Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 117 references

Secular Attrition of Classical Bulges by Stellar Bars

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Stellar bars trap up to half of a classical bulge into disk-like orbits.

desk verdict The 50% trapping number is new and the control is good, but the simulated bulges are too diffuse to support the 'at most half' conclusion yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09150 v1 pith:ERLPR2Z5 submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.GA

Rachel Lee McClure , Tobias Géron , Elena D'Onghia , Angus Beane , Aaryan Thusoo , Kathryne J. Daniel , Carrie Filion , Scott Lucchini This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxybarsclassicalbulgessecularevolutionresonanttrappingN-bodysimulationsorbitaldynamicsMaNGAgalaxiesbulgeattrition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a long-lived stellar bar is not a passive companion to a classical bulge: it actively erodes the bulge by trapping its stars into bar-supporting resonances, so that an observed bulge in an evolved barred galaxy may contain at most half of the stars the galaxy originally built. In isolated N-body simulations with live dark halos, about 50% of the initial bulge population ends up on 2:1 inner Lindblad resonance orbits with disk-like kinematics, making much of the classical bulge observationally indistinguishable from the disk. The authors test this against 210 MaNGA barred galaxies and find that slower bars, which are older, are preferentially paired with weaker bulges. This offers a secular explanation for the long-noted scarcity of classical bulges in local disk galaxies and for the Milky Way's small classical bulge fraction, without requiring that those bulges never formed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the h2:1 inner Lindblad resonance of the stellar bar, identified by orbital-frequency analysis with the naif code: stars satisfying $2\Omega_r = \Omega_\phi$ in the bar frame are the bar-supporting population. The paper uses this frequency selection to track what fraction of the initial classical bulge becomes trapped, and a Bayesian kinematic classifier on ($r$, $z$, $v_z$, $v_\phi$) to ask how often those trapped bulge stars would be mistaken for disk stars. The reinitialization experiment, where bulge particles are replaced by their original isotropic counterparts at the strong-bar epoch, shows that trapping proceeds independently of the initial bar-formation episode.

What would settle it

Find a sample of old, slow-bar galaxies in the same mass range as the models whose bulges are still large and dispersion-dominated; if a substantial population of such galaxies exists, the claim that slow bars erode classical bulges to at most half their initial mass would fail. Alternatively, run one of the models with a live gas component and star formation: if the trapped h2:1 fraction drops well below 50%, the secular-attrition mechanism is not robust under realistic conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that classical bulges are not long-lived relics of hierarchical assembly once a stellar bar forms: the evolving bar transfers angular momentum to the bulge and resonantly traps up to half of its stars on h2:1 orbits (two radial oscillations per azimuthal period), converting an initially isotropic, dispersion-supported population into a rotating, disk-like one. By the time a bar becomes slow, only about 12-14% of the initial bulge remains kinematically classifiable as bulge in the simulations, and the bar-trapped bulge stars are concentrated in the central bar and pseudobulge region. The paper further claims that in 210 MaNGA galaxies, slow bars are associated with smaller bulges, consistent with bulge attrition over long secular timescales.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that isolated, gas-free N-body models capture the dominant secular mechanism acting on bulges; if gas inflows, ongoing star formation, or mergers suppress or reverse the resonant trapping, the inference that observed classical-bulge scarcity reflects bar-driven attrition weakens, and the MaNGA correlation is only supporting evidence, not a direct test of the mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any kinematically measured classical bulge in a barred galaxy with an old, slow bar should be read as a lower limit: the original bulge could be up to twice as massive as the observed component.
  • Kinematic-only decompositions of barred galaxies will systematically undercount classical bulges, so bulge-to-total ratios from surveys need chemical or photometric information to recover the true bulge mass.
  • Bulge attrition acts on short timescales: within about 3 Gyr of strong-bar formation, a third of the bulge stars are already trapped, so even moderately old bars can noticeably erode bulges.
  • The Milky Way's small classical bulge fraction is consistent with its long, slow bar, independent of assumptions about its merger history.
  • Observational samples should show a monotonic trend in which the slower, older the bar, the weaker the classical bulge; the MaNGA sample shows this at more than 3 sigma when bars are divided by pattern speed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extension: if gas is included, the trapped fraction may differ; gas can both weaken the bar and suppress trapping while also funneling material to the center to mimic bulge growth, so the MaNGA trend could be partly environmental rather than purely secular.
  • Extension: chemical tagging in the Milky Way's bar region should reveal a population of old bulge-origin stars on h2:1 orbits that kinematics alone would call disk; measuring that fraction would test the 50% number directly in our own Galaxy.
  • Extension: bars forming at high redshift should already have eroded bulges by intermediate redshift, so a deficit of dispersion-dominated bulges in high-redshift barred galaxies may be visible in deep kinematic surveys.
  • Extension: the same resonant mechanism should also spin up part of the stellar halo, producing a flattened, slowly rotating halo component that could be searched for in existing halo surveys.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses a suite of four isolated, gas-free N-body disk galaxy simulations with live dark matter halos and bulge-to-disk mass fractions of 0%, 4%, 8%, and 16% to quantify the secular interaction between a growing stellar bar and a classical bulge. Using orbital frequency analysis, the authors find that up to 50% of the stars initially in the classical bulge become trapped in the h2:1 (inner Lindblad resonance) family over 7-9 Gyr, and that this fraction is reproduced when the bulge is reinitialized to isotropic initial conditions at the time the bar becomes strong. A Bayesian pseudo-observational classifier applied in (r, z, v_z, v_phi) phase space implies that only 11-14% of the initial bulge remains kinematically distinguishable from the disk at the end of the runs. In a sample of 210 MaNGA barred galaxies, slow bars show lower bulge prominence than fast bars (Anderson-Darling >3.2 sigma for the pattern-speed split, 2.9 sigma for the R split). The authors conclude that bars erode classical bulges and that any observed classical bulge in a barred galaxy may contain at most half of its primordial population fraction.

Significance. If the 50% trapping fraction is robust, the paper identifies a genuinely important secular channel: classical bulges are not passively long-lived tracers, and the observed scarcity of classical bulges (including in the Milky Way) could be at least partly a consequence of bar-driven kinematic transformation rather than of formation history alone. The main strengths are that the headline fraction emerges from forward N-body evolution rather than from a fitted model, that the controlled reinitialization experiment addresses the dependence on bar-formation history, and that the authors confront their simulations with an independent MaNGA sample. However, the headline 'at most half' inference rests on a single, unusually diffuse bulge profile and on an observational correlation that has a plausible alternative causal reading; both limit the strength of the claim as currently stated. The paper is therefore a solid, well-posed dynamical study whose main generalization needs additional robustness work.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.1, 3.1, 5] Section 2.1 specifies the classical bulge as a Hernquist sphere with scale length a = 3.15 kpc, which implies a three-dimensional half-mass radius of (1+sqrt(2))a approximately 7.6 kpc, about 2.8 times the disk scale length of 2.7 kpc. Most of the 'bulge' mass therefore sits at radii that overlap the disk, precisely the region through which the inner Lindblad resonance sweeps as the bar slows. The headline claim of Section 5, that any observed classical bulge in a barred galaxy may contain at most half of its initial population, rests on this single, unusually diffuse bulge realization; the paper does not vary bulge concentration. A compact classical bulge typical of observations (effective radius near 1 kpc) could trap a very different fraction, and the pseudo-observational confusion of Section 3.3 is also amplified by this choice. Please add at least one compact-bulge run (for example a = 0.5-1 kpc) or explicitly restrict the claim to diffuse bulges.
  2. [3.2, Fig. 2] The observational comparison in Section 3.2 does not uniquely support the attrition scenario, because the paper's own models contain the reverse causal chain: the 16% Bulge model reaches the slow-bar regime later than models with smaller bulges (Figure 2, Section 3.1). If massive bulges delay bar slowing, then the MaNGA trend of lower bulge prominence among slow bars (Anderson-Darling >3.2 sigma for the Omega_bar split, 2.9 sigma for the R split) is expected even if bars never erode bulges. The interpretation in Section 4 that slow bars are older and therefore have had more time to erode their bulges requires controlling for this selection effect; as written, the statement in Section 5 that the observations support the key findings overstates the constraining power of the comparison. A concrete test would be to check whether the trend survives a match on stellar mass and bulge-to-total ratio, or to predict a bar-aligned rotating component in classical-bulge kinematics that the size correlation alone would not produce.
  3. [2.4, 3.3] Section 3.3 reports that at the end of the runs only 11%, 12%, and 14% of the initial bulge is kinematically distinguishable from the disk for the 4%, 8%, and 16% Bulge models, and the reader is not told what fraction would already be distinguishable at t = 0 under the same classifier. The nearly flat initial P(Bulge) distribution shown in the left panel of Figure 7 suggests a non-trivial baseline confusion that is built into the diffuse bulge and the 4D KDE rather than caused by the bar; the bar-driven confusion should be quoted as the change relative to that baseline. In addition, the conclusion in Section 5 that approximately 50% of each initial bulge is classified through its kinematics as consistent with the stellar disk populations is not what Section 3.3 reports for the joint criterion of h2:1 and P(Disk) > 0.5: the end-of-run fractions are 22%, 41%, and 31% for the 4%, 8%, and 16% models, respectively. The conclusion should report the joint numbers or clarify that the 50% refers to h2:1 trapping alone.
  4. [5] The limitation statement in Section 5, that gas, star formation, and external interactions are not included and may alter or suppress this transformation process, is an honest acknowledgment, but it directly bounds the central inference as it applies to real galaxies. The 'at most half' claim should be framed as conditional on isolated, gas-free secular evolution, and the MaNGA correlation should be described as indirect support rather than as verification of the mechanism.
minor comments (6)
  1. [2.3] In Section 2.3, Omega_x is described as the azimuthal frequency measured with respect to the bar frame, but the resonance condition is written as 2 Omega_r = Omega_x; please define Omega_x explicitly as Omega_phi - Omega_bar so that the ILR condition is unambiguous.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The bulge-prominence weights in Equation (3) are adopted without a sensitivity test; please show that the fast/slow comparisons in Section 3.2 are insensitive to the exact values or cite a validation of the scheme.
  3. [3.2, Fig. 6] The binned gradient in Figure 6 is comparable in size to the quoted per-bin uncertainties; please add a rank-correlation statistic between bulge prominence and each bar-speed metric, with its significance, rather than relying only on the two-way Anderson-Darling splits.
  4. [3.3, Fig. 7] Please report the initial-condition fraction of bulge particles already classified as P(Disk) > 0.5 by the pseudo-observational classifier, so that the bar-driven confusion in Section 3.3 can be separated from the baseline confusion apparent in the nearly flat initial P(Bulge) histogram of Figure 7.
  5. [2.2, Fig. 3, Fig. 7] Please correct the typographical issues: 'the the circular velocity' in Section 2.2, 'is varies the least' in the Figure 3 caption, 'furest extent' in the Figure 7 caption, and the axis label 'nbar rotation' in Figure 3.
  6. [2.5] The bulge-prominence definition relies on 'Garland et al. (in prep)'; please provide a stable reference or reproduce the vote-fraction weights and thresholds so that the analysis is fully checkable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is a forward N-body simulation result, and the MaNGA comparison is independent external data; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The paper's central result—that up to 50% of an initial classical bulge becomes trapped in h2:1 bar-supporting orbits—is a measured output of four forward N-body simulations (Section 3.1, Figure 3), not a quantity fitted to reproduce that outcome. No simulation parameter is tuned to the MaNGA bulge-prominence trend; that sample (Gérón et al. 2023) is used as an independent external comparison after the simulations were run. The pseudo-observational Bayesian classifier (Section 2.4) is trained on the initial bulge phase-space distribution and the evolved disk distribution; this is a forward modeling choice for estimating kinematic distinguishability, and the resulting 11–14% 'kinematically distinguishable' fractions are outputs of the simulation, not inputs. Self-citations to McClure et al. (2025) and other co-authored works provide simulation details and orbital-family context, but the key initial conditions (disk mass, scale lengths, bulge masses and profile) are stated in Section 2.1, so the derivation does not reduce to a self-citation chain. The paper's stated limitation (Section 5: isolated, gas-free models; gas, star formation and mergers may alter or suppress the process) is an external-validity caveat, not circularity. The diffuse-bulge concentration concern raised by a skeptic is a robustness/generalization question about one-point extrapolation, not a case where the result is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumptions listed above. No new entities are introduced. The only hand-chosen coefficient is the bulge prominence weight set. There are no free parameters fitted to data to produce the 50% fraction.

free parameters (1)
  • Bulge prominence weights (w_small, w_moderate, w_large, w_dominant) = 0.2, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0
    Coefficients in Eq. 3 defining bulge prominence from Galaxy Zoo vote fractions. Adopted from Garland et al. (in prep) and used for the observational comparison; they are chosen weights, not measured from data. The exact values affect the computed prominence and the fast/slow bulge contrast.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Collisionless N-body models with live halo, disk, and bulge are valid representations of isolated disk galaxies for studying secular evolution.
    Entire simulation framework; see Section 2.1 and reference to McClure et al. (2025).
  • domain assumption Bar pattern speed derived from the phase derivative of the m=2 mode is a reliable measure of bar rotation.
    Section 2.2; used for classification in Figure 2 and for comparison with observations.
  • domain assumption Stars with 2Ω_r = Ω_φ are the bar-supporting (h2:1) population, and their fraction quantifies bulge attrition.
    Section 2.3; the central definition of trapping.
  • domain assumption The Bayesian classifier trained on initial phase-space coordinates mimics observational bulge/disk separation.
    Section 2.4 and 3.3; used to claim the transformed bulge is kinematically indistinguishable from the disk.
  • domain assumption Slow bars are older systems because bar slowing happens via angular momentum exchange over Gyr timescales.
    Section 3.2 and Discussion; needed to interpret the MaNGA correlation as evidence of attrition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Secular Attrition of Classical Bulges by Stellar Bars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ERLPR2Z5

@misc{pith2026250609150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Secular Attrition of Classical Bulges by Stellar Bars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ERLPR2Z5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09150}
}
read the original abstract

Classical bulges and stellar bars are common features in disk galaxies and serve as key tracers of galactic evolution. Angular momentum exchange at bar resonances drives secular morphological changes throughout the disk, including bar slowing and lengthening, and affects the structure of accompanying bulges. In this study, using a suite of N-body simulations, we quantify the secular reconfiguration of classical bulges through resonant trapping by evolving stellar bars. We use orbital frequency analysis to identify bar-resonant populations and find that up to 50% of the initial bulge stars become trapped in 2:1 resonant orbits and adopt disk-like kinematics. This transformation renders much of the classical bulge observationally indistinguishable from the disk. We compare these results with a sample of 210 MaNGA disk galaxies, finding that slow bars--indicative of older systems--are preferentially associated with weaker bulges. These results suggest that long-lived bars can significantly reshape classical bulges, potentially explaining their scarcity in the local universe and the low classical bulge fraction found in the Milky Way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09150 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Each panel shows the overall density distribution of each model at three times: the initial conditions, the time of each bar reaches the strong-bar threshold of Abar = 0.2, and 250 Myr before the end of each simulation. The models have the same disk mass but vary in the bulge mass fractions ranging from 0% Bulge (purple, top left), 4% Bulge (blue, top right), 8% Bulge (orange, bottom left), 16% Bulge (green, bottom … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The bar pattern speed (Ωbar), ratio of the bar corotation and radius (R), and the bar amplitude (Abar) are shown over time since bar-start, the time after which the bar is growing. The models shown include 0% Bulge (purple, solid line), 4% Bulge (blue, dotted line), 8% Bulge (orange, dashed-dot line), to 16% Bulge (green, dashed line). Matching markers along the lines are colored with ranging intensity for fast to s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. For the 4%, 8%, and 16% Bulge models, the fraction of stars with h2:1 bar-supporting stellar orbits is shown over time (top panels) and as a function of the number of bar rotations, after the time the strong bar threshold is reached (bottom panels). Each set includes a panel showing the rate of attrition as the rate of increase in the fraction of the bulge that is h2:1, taken over 1 Gyr time differences. Each line i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The bar pattern speed, Ωbar, and bar radius, Rbar, are shown as a function of the corotation radius, RCR, in the top and bottom panel, respectively. The observational sample of barred galaxies of G´eron et al. (2023) is shown in the background in each figure as round d…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: , where we compare the bulge prominence, as described in Equation 3, for fast and slow bars. We separate bars into fast and slow based on R (lower panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The mean bulge prominence is shown in bins of R and Ωbar with uncertainty ranges reported in the Figure within each bin. The largest bulges are found among galax￾ies in the top-left corner of this plot, in the fast regime of each bar speed metric, while the smallest bu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The initial bulge (pink) and the initial disk (green) components of the 16% Bulge model are shown in a series of three-part panels, each of which shows the edge-on view (top row), the top-down view (middle row), and the probability that each stellar particle is identif…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aguerri, J. A. L., Balcells, M., & Peletier, R. F. 2001, A&A, 367, 428, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000441

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000441 2001

  2. [2]

    Aguerri, J. A. L., M´ endez-Abreu, J., & Corsini, E. M. 2009, A&A, 495, 491, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810931

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810931 2009

  3. [3]

    Aguerri, J. A. L., M´ endez-Abreu, J., Falc´ on-Barroso, J., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423383

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423383 2015

  4. [4]

    G., Navarro, J

    Algorry, D. G., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1054, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1008

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1008 2017

  5. [5]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.2.328 —

    Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.2.328 —. 2002, ApJL, 569, L83, doi: 10.1086/340784 —. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1179, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06473.x

    arXiv 1992

  6. [6]

    2008, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Athanassoula, E. 2008, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 245, Formation and Evolution of Galaxy Bulges, ed. M. Bureau, E. Athanassoula, & B. Barbuy, 93–102, doi: 10.1017/S1743921308017389 —. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L81, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt163

    doi:10.1017/s1743921308017389 2008

  7. [7]

    Athanassoula, E., Machado, R. E. G., & Rodionov, S. A. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1949, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts452

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts452 2013

  8. [9]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace2b9 Beraldo e Silva, L., Debattista, V

    Beane, A., Hernquist, L., D’Onghia, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace2b9 Beraldo e Silva, L., Debattista, V. P., Anderson, S. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace976

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace2b9 2023

Show all 117 references
  1. [10]

    Heller, C. H. 2007, ApJ, 666, 189, doi: 10.1086/520531

    2007 doi

  2. [11]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1103

    Binney, J. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1103

    2020 doi

  3. [12]

    V., Kautsch, S

    Bizyaev, D. V., Kautsch, S. J., Mosenkov, A. V., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/24

    2014 doi

  4. [13]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    2016 doi

  5. [14]

    2023, ApJ, 947, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc469

    Freeman, K. 2023, ApJ, 947, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc469

    2023 doi

  6. [15]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567

    2017 doi

  7. [16]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, L18, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00096.x

    Bournaud, F., Combes, F., & Semelin, B. 2005, MNRAS, 364, L18, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00096.x

    2005

  8. [17]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7

    2015 doi

  9. [18]

    L., et al

    Cheung, E., Athanassoula, E., Masters, K. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/162

    2013 doi

  10. [19]

    C., Graham, A

    Ciambur, B. C., Graham, A. W., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3988, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1823

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac004d

    Collier, A., & Madigan, A.-M. 2021, ApJ, 915, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac004d

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

    Combes, F., & Sanders, R. H. 1981, A&A, 96, 164

    1981

  13. [22]

    1977, A&A, 61, 477

    Contopoulos, G., & Mertzanides, C. 1977, A&A, 61, 477

    1977

  14. [23]

    1997, AJ, 114, 2402, doi: 10.1086/118656 14R.L

    Courteau, S. 1997, AJ, 114, 2402, doi: 10.1086/118656 14R.L. McClure et al

    1997 doi

  15. [24]

    Cuomo, V., Aguerri, J. A. L., Corsini, E. M., & Debattista, V. P. 2020, A&A, 641, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037945

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    P., Mayer, L., Carollo, C

    Debattista, V. P., Mayer, L., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 209, doi: 10.1086/504147

    2006 doi

  17. [26]

    P., Ness, M., Gonzalez, O

    Debattista, V. P., Ness, M., Gonzalez, O. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx947

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    P., & Sellwood, J

    Debattista, V. P., & Sellwood, J. A. 2000, ApJ, 543, 704, doi: 10.1086/317148

    2000 doi

  19. [28]

    B., et al

    Delgado-Serrano, R., Hammer, F., Yang, Y. B., et al. 2010, A&A, 509, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912704 D’Onghia, E., & L. Aguerri, J. A. 2020, ApJ, 890, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6bd6

    2010 doi

  20. [29]

    G., Hauser, M

    Dwek, E., Arendt, R. G., Hauser, M. G., et al. 1995, ApJ, 445, 716, doi: 10.1086/175734

    1995 doi

  21. [30]

    C., Balcells, M., Aguerri, J

    Eliche-Moral, M. C., Balcells, M., Aguerri, J. A. L., & Gonz´ alez-Garc ´ ıa, A. C. 2006, A&A, 457, 91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065394

    2006 doi

  22. [31]

    G., Elmegreen, D

    Elmegreen, B. G., Elmegreen, D. M., & Hirst, A. C. 2004, ApJ, 612, 191, doi: 10.1086/422407

    2004 doi

  23. [33]

    P., & Anderson, S

    Erwin, P., Debattista, V. P., & Anderson, S. R. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3166, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1972

    2023 doi

  24. [34]

    B., Frogel, J

    Eskridge, P. B., Frogel, J. A., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 536, doi: 10.1086/301203

    2000 doi

  25. [35]

    J., Sazonova, E., et al

    Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., Sazonova, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acec76

    2023 doi

  26. [36]

    B., & Drory, N

    Fisher, D. B., & Drory, N. 2008, AJ, 136, 773, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/773

    2008 doi

  27. [37]

    Fragkoudi, F., Grand, R. J. J., Pakmor, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1104

    2020 doi

  28. [38]

    1993, A&A, 268, 65

    Friedli, D., & Benz, W. 1993, A&A, 268, 65

    1993

  29. [39]

    S., B´ edorf, J., Baba, J., & Portegies Zwart, S

    Fujii, M. S., B´ edorf, J., Baba, J., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1451, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty711

    2018 doi

  30. [41]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 5660, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3069

    Garma-Oehmichen, L., Hern´ andez-Toledo, H., Aquino-Ort ´ ız, E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5660, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3069

    2022 doi

  31. [42]

    1990, A&A, 230, 37 G´ eron, T., Smethurst, R

    Gerin, M., Combes, F., & Athanassoula, E. 1990, A&A, 230, 37 G´ eron, T., Smethurst, R. J., Lintott, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad501 G´ eron, T., Smethurst, R. J., Dickinson, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.01421. https://arxiv.org/abs...

    1990 arXiv

  32. [43]

    2024, A&A, 683, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347763

    Ghosh, S., & Di Matteo, P. 2024, A&A, 683, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347763

    2024 doi

  33. [44]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1733, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2715

    Guo, R., Mao, S., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1733, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2715

    2019 doi

  34. [45]

    L., et al

    Guo, Y., Jogee, S., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 945, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acacfb

    2023 doi

  35. [46]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06100, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06100

    Guo, Y., Jogee, S., Wise, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06100, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06100

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [47]

    L., Garzon, F., Mahoney, T., & Calbet, X

    Hammersley, P. L., Garzon, F., Mahoney, T., & Calbet, X. 1994, MNRAS, 269, 753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/269.3.753

    1994 doi

  37. [48]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  38. [49]

    H., & Haghi, H

    Haslbauer, M., Kroupa, P., Zonoozi, A. H., & Haghi, H. 2022, ApJL, 939, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a50

    2022 doi

  39. [50]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    1990 doi

  40. [51]

    Hernquist, L., & Weinberg, M. D. 1992, ApJ, 400, 80, doi: 10.1086/171975

    1992 doi

  41. [52]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 933, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1934

    Hilmi, T., Minchev, I., Buck, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 933, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1934

    2020 doi

  42. [53]

    1971, ApJ, 168, 343, doi: 10.1086/151091

    Hohl, F. 1971, ApJ, 168, 343, doi: 10.1086/151091

    1971 doi

  43. [55]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  44. [56]

    2023, ApJL, 948, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accd6d

    Jacobs, C., Glazebrook, K., Calabr` o, A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accd6d

    2023 doi

  45. [57]

    2004, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Jogee, S., GEMS Collaboration, & GOODS Team. 2004, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 204, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #204, 65.03

    2004

  46. [58]

    K., & Das, M

    Kataria, S. K., & Das, M. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1653, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3279

    2018 doi

  47. [59]

    Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., & Guiderdoni, B. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/264.1.201

    1993 doi

  48. [60]

    Kautsch, S. J. 2009a, PASP, 121, 1297, doi: 10.1086/649607 —. 2009b, Astronomische Nachrichten, 330, 100, doi: 10.1002/asna.200811132

    doi

  49. [61]

    S., Driver, S

    Kelvin, L. S., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1507

    2014 doi

  50. [62]

    1982, ApJ, 257, 75, doi: 10.1086/159964

    Kormendy, J. 1982, ApJ, 257, 75, doi: 10.1086/159964

    1982 doi

  51. [63]

    Kormendy, J., & Barentine, J. C. 2010, ApJL, 715, L176, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/L176

    2010 doi

  52. [64]

    Kormendy, J., Drory, N., Bender, R., & Cornell, M. E. 2010, ApJ, 723, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/54

    2010 doi

  53. [65]

    1982, ApJ, 256, 460, doi: 10.1086/159923

    Kormendy, J., & Illingworth, G. 1982, ApJ, 256, 460, doi: 10.1086/159923

    1982 doi

  54. [66]

    2004, ARA&A, 42, 603, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024

    Kormendy, J., & Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024

    2004

  55. [67]

    J., Lintott, C

    Kruk, S. J., Lintott, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4731, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2605 Secular Attrition of Classical Bulges by Stellar Bars15 Le Conte, Z. A., Gadotti, D. A., Ferreira, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1984, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae921

    2018 doi

  56. [68]

    H., Park, M.-G., Hwang, H

    Lee, Y. H., Park, M.-G., Hwang, H. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3bc1

    2022 doi

  57. [69]

    2012, ApJL, 757, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L7

    Li, Z.-Y., & Shen, J. 2012, ApJL, 757, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L7

    2012 doi

  58. [70]

    Lokas, E. L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12308, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.12308 Lokas, E. L., Athanassoula, E., Debattista, V. P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1846 Lokas, E. L., Ebrov´ a, I., del Pino, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 227, doi: 10.3847/0...

    2025 doi arXiv

  59. [71]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 5981, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab003

    Lucey, M., Hawkins, K., Ness, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5981, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab003

    2021 doi

  60. [72]

    1979, MNRAS, 187, 101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/187.1.101

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1979, MNRAS, 187, 101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/187.1.101

    1979 doi

  61. [73]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Kalnajs, A. J. 1972, MNRAS, 157, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/157.1.1

    1972 doi

  62. [74]

    2004, ApJL, 613, L29, doi: 10.1086/424876

    Martinez-Valpuesta, I., & Shlosman, I. 2004, ApJL, 613, L29, doi: 10.1086/424876

    2004 doi

  63. [75]

    2006, ApJ, 637, 214, doi: 10.1086/498338

    Martinez-Valpuesta, I., Shlosman, I., & Heller, C. 2006, ApJ, 637, 214, doi: 10.1086/498338

    2006 doi

  64. [76]

    L., Mosleh, M., Romer, A

    Masters, K. L., Mosleh, M., Romer, A. K., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 783, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16503.x

    2010

  65. [77]

    L., Lintott, C

    Masters, K. L., Lintott, C. J., Hart, R. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1808, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1153

    2019 doi

  66. [78]

    Daniel, K. J. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1475, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf107

    2025 doi

  67. [79]

    Merritt, D., & Sellwood, J. A. 1994, ApJ, 425, 551, doi: 10.1086/174005

    1994 doi

  68. [80]

    P., Bensby, T., et al

    Ness, M., Debattista, V. P., Bensby, T., et al. 2014, ApJL, 787, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L19

    2014 doi

  69. [81]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/22 —

    Ness, M., Freeman, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/22 —. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2092, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt533 O’Neill, J. K., & Dubinski, J. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 251, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07085.x

    2012

  70. [82]

    P., & Peebles, P

    Ostriker, J. P., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1973, ApJ, 186, 467, doi: 10.1086/152513

    1973 doi

  71. [83]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2380

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V., Bauer, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2380

    2016 doi

  72. [84]

    Peschken, N., & Lokas, E. L. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3277

    2019 doi

  73. [85]

    S., Weinberg, M

    Petersen, M. S., Weinberg, M. D., & Katz, N. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1952, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2141

    2016 doi

  74. [86]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, L66, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv048

    Portail, M., Wegg, C., & Gerhard, O. 2015, MNRAS, 450, L66, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv048

    2015 doi

  75. [87]

    Quillen, A. C. 2002, AJ, 124, 722, doi: 10.1086/341753

    2002 doi

  76. [88]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, 1284, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1972

    Matteo, P. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1284, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1972

    2014 doi

  77. [89]

    A., James, R

    Raha, N., Sellwood, J. A., James, R. A., & Kahn, F. D. 1991, Nature, 352, 411, doi: 10.1038/352411a0

    1991 doi

  78. [90]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, 1803, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13522.x

    Rautiainen, P., Salo, H., & Laurikainen, E. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1803, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13522.x

    2008

  79. [91]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabacd

    Saha, K., & Elmegreen, B. 2018, ApJ, 858, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabacd

    2018 doi

  80. [92]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 2039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt029

    Saha, K., & Gerhard, O. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt029

    2013 doi

  81. [93]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 333, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20307.x

    Saha, K., Martinez-Valpuesta, I., & Gerhard, O. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 333, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20307.x

    2012

  82. [94]

    Sellwood, J. A. 1981, A&A, 99, 362

    1981

  83. [95]

    A., & Athanassoula, E

    Sellwood, J. A., & Athanassoula, E. 1986, MNRAS, 221, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/221.2.195

    1986 doi

  84. [96]

    A., & Binney, J

    Sellwood, J. A., & Binney, J. J. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 785, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05806.x

    2002

  85. [97]

    A., & Gerhard, O

    Sellwood, J. A., & Gerhard, O. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1336

    2020 doi

  86. [98]

    M., Kormendy, J., et al

    Shen, J., Rich, R. M., Kormendy, J., et al. 2010, ApJL, 720, L72, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/L72

    2010 doi

  87. [99]

    M., Elmegreen, B

    Sheth, K., Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1141, doi: 10.1086/524980

    2008 doi

  88. [100]

    F., Torrey, P., Lotz, J

    Snyder, G. F., Torrey, P., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1886, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2078

    2015 doi

  89. [101]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 5404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2586

    Sotillo-Ramos, D., Pillepich, A., Donnari, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2586

    2022 doi

  90. [102]

    S., & Sellwood, J

    Sparke, L. S., & Sellwood, J. A. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 653, doi: 10.1093/mnras/225.3.653

    1987 doi

  91. [103]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    2010

  92. [104]

    2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    2005

  93. [105]

    Steinmetz, M., & Navarro, J. F. 2002, NewA, 7, 155, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(02)00102-1

    2002 doi

  94. [106]

    R., Bullock, J

    Stewart, K. R., Bullock, J. S., Wechsler, R. H., Maller, A. H., & Zentner, A. R. 2008, ApJ, 683, 597, doi: 10.1086/588579

    2008 doi

  95. [107]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77c8

    Tahmasebzadeh, B., Dattathri, S., Valluri, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77c8

    2024 doi

  96. [108]

    Tremaine, S., & Weinberg, M. D. 1984, ApJL, 282, L5, doi: 10.1086/184292

    1984 doi

  97. [109]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 218, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/218 —

    Villa-Vargas, J., Shlosman, I., & Heller, C. 2009, ApJ, 707, 218, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/218 —. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1470, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1470

    2009 doi

  98. [110]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 16R.L. McClure et al

    2020 doi

  99. [111]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2919

    Walmsley, M., G´ eron, T., Kruk, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2919

    2023 doi

  100. [112]

    J., & Shen, J

    Wang, Y., Mao, S., Long, R. J., & Shen, J. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1537

    2013 doi

  101. [113]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 4050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv745

    Wegg, C., Gerhard, O., & Portail, M. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv745

    2015 doi

  102. [114]

    Weinberg, M. D. 1985, MNRAS, 213, 451, doi: 10.1093/mnras/213.3.451 —. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 499, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01790.x

    1985

  103. [115]

    D., & Katz, N

    Weinberg, M. D., & Katz, N. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 460, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11307.x

    2007

  104. [116]

    2020, ApJS, 248, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., & Pakmor, R. 2020, ApJS, 248, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    2020 doi

  105. [117]

    2009, ApJ, 696, 411, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/411

    Kormendy, J. 2009, ApJ, 696, 411, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/411

    2009 doi

  106. [118]

    W., Lintott, C

    Willett, K. W., Lintott, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1458

    2013 doi

  107. [119]

    G., Schinnerer, E., Emsellem, E., et al

    Williams, T. G., Schinnerer, E., Emsellem, E., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe243

    2021 doi

  108. [120]

    Wyse, R. F. G., Gilmore, G., & Franx, M. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 637, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.637

    1997 doi

  109. [121]

    Marchuk, A. A. 2024, A&A, 692, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452088

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.