Table 3.
Report of the compactness formulae and redshift ranges of sources presented in the literature.
| Reference | Redshift | Formula | Number of sources | Mass complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Damjanov et al. (2015) | 0.24–0.66 | (log(Re)+5.74)/log(M) < 0.568 | 4347 | 1664 |
| Cassata et al. (2011) – compact | 1.20–3.00 | (log(Re)+5.5)/log(M) < 0.54 | 3139 | 1115 |
| Barro et al. (2013) | 1.40–3.00 | log( |
3083 | 1370 |
| van der Wel et al. (2014) – compact | 0.00–3.00 | Re/(M/1011)0.75 < 2.5 kpc | 1801 | 914 |
| Charbonnier et al. (2017) | 0.20–0.60 | log(M) > 5 × 1010, Re < 2 kpc | 1061 | 372 |
| Spiniello et al. (2021) | 0.10–0.50 | log(M) > 6 × 1010, Re < 2 kpc | 693 | 372 |
| Buitrago et al. (2018) | 0.02–0.30 | log(M) > 8 × 1010, Re < 2 kpc | 277 | 277 |
| Cassata et al. (2011) – ultracompact | 1.20–3.00 | (log(Re)+5.8)/log(M) < 0.54 | 250 | 82 |
| van der Wel et al. (2014) – ultracompact | 0.00–3.00 | Re/(M/1011)0.75 < 1.5 kpc | 241 | 134 |
| Trujillo et al. (2009) | 0.00–0.20 | log(M) > 8 × 1010, Re < 1.5 kpc | 86 | 86 |
Notes. The number of UCMG candidates according to each criterion is given in the fourth column. The last column provides the sample size of UCMG candidates that meet the compactness criterion, and the mass completeness above log(Mstar/M⊙)≥10.86 (Davidzon et al. 2016). Two works (Cassata et al. 2013; van der Wel et al. 2014) applied two different criteria, and we refer to them as a ‘compact’ and ‘ultracompact’ for less and more restrictive, respectively.
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.