Which galaxy mass estimator can we trust?

TL;DR

This paper investigates discrepancies between dynamical and stellar mass estimates in high-redshift galaxies, suggesting that assumptions of homology in dynamical models lead to systematic errors, especially in compact galaxies.

Contribution

It introduces a new non-virial scaling relation for dynamical mass that accounts for deviations from homology, improving mass estimation accuracy.

Findings

Dynamical masses are systematically underestimated in compact galaxies.

Discrepancies between dynamical and stellar masses increase with galaxy compactness.

Proposed non-virial scaling relations better match observed mass estimates.

Abstract

We address the problem that dynamical masses of high-redshift massive galaxies, derived using virial scaling, often come out lower than stellar masses inferred from population fitting to multi-band photometry. We compare dynamical and stellar masses for various samples spanning ranges of mass, compactness and redshift, including the SDSS. The discrepancy between dynamical and stellar masses occurs both at low and high redshifts, and systematically increases with galaxy compactness. Because it is unlikely that stellar masses show systematic errors with galaxy compactness, the correlation of mass discrepancy with compactness points to errors in the dynamical mass estimates which assume homology with massive, nearby ellipticals. We quantify the deviations from homology and propose specific non-virial scaling of dynamical mass with effective radius and velocity dispersion.