Table 4.
Properties of the literature samples used to compare the FIR sizes (see Sect. 5.2).
| Reference | N | z | rms | Resolution | Model | ⟨Re⟩ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [mJy beam−1] | [arcsec] | [kpc] | ||||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | ||
| This work | 6 | 2.1–2.5 | 0.02–0.04 | 0.16–0.27 | Exp. (Gaussian) | 1.31 ± 0.23 (0.93 ± 0.23) (a) |
| Hodge et al. (2016) | 6 | 1.5–2.5 | ∼0.064 | ∼0.16 | Exp./Gaussian (b) | 1.48 ± 0.08 |
| Gullberg et al. (2019) | 153 | 1.5–5.8 (median 2.9) | 0.09–0.34 | ∼0.18 | Exponential | 1.20 ± 0.4 |
| Scholtz et al. (2020) | 4 | 1.4–2.6 | 0.02–0.69 | 0.16–0.28 | Gaussian | 0.97 ± 0.24 |
| Chen et al. (2020) | 4 | 1.5–2.5 | 0.03–0.07 | 0.17–0.25 | Gaussian | 1.67 ± 0.22 |
| Tadaki et al. (2020) | 62 | 1.9–2.6 | ∼0.06 | 0.20–0.30 | Exponential | 1.56 ± 0.12 |
Notes. (1) Number of objects considered in our comparison. (2) Redshift of the sources. (3) rms sensitivity of the ALMA observed-frame 870 μm maps. (4) Resolution of the ALMA observed-frame 870 μm maps. (5) Model used to measure the FIR sizes: exponential (exp.) or Gaussian. (6) Mean FIR size (half-light radius) derived from the 870 μm data.
For our work, we report the mean Re obtained using both the exponential (exp.) and the Gaussian model.
Hodge et al. (2016) fit the sample assuming a Sérsic profile with index n free. The six SMGs with z = 1.5 − 2.5 have FIR profiles between Gaussian and exponential (Sérsic index n = 0.5 − 1).
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.