Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T21:47:05.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Statistical assessment of the relation between the inferred morphological type and the emission-line activity type of a large sample of galaxies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2015

R. A. Ortega-Minakata
Affiliation:
Departamento de Astronomá, Universidad de Guanajuato, 36000, Guanajuato, Mexico
J. P. Torres-Papaqui
Affiliation:
Departamento de Astronomá, Universidad de Guanajuato, 36000, Guanajuato, Mexico
H. Andernach
Affiliation:
Departamento de Astronomá, Universidad de Guanajuato, 36000, Guanajuato, Mexico
J. M. Islas-Islas
Affiliation:
Departamento de Astronomá, Universidad de Guanajuato, 36000, Guanajuato, Mexico Universidad Tecnológica de Tulancingo, 43642, Hidalgo, Mexico
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We quantify the statistical evidence of the relation between the inferred morphology and the emission-line activity type of galaxies for a large sample of galaxies. We compare the distribution of the inferred morphologies of galaxies of different dominant activity types, showing that the difference in the median morphological type between the samples of different activity types is significant. We also test the significance of the difference in the mean morphological type between all the activity-type samples using an ANOVA model with a modified Tukey test that takes into account heteroscedasticity and the unequal sample sizes. We show this test in the form of simultaneous confidence intervals for all pairwise comparisons of the mean morphological types of the samples. Using this test, scarcely applied in astronomy, we conclude that there are statistically significant differences in the inferred morphologies of galaxies of different dominant activity types.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2015 

References

Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543Google Scholar
Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cid Fernandes, R., Mateus, A., Sodré, L. Jr., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukugita, M., Nakamura, O., Okamura, S., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 579Google Scholar
Heckman, T. M. 1980, A&A 87, 152Google Scholar
Herberich, E., Sikorski, J., & Hothorn, T. 2010, PLoS ONE 5 1 (Plos ONE 5(3): e9788.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009788)Google Scholar
Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1997, ApJ, 487, 568Google Scholar
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. 2008, Biom. J., 50, 346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., et al. 2001, ApJ, 556, 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabater, J., Verdes-Montenegro, L., Leon, S., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A15Google Scholar
Shimasaku, K., Fukugita, M., Doi, M., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 1238Google Scholar
Torres-Papaqui, J. P., Coziol, R., Andernach, A., et al. 2012, Rev. Mexicana AyA, 48, 275Google Scholar