabsolute B magnitudes ( M ( B ) ), we used the resultsby Sirianni et al. (2005) and for all objects appliedthe k -correction for an Sc galaxy from Bicker et al. .P. Reshetnikov, P.A. Usachev, S.S. Savchenko: Edge-on galaxies in the HUDF 3 Fig. 1.
Examples of photometric modeling for three sample galaxies. From left to right: the original im-age, the model, and the difference of the original and model images. The upper, middle, and lower rowsshow, respectively, the images of galaxies N 9 (the frame size along the horizontal axis is 4.6 ′′ ), N 22 (thecorresponding size is 3.8 ′′ ), and N 27 (4.6 ′′ ) from Table 1.(2004). The mean observed luminosity for the edge-ongalaxies in the HUDF is h M ( B ) i = − . m ± . m .Given the correction for internal absorption, whichreaches ∼ m − . m for edge-on galaxies (see, e.g.,Tully et al. 1998), the luminosities of these galaxiesseen face-on, on average, reach values in the rangefrom –19 m to –20 m .Figure 4 shows the distributions of the samplegalaxies by h r and h z values expressed in kpc in the i filter. The mean values of these distributions are h h r i = 1 . ± . kpc and h h z i = 0 . ± . kpc.If we restrict ourselves only to the objects of eon and f it classes 1 and 2 (the number of such galaxies inthe sample is 22), then h h r i = 2 . ± . kpc and h h z i = 0 . ± . kpc. The above scales look typicalfor edge-on nearby galaxies (Bizyaev et al. 2014).The mean ratio of the radial scale lengths in the V and i bands is 1.08 ± h h z ( V ) /h z ( i ) i = 0 . ± . . This is also con-sistent with the data for nearby galaxies (see, e.g.,Bizyaev et al. 2014). Obviously, our sample of edge-on galaxies in theHUDF is incomplete. This incompleteness shouldbe most pronounced for faint and poorly resolvablegalaxies, in which the orientation of the stellar diskswith respect to the line of sight is difficult to deter-mine.We will use two methods to roughly estimate theexpected number of edge-on galaxies in the HUDF.On the one hand, consider the general statisticsof galaxies in the HUDF. According to Coe et al.(2006), there are ∼ V.P. Reshetnikov, P.A. Usachev, S.S. Savchenko: Edge-on galaxies in the HUDF
Fig. 2. (a) Distribution of the sample galaxies in red-shifts (the dotted (red) and dashed (blue) lines in-dicate the distribution of the galaxies with spectro-scopic and photometric z , respectively; the solid lineindicates the combined distribution); (b) the same forthe apparent V magnitudes.tal number of spiral galaxies selected by their spectralenergy distribution with an apparent F606W mag-nitude brighter than 27. m z ≤ is 1233.Assuming a random orientation of the galactic planes,we can roughly estimate the relative fraction of edge-on galaxies (with an inclination between the line ofsight and the normal to the disk plane ≥ o ) tobe | cos 90 o – cos 85 o | = 0.087. Consequently, theexpected number of edge-on spiral galaxies in theHUDF is 1233 × ≈ .On the other hand, we can take the luminosityfunction of nearby edge-on spiral galaxies and es-timate how many such objects should be observedtoward the HUDF. For our estimation we took theluminosity function of spiral galaxies based on data Fig. 3.
Distribution of the edge-on galaxies in theHUDF at z ≤ in absolute B magnitude (solid line).The blue dashed line indicates the expected distribu-tion for edge-on spiral galaxies (see the text). Fig. 4.
Distributions of the sample galaxies in (a) ra-dial and (b) vertical disk scales (in kpc). The scalesare given in the i filter. Different lines correspondto different subsamples of galaxies (see the caption toFig. 2). .P. Reshetnikov, P.A. Usachev, S.S. Savchenko: Edge-on galaxies in the HUDF 5 from the 2dF survey (Kroton et al. 2005). Accordingto Kroton et al. (2005), the total space density oflocal spiral galaxies in the range of absolute mag-nitudes from M ( B ) = − m to M ( B ) = − m (Fig. 3) is 0.022 Mpc − . Consequently, the space den-sity of edge-on galaxies is 0.022 × − . Having integrated this space density towardsthe HUDF (its angular size is ∼ − sr), we foundthat within z ≤ about 90 galaxies should be ob-served in the field. The expected distribution of these90 galaxies in luminosity is indicated in Fig. 2 by theblue dashed line.It can be seen from Fig. 3 that for bright (with M ( B ) ≤ − m ) objects the number of galaxies se-lected in the HUDF roughly agrees with the expectedone. The observational selection for fainter galaxies isapparently much stronger. Consequently, for brightgalaxies our sample is probably relatively complete,while many galaxies can be missed among the fainterobjects.It is worth noting that the above reasoning is nottoo reliable, because in Fig. 3 we compare the ob-served luminosities of distant edge-on galaxies withthe luminosities of nearby galaxies. Because of theiredge-on orientation, the distant galaxies look fainterby ∼ m than the face-on galaxies. On the other hand,however, the galaxies at z ∼ should be brighter thanthe nearby objects approximately by 1 m due to theevolution of their luminosity. Both effects can partlycompensate each other out and, therefore, for illus-trative purposes we still compare the luminosities ofthe nearby and distant galaxies in Fig. 3.Another factor that is difficult to take into accountis the evolution of the properties of the spiral galaxiesthemselves. Because of this effect, many of the distantgalaxies that look irregular and asymmetric at z ∼ can evolve into typical spiral galaxies with thin stellardisks by z ∼ . The mean ratio of the radial and vertical exponen-tial disk scales for the entire sample (58 galaxies)in the i band is h h r /h z i = 4 . ± . . If we re-strict ourselves only to the objects of classes 1 and 2,which characterize the probability of assignment toedge-on galaxies and the decomposition quality, then h h r /h z i = 4 . ± . (22 galaxies). In the V filterthe corresponding quantities are h h r /h z i = 4 . ± . and h h r /h z i = 5 . ± . . These mean values look smaller (i.e., the galacticdisks are thicker) than those for spiral galaxies in thenearby Universe. For example, in the biggest present-day catalog of edge-on galaxies containing more than5000 objects (Bizyaev et al. 2014), the mean values ofthis ratio vary from 6.34 in i to 7.14 in g (here we tookinto account the fact that h z = z / ; g and i are theSDSS filters). Other samples of edge-on galaxies alsosuggest thinner stellar disks of nearby spiral galax-ies: for example, 7.4 ± I filter; de Grijs 1998),16 ± R filter; Schwarzkopf andDettmar 2000), 7.3 ± I ; Kregel et al. 2002), 9.6( K ; Bizyaev and Mitronova 2002), 7.1 ( J ; Mosenkovet al. 2010), 8.26 ± ± g , r , i ,and z filters. Kregel et al. (2002), De Geyter et al.(2014), and Peters et al. (2017) used the same pho-tometric model as that in our paper to describe thestructure of the galaxies. The data from the remain-ing papers were recalculated by taking into accountthe ratio h z = z / .Note that we compare the observed relative thick-nesses of the galaxies from the HUDF with those forthe nearby edge-on galaxies. This is because the stel-lar disks seen edge-on look more extended due to theintegration of emission along the line of sight. Thiseffect can introduce certain systematics into the ra-dial scale lengths measured by different methods. Forexample, Padilla and Strauss (2008) and Rodriguezand Padilla (2013) estimated the thickness of spiralgalaxies by studying the distribution of galaxies fromSDSS in apparent flattening. As the apparent flat-tening these authors took the SDSS axial ratio foundby fitting the galaxies with an exponential model.According to the first and second papers, the true flat-tening of the disks of spiral galaxies is 0.21 ± ± h r /h z = 4 . and 3.7 are close to our data for distantgalaxies. On the other hand, detailed modeling of thestructure of nearby edge-on galaxies is in conflict withsuch large stellar disk thicknesses (see the referencesabove).Figure 5 shows the positions of our edge-on galax-ies with eon and f it classes equal to 1 and 2 on theabsolute magnitude – h r /h z plane in the i band.The same figure displays the data from the catalogof nearby edge-on galaxies (Bizyaev et al. 2014). The Fig. 5.
Distribution of the galaxies from the HUDFon the galaxy absolute magnitude M ( B ) – radial-to-vertical stellar disk scales ratio plane in the i filter(red circles). The dots indicate the characteristics ofnearby spiral galaxies in the g band from Bizyaev etal. (2014).galaxies from the HUDF are seen to be located alongthe lower envelope of the distribution for nearby spi-ral galaxies, i.e., where there are the thickest observeddisks. Thin stellar disks with an exponential scales ra-tio of ≈
10 are apparently very rare among the galax-ies at z ≈ .To a first approximation, the reduced ratio h r /h z for distant galaxies can be explained by two factors:(1) an increased (in absolute terms) thickness of theirdisks and (2) shorter disks in the radial direction.Figure 6 compares the characteristics of the galax-ies from the HUDF displayed in Fig. 5 with the pa-rameters of nearby objects on the galaxy absolutemagnitude – vertical exponential scale height (in kpc)and absolute magnitude – radial scale length (in kpc)planes.It can be seen from Fig. 6a that the distant spiralgalaxies, though with a large scatter, generally fol-low the luminosity – stellar disk thickness relationfor objects in the nearby Universe. For the radialscale lengths (Fig. 6b) the situation looks differently:the characteristics of relatively faint distant galaxieswith M ( B ) ≥ − m lie in the same region as that fornearby objects, while brighter galaxies exhibit rela-tively short stellar disks.To check this feature, we plotted the characteristicsof 49 spiral galaxies at z = 0 . − . ( h z i = 0 . ± . )from Miller et al. (2011) on the M ( B ) − h r plane (theopen circles in Fig. 6b). The galaxies from Miller et Fig. 6.
Distribution of the galaxies from the HUDF(red circles) on the (a) M ( B ) – disk scale height and(b) M ( B ) – disk scale length planes. The scales re-fer to the i band. The open circles indicate theparameters of distant spiral galaxies from Miller etal. (2011) ( z filter). The dots indicate the charac-teristics of nearby spiral galaxies in the g band fromBizyaev et al. (2014).al. (2011) have an arbitrary (not edge-on) orienta-tion and they were selected in the GOODS field ofthe Hubble Space Telescope. It can be clearly seenfrom the figure that the distant objects from this pa-per lie on the M ( B ) − h r plane below the nearbygalaxies and form a single sequence with the galax-ies from the HUDF that deviates from the sequencefor the objects at z ∼ . The galaxies from Miller etal. (2011) are, on average, brighter than the objectsof our sample (the correction for internal absorptiondoes not compensate for the luminosity difference),so that, on the whole, the results of our papers com-plement each other. .P. Reshetnikov, P.A. Usachev, S.S. Savchenko: Edge-on galaxies in the HUDF 7 In Figs. 5 and 6 we compare the observations of dis-tant galaxies in the i filter with the data for nearbygalaxies in the g filter (the effective wavelength of thefilter is ≈ ˚A). This is not quite correct since,due to cosmological redshift, the observed i filterat z ≈ corresponds to wavelength range ≈ h r , on average, decrease with increasingwavelength. Given this effect, the difference betweenthe distant and nearby galaxies in Figs. 5 and 6 iseven more pronounced.Thus, our results in combination with the datafrom Miller et al. (2011) may provide evidence for dif-ferential evolution of the radial sizes of spiral galaxiesat z ≤ : the low-luminosity objects show no evi-dence of evolution, while the bright spiral galaxiesfrom z ∼ to the present epoch should grow by afactor of 2–3. On the other hand, the scale height ofspiral galaxies shows no evidence of noticeable evolu-tion at z ≤ (Fig. 6a). Consequently, the increasedrelative thickness of the stellar disks of spiral galaxiesat z ∼ is explained primarily by the smaller radialsizes of their disks.The results obtained are consistent with the nu-merical simulations within Λ CDM cosmology. For ex-ample, Brook et al. (2006) showed that at z ∼ thescale heighs of the stellar disks are already close to thepresent-day ones, while the radial scales are notice-ably shorter. The quantitative agreement between theresults looks good. For example, according to table 2from Brook et al. (2006), a spiral galaxy at z ∼ . with M ( B ) = − . m (seen edge-on, the galaxy willbe fainter approximately by 1 m ), h r = 2.9 kpc, and h z = 0.63 kpc will evolve by z = 0 into a galaxywith M ( B ) = − . m , h r = 4.1 kpc, and h z = 0.65kpc. Thus, between z ∼ . and the current epochthe relative thickness of the model galaxy changedfrom h r /h z = 4.6 to 6.3, with this change having oc-curred due to the growth of the galaxy in the radialdirection.Based on numerical simulations, Brooks et al.(2011) showed that the evolution of disk galaxies de-pends on their mass. The massive spiral galaxies at z ≤ mostly grow in the radial direction; for the low-mass ones the change in their sizes is less pronounced,but, on the other hand, the luminosity changes moredramatically (see table 3 in Brooks et al. (2011)). The sizes of spiral galaxies increase due to the external ac-cretion of matter and the merging of satellites.
4. Conclusions
Based on an analysis of the HUDF images, we pro-duced a sample of 58 candidates for edge-on spiralgalaxies at a mean redshift z ∼ . For all galaxies weanalyzed the 2D brightness distributions in the V and i filters and determined the radial and verticalexponential scales of the brightness distribution.Our main results are as follows:– The scale height of the stellar disks of spiralgalaxies shows no significant evolution at z ≤ .– The relative thickness of the disks of distantgalaxies, on average, exceeds the relative thickness ofthe disks of nearby spiral galaxies. Thin stellar disksat z ∼ are apparently very rare.– We obtained evidence for differential evolutionof the exponential scale lengths of the stellar disksof galaxies: the bright spiral galaxies at z ∼ lookshortened compared to the nearby objects; the low-luminosity galaxies show no evidence of evolution.The results of this paper are based on a small sam-ple of galaxies and, undoubtedly, need to be con-firmed with a larger number of objects. On the whole,our observational results are consistent with the cur-rent views of the evolution of the disk subsystems ofgalaxies and they can be used to test various modelsfor the evolution of spiral galaxies.This work was supported by the Russian ScienceFoundation (grant no. 19-12-00145).We are grateful to A.V. Mosenkov for useful com-ments. REFERENCES
1. S.V.W. Beckwith, M. Stiavelli, A.M. Koekemoer, J.A.R. Caldwell,H.C. Ferguson, R. Hook, R.A. Lucas, L.E. Bergeron, et al., Astron.J. 132, 1729 (2006).2. E. Bertin and S. Arnouts, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 117,393 (1996).3. J. Bicker, U. Fritze-v.Alvensleben, C.S. Moller, and K. J. Fricke,Astron. Astrophys. 413, 37 (2004).4. D. Bizyaev and S. Mitronova, Astron. Astrophys. 389, 795 (2002).5. D.V. Bizyaev, S.J. Kautsch, A.V. Mosenkov, V.P. Reshetnikov,N.Ya. Sotnikova, N.V. Yablokova, and R. W. Hillyer, Astrophys. J.787, 24 (2014).
V.P. Reshetnikov, P.A. Usachev, S.S. Savchenko: Edge-on galaxies in the HUDF
6. D.V. Bizyaev, S.J. Kautsch, N.Ya. Sotnikova, V.P. Reshetnikov,and A.V. Mosenkov, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 465, 3784 (2017).7. Ch.B. Brook, D. Kawata, H. Martel, B.K. Gibson, and J. Bailin,Astrophys. J. 639, 126 (2006).8. A.M. Brooks, A.R. Solomon, F. Governato, J. McCleary,L.A. MacArthur, C.B.A. Brook, P. Jonsson, T.R. Quinn, et al.,Astrophys. J. 728, 51 (2011).9. D. Coe, N. Benitez, S.F. Sanchez, M. Jee, R. Bouwens, and H.Ford, Astron. J. 132, 926 (2006).10. D.M. Elmegreen, B.G. Elmegreen, D.S. Rubin, and M.A.Schaffer, Astrophys. J. 631, 85 (2005).11. B.G. Elmegreen and D.M. Elmegreen, Astrophys. J. 650, 644(2006).12. P. Erwin, Astrophys. J. 799, 226 (2015).13. G. de Geyter, M. Baes, P. Camps, J. Fritz, I. de Looze, Th.M.Hughes, S. Viaene, and G. Gentile, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 441,869 (2014).14. R. de Grijs, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 299, 595 (1998).15. H. Inami, R. Bacon, J. Brinchmann, J. Richard, T. Contini, S.Conseil, S. Hamer, M. Akhlaghi, et al., Astron. Astrophys. 608, A2(2017).16. M. Kregel, P.C. van der Kruit, and R. de Grijs, Mon. Not. R.Astron. Soc. 334, 646 (2002).17. J.E. Krist, R.N. Hook, and F. Stoehr, Proc. SPIE 8127, 81270J(2011).18. P.C. van der Kriut, and L. Searl, Astron. Astrophys. 95, 105(1981).19. D.I. Makarov, N.A. Zaitseva, and D.V. Bizyaev, Mon. Not. R.Astron. Soc. 479, 3373 (2018).20. S.H. Miller, K. Bundy, M. Sullivan, R.S. Ellis, and T. Treu,Astrophys. J. 741, 115 (2011).21. A.V. Mosenkov, N.Ya. Sotnikova, and V.P. Reshetnikov, Mon.Not. R. Astron. Soc. 401, 559 (2010).22. A.V. Mosenkov, F. Allaert, M. Baes, S. Bianchi, P. Camps, G.de Geyter, I. de Looze, J. Fritz, et al., Astron. Astrophys. 592, A71(2016).23. P.C. Peters, G. de Geyter, P.C. van der Kruit, and K.C.Freeman, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 464, 48 (2017).24. M. Rafelski, H.I. Teplitz, J.P. Gardner, D. Coe, N.A. Bond,A.M. Koekemoer, N. Grogin, P. Kurczynski, et al., Astron. J. 150,31 (2015).25. V.P. Reshetnikov, R.-J. Dettmar, and F. Combes, Astron.Astrophys. 399, 879 (2003).26. U. Schwarzkopf and R.-J. Dettmar, Astron. Astrophys. 361, 451(2000).27. M. Sirianni, M.J. Jee, N. Benitez, J.P. Blakeslee, A.R. Martel,G. Meurer, M. Clampin, G. de Marchi, et al., Publ. Astron. Soc.Pacif. 117, 1049 (2005). 28. R.B. Tully, M.J. Pierce, J.-Sh. Huang, W. Saun- ders, M.A.W.Verheijen, and P.L. Witchalls, Astron. J. 115, 2264 (1998).29. A.V. Zasov, D.I. Makarov, and E.A. Mikhailova, Astron. Lett.17, 374 (1991). .P. Reshetnikov, P.A. Usachev, S.S. Savchenko: Edge-on galaxies in the HUDF 9
Table 1.
Edge-on galaxies in the HUDF
N X Y CoeID V z eon f it h r (kpc) h z (kpc)1 1488 4578 1 3 0.21 ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′
16 4186 4249 3097 26.56 2.36: 3 1 1.67 1.59 0.63 0.5917 4213 3054 1242 26.34 2.02: 2 2 4.04 3.72 0.69 0.6818 4312 8261 9414 27.25 1.38: 3 1 1.96 1.66 0.44 0.4619 4362 1468 163 27.43 0.65: 3 1 1.09 1.07 0.22 0.2320 4462 2075 521 25.93 1.04: 1 2 2.53 2.53 0.48 0.5121 4673 7460 8259 27.33 0.68 3 1 1.17 1.12 0.31 0.3122 4675 5841 6143 26.97 1.02 1 1 1.67 1.45 0.33 0.3823 4780 1333 95 26.21 1.76: 2 2 1.64 1.56 0.43 0.4524 4833 4000 2652 25.17 0.68 1 2 2.46 2.40 0.46 0.4725 4837 2673 966 26.43 1.04 2 3 1.56 1.44 0.36 0.3826 4852 2255 666 25.94 1.16 3 1 1.13 1.02 0.33 0.3327 4942 4289 3101 27.14 1.37 1 1 2.56 2.28 0.34 0.3928 5022 8056 9171 26.17 0.68 3 1 1.44 1.27 0.37 0.3729 5023 8224 9425 26.18 1.79: 2 2 1.65 1.47 0.37 0.3930 5074 2004 446 25.40 1.10 3 1 1.54 1.57 0.36 0.4131 5404 5620 5615 25.88 1.10 3 1 2.17 1.59 0.77 0.8232 5560 7272 8351 26.39 1.75: 3 2 1.56 1.49 0.42 0.4433 5597 9353 9848 26.53 1.04 3 2 2.29 1.96 0.58 0.5834 5650 9326 9974 25.12 1.02 2 3 2.46 2.21 0.61 0.6235 5692 2437 833 26.88 1.55 2 1 1.63 1.45 0.31 0.3336 5781 7049 8624 25.72 0.83 1 1 4.13 3.70 0.56 0.5737 5811 5988 6038 24.40 0.67 1 2 4.48 4.27 1.08 1.0038 5959 3306 1612 26.51 1.76: 3 1 1.38 1.36 0.47 0.4539 6124 4282 3178 26.21 1.91: 3 2 4.43 3.84 0.73 0.6340 6178 8569 9807 25.88 0.77 1 2 2.62 2.45 0.39 0.4341 6416 8780 9834 22.55 0.43 2 2 2.69 3.00 0.77 1.0342 6462 4440 3418 26.59 3.96: 3 3 1.58 1.89 0.46 0.4943 6486 6320 6922 25.55 1.26 1 3 5.26 5.29 0.55 0.6144 6491 7924 9139 25.83 1.84 3 3 1.73 1.58 0.36 0.4245 6746 7127 8372 23.22 0.53 3 3 2.63 2.41 0.55 0.5746 6785 2367 735 25.72 1.12: 3 2 1.63 1.30 0.44 0.4347 6789 5075 4661 26.63 0.04: 2 1 0.16 ′′ ′′ ′′ ′′
48 6894 7813 7737 24.39 0.53 3 2 1.39 1.37 0.42 0.4549 6976 2949 1253 27.44 2.88: 3 1 1.39 1.24 0.42 0.4150 7079 5197 4835 25.48 1.32 3 2 1.55 1.44 0.58 0.560 V.P. Reshetnikov, P.A. Usachev, S.S. Savchenko: Edge-on galaxies in the HUDF
Table 1.
Edge-on galaxies in the HUDF (cont.)
N X Y CoeID V z eon f it h r (kpc) h zz