English

Difference Between Half-mass Radius and Half-light Radius of Galaxies at 0.2 $< z <$ 2.5 Revealed by JWST/NIRCam Data

Astrophysics of Galaxies 2026-05-21 v1

Abstract

Using JWST observations in CANDELS fields, we measure the half-light radius (re,lightr_{\rm e,light}) and half-mass radius (re,massr_{\rm e,mass}) for 14,333 galaxies with stellar masses M>109MM_* > 10^9 M_\odot at redshifts 0.2<z<2.50.2 < z < 2.5. To investigate the difference between re,lightr_{\rm e,light} and re,massr_{\rm e,mass}, we find that re,lightr_{\rm e,light} is larger than re,massr_{\rm e,mass} for both quiescent galaxies (QGs) and star-forming galaxies (SFGs). Moreover, the difference between these two radii is clearly correlated with galaxy stellar mass, re,lightr_{\rm e,light}, and the rest-frame UVU - V color. When examining the evolution of the re,mass/re,lightr_{\rm e,mass}/r_{\rm e,light} ratio, we observe a significant increase for SFGs at z>1.7z > 1.7. In contrast, no clear increase is observed for QGs at z>1z > 1, though a slight decreasing trend is seen between 0.2<z<1.00.2 < z < 1.0. By fitting a linear relationship between galaxy size and stellar mass, we find that the slope for re,lightr_{\rm e,light} is \sim 0.1 to 0.3 dex larger than that for re,massr_{\rm e,mass}. In terms of galaxy size evolution at a fixed stellar mass, the re,massr_{\rm e,mass} of QGs increases by a factor of \sim 3 to 5 from z2.5z \sim 2.5 to z0.2z \sim 0.2. In contrast, the re,massr_{\rm e,mass} of SFGs increases by a factor of approximately 2 over the same redshift range, with this growth trend closely following that of their re,lightr_{\rm e,light}. These results indicate that previous insights into galaxy evolution based on re,lightr_{\rm e,light} remain valid when considering re,massr_{\rm e,mass}, although the specific slopes show some variations.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2605.20887,
  title  = {Difference Between Half-mass Radius and Half-light Radius of Galaxies at 0.2 $< z <$ 2.5 Revealed by JWST/NIRCam Data},
  author = {Mingen Xin and Guanwen Fang and Jie Song and Shiying Lu and Zesen Lin and Xu Kong},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.20887},
  year   = {2026}
}

Comments

18 pages, 14 figures, 3 tables; published in The Astrophysical Journal