Search for: All records

Abstract Low-surface-brightness galaxies (LSBGs) are excellent probes of quenching and other environmental processes near massive galaxies. We study an extensive sample of LSBGs near massive hosts in the local universe that are distributed across a diverse range of environments. The LSBGs with surface-brightness ${\mu }_{\mathrm{eff},\mathit{g}}>24.2\mathrm{mag}{\mathrm{arcsec}}^{-2}$are drawn from the Dark Energy Survey Year 3 catalog while the hosts with masses $9.0<\log \left({\mathcal{M}}_{\star }/M_{\odot }\right)<11.0$comparable to the Milky Way and the Large Magellanic Cloud are selected from the z0MGS sample. We study the projected radial density profiles of LSBGs as a function of their color and surface brightness around hosts in both the rich Fornax–Eridanus cluster environment and the low-density field. We detect an overdensity with respect to the background density, out to 2.5 times the virial radius for both hosts in the cluster environment and the isolated field galaxies. When the LSBG sample is split byg−icolor or surface brightnessμ_eff,g, we find the LSBGs closer to their hosts are significantly redder and brighter, like their high-surface-brightness counterparts. The LSBGs form a clear “red sequence” in both the cluster and isolated environments that is visible beyond the virial radius of the hosts. This suggests preprocessing of infalling LSBGs and a quenched backsplash population around both host samples. More so, the relative prominence of the “blue cloud” feature implies that preprocessing is ongoing near the isolated hosts compared to the cluster environment where the LSBGs are already well processed. 

ABSTRACT We compare the two largest galaxy morphology catalogues, which separate early- and late-type galaxies at intermediate redshift. The two catalogues were built by applying supervised deep learning (convolutional neural networks, CNNs) to the Dark Energy Survey data down to a magnitude limit of ∼21 mag. The methodologies used for the construction of the catalogues include differences such as the cutout sizes, the labels used for training, and the input to the CNN – monochromatic images versus gri-band normalized images. In addition, one catalogue is trained using bright galaxies observed with DES (i < 18), while the other is trained with bright galaxies (r < 17.5) and ‘emulated’ galaxies up to r-band magnitude 22.5. Despite the different approaches, the agreement between the two catalogues is excellent up to i < 19, demonstrating that CNN predictions are reliable for samples at least one magnitude fainter than the training sample limit. It also shows that morphological classifications based on monochromatic images are comparable to those based on gri-band images, at least in the bright regime. At fainter magnitudes, i > 19, the overall agreement is good (∼95 per cent), but is mostly driven by the large spiral fraction in the two catalogues. In contrast, the agreement within the elliptical population is not as good, especially at faint magnitudes. By studying the mismatched cases, we are able to identify lenticular galaxies (at least up to i < 19), which are difficult to distinguish using standard classification approaches. The synergy of both catalogues provides an unique opportunity to select a population of unusual galaxies.