Small and Complex I: The Three Component Structure of $z \sim 0$ Massive Compact Quiescent Galaxies

TL;DR

This study reveals that massive compact quiescent galaxies at z~0 predominantly have a three-component structure with a compact disk, bulge, and envelope, differing significantly from average-sized quiescent galaxies.

Contribution

It provides detailed morphological analysis showing that most massive compact quiescent galaxies require a three-component model, highlighting their complex structure.

Findings

75% of MCGs require a three-component model

MCG disks are more compact than those in CSGs

Envelope components have broad ellipticity distribution

Abstract

We investigate the morphology and structural properties of 246 massive compact quiescent galaxies (MCGs; $\log M_{\star} \sim 10$-$11$, $\sigma_{\mathrm{e}} \sim 150$-$350\,$km\,s$^{-1}$, $R_{\mathrm{e}} \sim 0.7$-$2.5\,$kpc) at $z \sim 0$, selected as outliers in the stellar mass-velocity dispersion and velocity dispersion-size relations, using $g$-, $r$-, and $i$-band Hyper Suprime-Cam images. We compare them to a control sample of average-sized quiescent galaxies (CSGs) matched in stellar mass, star formation rate, redshift, and $g-i$ color. Both samples are dominated by S0 galaxies, comprising $93\%$ of MCGs and $71\%$ of CSGs, while ellipticals account for $4\%$ and $11\%$, respectively. The fraction of interacting or morphologically disturbed systems is low in both samples ($13\%$ for MCGs and $16\%$ for CSGs). Multi-component decompositions of the $g$- and $r$-band images show that $75\%$ of MCGs require a three-component model (bulge, disk, and envelope), while $21\%$ are best fit by two components and $4\%$ by a single S\'ersic profile. Two-component MCGs are preferentially low-inclination systems, suggesting that the three-component fraction represents a lower limit. In contrast, only $7\%$ of CSGs exhibit a comparable three-component structure. Bars are present in $29\%$ of CSGs but are absent in MCGs. For three-component systems, MCGs and CSGs have similar bulge ($R_\mathrm{e}=0.39$ vs.\ $0.45$\,kpc) and envelope ($R_\mathrm{e}=6.4$ vs.\ $5.8$\,kpc) sizes, while MCG disks are significantly more compact ($R_\mathrm{e}=1.9$ vs.\ $3.3$\,kpc). The envelope component shows a broad ellipticity distribution ($\epsilon_\mathrm{Envelope} \sim 0.0$-$0.6$), which we interpret as corresponding to either a stellar halo or a thick disk.