BASS. XLIV. Morphological preferences of local hard X-ray selected AGN

Aeeree Chung; Alejandra Rojas; Benny Trakhtenbrot; Carolina Finlez; Claudio Ricci; C. Megan Urry; Connor Auge; Daniel Stern; Demetra De Cicco; Ezequiel Treister

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

BASS. XLIV. Morphological preferences of local hard X-ray selected AGN

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hard X-ray selected AGN hosts are about four times likelier to be mergers and roughly 70% less likely to be smooth ellipticals than matched inactive galaxies, and they are more often barred.

desk verdict A careful, large morphological catalog of hard X-ray selected AGN hosts, but the headline merger and bar excesses rest on comparing two image presentations that the paper itself shows are not directly comparable. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21800 v1 pith:RTVK45LC submitted 2025-06-26 astro-ph.GA

Miguel Parra Tello , Franz E. Bauer , Demetra De Cicco , Goran Doll , Michael Koss , Ezequiel Treister , Carolina Finlez , Marco Troncoso

show 15 more authors

Connor Auge I. del Moral-Castro Aeeree Chung Kriti K. Gupta Jeein Kim Kyuseok Oh Claudio Ricci Federica Ricci Alejandra Rojas Turgay Caglar Fiona Harrison Meredith C. Powell Daniel Stern Benny Trakhtenbrot C. Megan Urry

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords activegalacticnucleihostgalaxymorphologymergersbarshardX-rayselectionSwift-BATsurveycitizenscienceclassificationAGNfueling

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

Using a hard X-ray selection that sees through obscuring gas and dust, this paper classifies the host galaxies of 1189 local active galactic nuclei (AGN) and compares them with a control sample of inactive galaxies matched in redshift and i-band brightness. The central finding is that AGN hosts differ sharply from inactive galaxies: mergers and strongly disturbed systems are almost four times more common, spiral-less disks about three times more common, and smooth ellipticals and prominent-arm spirals are depleted by roughly 70% and 80% respectively. AGN hosts also carry bars more often than inactive galaxies (roughly 50% versus 30%). The authors read this as evidence that black hole growth runs preferentially in gas-rich, dynamically disturbed or transitional disk environments, and they show that the most luminous, fastest-accreting AGN sit in smooth or point-like hosts while fainter AGN sit in disks. If the trends hold, they sharpen the long-debated link between mergers, bars, and nuclear activity.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a volunteer-based morphological classification workflow on the Zooniverse platform, deliberately adapted from the Galaxy Zoo DECaLS (GZD-5) decision tree so that active and inactive samples answer the same questions. Each BASS host was shown as a pair of grz color composite images—one shallow stretch to preserve the nucleus and bright features, one deep stretch to reveal tidal tails and faint surroundings—and volunteer answers were converted into seven broad morphological classes (smooth, disk-spiral, disk-no-spiral, edge-on, merger-strongly disturbed, point-like, other-uncertain) using the 60% quorum rules of GZD plus conservative tie-breaking. The comparison arm is a control sample of roughly 2550 inactive GZD galaxies, generated 6000 times by resampling to match the redshift and absolute i-band magnitude distributions of the 215 obscured (Seyfert 1.8–2) BASS AGN, with class fractions taken as the median over draws; redshift-resolution debias weights from Walmsley et al. (2022a) are applied to the AGN trends. This design lets the paper isolate morphology differences between active and inactive galaxies while controlling for distance and stellar mass, and it is the bar and merger questions in this shared tree that carry the central results.

What would settle it

Reclassify the 1189 BASS hosts with strictly Galaxy Zoo DECaLS-style images—single shallow stretch, washed-out uniform color, Petrosian-radius framing—and recompute the class fractions against the same matched control; if the ~400% merger excess and the ~48% versus ~30% bar difference shrink toward unity, the reported effects are largely imaging artifacts rather than properties of AGN hosts. A complementary automated check would run one identical classifier on both samples after harmonizing stretch, field of view, and color.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that AGN selected at 14–195 keV live in systematically different galaxies from their inactive peers. Relative to a redshift- and i-band-magnitude-matched control of inactive galaxies drawn from the Galaxy Zoo DECaLS citizen-science catalog, the hard X-ray selected hosts from the BASS survey (BAT AGN Spectroscopic Survey) are deficient in smooth ellipticals ($\sim 6.4\sigma$), deficient in disks with prominent spiral arms ($\sim 4.3\sigma$), and overabundant in disks without spiral structure ($\sim 5.2\sigma$), edge-on disks ($\sim 3.4\sigma$), and especially mergers or strongly disturbed systems, which are almost four times more frequent in the active sample ($\sim 8.4\sigma$). The bar fraction among face-on disk AGN hosts is also elevated (roughly 48–50% versus 26–30%), with the weak-bar excess at $\sim 4.3\sigma$ and the strong-bar excess at $\sim 2.9\sigma$. When all disk classes are pooled, the active and inactive samples are consistent within $\sim 0.1\sigma$, showing that the disk family as a whole is not special; what stands out is which kind of disk. Finally, after redshift-debiasing, the fraction of mergers trends upward with X-ray luminosity, black hole mass, and Eddington ratio (accretion rate relative to the black hole's maximum), while the smooth-galaxy fraction flattens and disks dominate at the low-luminosity end, which the authors take as evidence that interactions and gas supply, not host mass alone, set the stage for the brightest AGN phases.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the systematic differences in how the images were made for the two projects—dual-stretch color composites with wide fields for the AGN sample versus single, washed-out, more zoomed images for the control sample—do not bias how often volunteers called a galaxy a merger or a bar; the paper's own check on 105 galaxies classified by both projects found only about 70% agreement, with disagreements running mainly toward the BASS images being labeled mergers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Merger- or interaction-driven fueling emerges as a major channel for local black hole growth: mergers and strongly disturbed systems are almost four times more frequent among hard X-ray selected AGN hosts than among matched inactive galaxies, at $\sim 8.4\sigma$ significance.
Gas-poor ellipticals rarely host active nuclei: the roughly 70% deficit of smooth galaxies in the active sample implies that passive spheroids are inhospitable to black hole fueling in the local universe.
The roughly 300% excess of spiral-less disks suggests AGN activity marks a transitional phase in which spiral arms have faded while nuclear fuel remains, consistent with quenching proceeding from the galaxy outskirts inward.
Bars appear to be a genuine but secondary secular fueling channel: the bar fraction is higher among AGN hosts (about 50% versus 30%), yet bar strength shows no significant correlation with Eddington ratio.
The released catalog of 1189 morphological classifications provides a benchmark for upcoming wide-area surveys (LSST, Roman, Euclid) and for training automated galaxy classifiers.

Reading between the lines

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

Imaging systematics may account for part of the reported differences: on the 105 galaxies classified by both projects, agreement was only about 70%, with disagreements running mainly toward the BASS images being labeled mergers; a reclassification of the BASS sample using single-stretch, washed-out, more zoomed images would quantify how much of the ~400% merger excess is presentation rather than p
The redshift-debiasing corrections are extrapolated with first-order splines beyond the calibrated $z=0.02$ to $z=0.15$ range; simulating spatially degraded images of the BASS hosts themselves would test whether the rising merger fraction with luminosity and Eddington ratio is a real physical trend or a resolution artifact.
The 'transitional disk' interpretation is directly testable: if spiral-less AGN disks are truly quenching from the outside in, their star formation rates and molecular gas fractions should be measurably suppressed relative to matched inactive disks of the same morphology.
Because the control matching assumes obscured and unobscured AGN host similar galaxies, any future evidence of a Type 1/Type 2 morphological difference would force the matching to be redone; the paper's own consistency check currently supports the assumption at roughly the $1\sigma$ level.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the catalog is the real product. The comparisons to the matched GZD control are carefully put together, but the headline merger and bar excesses are vulnerable to a systematic difference in how the two projects fed images to volunteers, and the paper's own 105-object common set shows it. I'd send this to a serious referee, but the revision needs to confront that bias head-on rather than just describe it.

What is actually new: 1189 hard X-ray selected AGN hosts uniformly classified with dual-stretch grz images, released as a catalog. The control matching uses 6000 resamples and the obscured-only matching assumption is tested in Appendix D. The qualitative trends (merger excess, smooth deficit) were already in Koss et al. 2010/2011 and Cotini et al. 2013, and this paper says so. The contribution is scale, homogeneity, the public catalog, and the bar and disk-no-spiral numbers at this sample size.

The soft spots are real and concentrated in one place. Section 9.1 is honest: on 105 galaxies seen by both projects, only about 70% of successful classifications agree, and disagreements tend to run in the direction of BASS calling things mergers. The images differ in exactly the ways that boost merger and bar detection: deep stretch reveals tidal tails, color reveals bars, wider field catches companions. The paper acknowledges this and then proceeds to compare the raw class fractions anyway, with no quantitative correction derived from the common objects. The stress-test note is right: that is a load-bearing gap, not a footnote. The 8.4-sigma merger excess could be substantially inflated, and the bar excess is similarly exposed.

Smaller issues: BASS has about six votes per galaxy, with the top seven volunteers contributing around 90%, so the 0.6 quorum sits on a shakier base than GZD's 25-plus votes. The redshift debiasing applies GZD weights with ad hoc substitutions for point-like and merger classes; it is a workaround, defensible, but not a substitute for sample-specific weights.

None of this makes the catalog useless. The BASS-only trends in luminosity, black hole mass, and Eddington ratio versus morphology are less affected by the cross-project comparison, and the released classifications will be useful for LSST/Roman planning and as training data. But anyone wanting to quote the merger or bar fractions relative to inactive galaxies should wait until the calibration issue is addressed.

Recommendation: send to peer review. Ask for a common-object-based bias correction or at least a bounding exercise, and a check on whether the top-seven volunteer concentration changes the class fractions. Conditional accept, not reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents visual morphological classifications for 1189 hard X-ray selected (14-195 keV) AGN host galaxies from the Swift-BAT 105-month catalog (BASS), using a Zooniverse volunteer workflow adapted from Galaxy Zoo DECaLS (GZD). The authors compare the BASS morphological fractions against a control sample of inactive GZD galaxies matched in redshift and i-band absolute magnitude. Relative to this control, they report a deficiency of smooth ellipticals (~70% lower) and prominent-arm spirals (~80% lower), an excess of mergers/strongly disturbed systems (~400% higher) and spiral-less disks (~300% higher), and a higher bar fraction (~50% versus ~30%). They also examine how morphology depends on X-ray luminosity, black hole mass, Eddington ratio, and obscuration, after applying redshift-debiasing weights imported from Walmsley et al. (2022a).

Significance. If the morphological preferences hold, the paper provides a valuable benchmark for AGN-host galaxy studies, exploiting the obscuration-unbiased selection of the Swift-BAT sample. The strengths include a large all-sky hard-X-ray-selected sample, a carefully constructed matched control sample, an explicit test of the obscured/unobscured matching assumption (Appendix D), and a public morphological catalog. The central comparison, however, rests on the assumption that the BASS and GZD classification efforts are directly comparable. The paper itself demonstrates in Sec. 9.1 that this assumption is not fully met: on 105 objects, only ~70% of the consensus classifications agree, and the authors attribute most disagreements to systematic differences in image presentation (dual-stretch, color, and field-of-view). Because the disagreements point preferentially toward BASS classifying objects as mergers, the headline results could be substantially biased. This issue is load-bearing for the paper's central claims, and a revision should address it quantitatively.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 9.1, Fig. 10, Sec. 9.2] The common-object comparison shows only ~70% agreement between BASS and GZD classifications, with disagreements mainly in the direction of BASS labeling objects as mergers or strongly disturbed. The paper states that 'the different amounts of information provided to the respective volunteers can explain most of these disagreements over the same galaxies.' Since the deep-stretch and wider-field images make tidal features and companions more visible, the ~400% merger excess reported in Sec. 9.2 could be inflated (or possibly entirely produced) by this systematic difference. The paper should convert the common-object confusion matrix into a quantitative bias assessment, or at least show that the headline result survives when the comparison is restricted to a subset where the two image presentations are more uniform, or when a conservative correction for the disagreement rate is applied.
[Sec. 9.3, Table 5] The bar fraction comparison is also affected by the same differential information issue: BASS volunteers saw color images that make bars more visible, while GZD images were deliberately washed out. Moreover, the bar classification threshold uses vote fractions computed from only ~6 classifications per BASS galaxy, versus 25 or more for GZD, which can produce noisier and less reliable bar detections. The common-object comparison in Fig. 10 does not separately validate bar classifications. The paper should provide a bar-specific validation (e.g., bar vote fractions on the 105 common objects or expert reinspection for the bar sub-sample) and, if needed, recompute the bar fractions with a more conservative threshold.
[Sec. 6, Table 3] The treatment of the 'other-uncertain' class is asymmetric between BASS and GZD. BASS point-like sources are reclassified using a child-node question that has no GZD counterpart, while GZD other-uncertains have artifact votes removed. This asymmetric processing can shift class fractions and the quoted statistical errors do not capture that systematic. The paper should quantify how the main conclusions (especially the excess of spiral-less disks and the deficit of smooth galaxies) change if reclassification is applied symmetrically, or if the other-uncertain galaxies are all kept separate in the comparison.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 4.2] The text states that the imperfect match between the BASS and GZD parameter spaces could cause a bias at the ~10% level, but this systematic uncertainty is not propagated into the final morphological fractions. It would be helpful to include this as an additional error term in Fig. 12 and Table 5.
[Appendix C] The assignment of the smooth correction weight to point-like galaxies and the featured weight to mergers is an arbitrary substitution. Please justify this choice or propagate its uncertainty into the debiased trends shown in Fig. 8.
[Sec. 3, Fig. 4] Fig. 4 is labeled 'as of January 2025' but the manuscript was accepted in June 2025; please clarify whether the final catalog uses a different classification cutoff and whether the vote counts in Fig. 4 match the released catalog.
[Sec. 2.5] The text contains rendering artifacts such as 'V oorwerpjes' and 'V oorwerp'; these should be corrected to 'Voorwerpjes' and 'Voorwerp'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the BASS-vs-GZD comparison rests on an external control sample and external classification/debiasing references; the reported image-presentation differences are a measurement caveat, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The central claims are empirical comparisons between volunteer classifications of BASS AGN hosts (this paper) and an external GZD control sample (Walmsley et al. 2022a). The control matching uses external photometry and redshifts; quorum thresholds and debiasing weights come from Walmsley et al. (2022a) and Masters et al. (2012), not from fitting to BASS data. The obscured-only matching assumption is explicitly tested in Appendix D. The redshift-debiasing corrections applied to the BASS sample are imported from external GZD simulations and are parameter-free with respect to the BASS classification output. No parameter is fitted to the BASS data and then renamed a prediction: the morphological classes are defined by fixed quorum rules (Table 2) applied to both BASS and GZD, with documented workflow differences. The image-stretch, color, and field-of-view differences discussed in Section 9.1 are a potential systematic bias in comparing the two volunteer projects, and the paper transparently reports the 70% agreement on 105 common objects; however, this is a measurement-validity concern, not circularity, because the comparison still relies on independent external classifications and does not reduce by construction to the paper's own inputs. Self-citations to BASS survey papers are references to data products and prior catalogs, not to unverified theorems or fitted predictions. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on the external GZD sample and on several hand-set thresholds and debias weight choices rather than on fitted model parameters. The most fragile ingredients are the transfer of GZD debias corrections to BASS and the obscured/unobscured morphology equivalence, both acknowledged and partially tested by the authors.

free parameters (4)

Morphological quorum threshold = 0.6
Consensus fraction required to assign a class; adopted from Walmsley et al. (2022a) rather than fitted, but it determines the class fractions and the size of the other-uncertain category.
Reclassification thresholds for uncertain galaxies = Merging + Strongly disturbed <= 0.6; Face-on > 0.4
Hand-set thresholds in Sect. 5 that move uncertain galaxies into 'no disturbance' or 'face-on' classes; changing them changes the merger and disk fractions.
Tidal debris conversion thresholds for GZD-1-2 = p>0.5 strong, 0.2<p<=0.5 weak, p<=0.2 none
Borrowed from the Masters et al. (2012) bar-strength prescription and applied to tidal debris votes in GZD-1-2 (Sect. 4.1), affecting the merger/disturbance fractions in the control sample.
Redshift debias weight substitutions = smooth weight given to point-like class; featured weight to merger class
Ad hoc assignments in Appendix C because no direct correction exists; these weights alter the debiased trends in Fig. 8.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Obscured and unobscured AGN host galaxies have similar morphology distributions.
Required to match GZD to only the 215 obscured BASS AGN and then compare the full AGN sample (Sect. 4.2). Tested in Appendix D, but the test has limited power, and edge-on galaxies differ at 4.8 sigma.
domain assumption GZD redshift-resolution debias corrections transfer to BASS.
The paper applies Walmsley et al. (2022a) debias weights to BASS, extrapolating to z=0-0.2 (Appendix C), assuming BASS and GZD occupy similar parameter space.
domain assumption The i-band magnitude of obscured AGN traces host stellar mass with negligible AGN contamination.
Used to match control samples (Sect. 4.2); the paper restricts matching to Sy1.8-2 to avoid AGN light contamination.
domain assumption GZD after AGN removal is a representative sample of inactive galaxies.
GZD galaxies with at least 25 classifications and available i-mag/redshift are taken as the inactive control after cross-matching out quasars and BASS sources (Sect. 4).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BASS. XLIV. Morphological preferences of local hard X-ray selected AGN." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RTVK45LC

@misc{pith2026250621800,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BASS. XLIV. Morphological preferences of local hard X-ray selected AGN},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RTVK45LC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21800}
}

read the original abstract

We present morphological classifications for the hosts of 1189 hard X-ray selected (14-195 keV) active galactic nuclei (AGNs) from the Swift-BAT 105-month catalog as part of the BAT AGN Spectroscopic Survey (BASS). BASS provides a powerful all-sky census of nearby AGN, minimizing obscuration biases and providing a robust dataset for studying AGN-host galaxy connections. Classifications are based on volunteer-based visual inspection on the Zooniverse platform, adapted from Galaxy Zoo DECaLS (GZD). Dual-contrast grz color composite images, generated from public surveys (e.g., NOAO Legacy Survey, Pan-STARRS, SDSS) and dedicated observations enabled key morphological features to be identified. Our analysis reveals that, with respect to a control sample of inactive galaxies matched in redshift and i-band magnitude, BASS AGN hosts show a deficiency of smooth ellipticals (~70%) and disks with prominent arms (~80%), while displaying an excess of mergers or disturbed systems (~400%), and disk galaxies without a spiral structure (~300%). These trends suggest a preference for AGN activity in gas-rich, dynamically disturbed environments or transitional disk systems. We also find a higher bar fraction among AGN hosts than the control sample (~50% vs. ~30%). We further explore the relations between AGN properties (e.g., X-ray luminosity, black hole mass, and Eddington ratio) and host morphology, and find that high-luminosity and high-accretion AGN preferentially reside in smooth or point-like hosts. In parallel, lower-luminosity AGN are more common in disk galaxies. These results underscore the importance of morphological studies in understanding the fueling and feedback mechanisms that drive AGN activity and their role in galaxy evolution. Our dataset provides a valuable benchmark for future multiwavelength surveys (e.g. LSST, Roman, and Euclid) and automated morphological classification efforts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21800 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Shallow and deep stretch comparison highlighting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Decision tree implemented in our Zooniverse project. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (15 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Classification count distribution for the objects uploaded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Redshift and i-mag distributions for the obscured BASS and one of the matched GZD subsamples. Only galaxies with imag measurements are included. Note that although the BASS Seyferts, in general, cover a redshift range up to z = 0.52, for visualization purposes, we li…

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: To help disentangle these possibilities, to first order, we can consider relaxing one of the criteria to understand what the clos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Selection of representative BASS AGN host galaxies for each broad morphological class defined in our classification scheme. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Morphological class fraction of BASS AGNs, before (above) and after (below) redshift debiasing, as a function of redshift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: With this sensitivity to mergers taken into account, one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Color-magnitude diagram for BASS AGNs and GZD galaxies, separated by morphological class. Only BAT AGNs classified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Confusion matrix comparing classifications for common [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Selection of galaxies classified differently by GZD and our volunteers. Top row: Galaxy classified as other-uncertain by GZD (reclassified as disk Spiral) and as merger-strongly disturbed by us, most likely from the different stretches. Middle row: Galaxy classified …

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Comparison of the morphological class fractions be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: , whereas the comparison is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Various galaxies within the other-uncertain category, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Comparison of the different degrees of bar strength between BASS AGNs and median comparable GZD samples. Error bars are 1σ of Gauss statistics for BASS, and the distance from the median to the 16th and 84th percentile for GZD. the respective bar fractions and uncerta…

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Stacked histogram of accretion rates for BASS AGNs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Evolution of the different degrees of bar strength as a function of accretion rate. Shaded regions correspond to 1σ significance, while the dashed lines represent the mean value of each fraction. A small percentage of sources lie beyond the limits of the plot, but s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

BASS LII: The prevalence of double-peaked broad lines at low accretion rates among hard X-ray selected AGN
astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

About 21% of hard X-ray selected broad-line AGN show double-peaked broad H-alpha lines, and these objects tend to have higher black hole masses and lower Eddington ratios.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Adams, T. F. 1977, ApJS, 33, 19

work page 1977
[2]

D., Allende Prieto, C., et al

Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12

2015
[3]

Alonso, S., Coldwell, G., Duplancic, F., Mesa, V ., & Lambas, D. G. 2018, A&A, 618, A149

work page 2018
[4]

E., et al

Ansar, S., Pearson, S., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 37

work page 2025
[5]

Barnes, J. E. & Hernquist, L. E. 1991, ApJ, 370, L65

work page 1991
[6]

D., Barbier, L

Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 143

2005
[7]

N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T

Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 25

2005
[8]

& Gerhard, O

Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529

2016

Show all 72 references

[9]

Blanton, M. R. & Moustakas, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 159

2009
[10]

& García Lambas, D

Bornancini, C. & García Lambas, D. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2308

2018
[11]

2005, MNRAS, 364, L18

Bournaud, F., Combes, F., & Semelin, B. 2005, MNRAS, 364, L18

2005
[12]

2020, A&A, 634, A114

Caglar, T., Burtscher, L., Brandl, B., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A114

2020
[13]

J., Burtscher, L., et al

Caglar, T., Koss, M. J., Burtscher, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 60

2023
[14]

A., Clayton, G

Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

1989
[15]

C., Magnier, E

Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

2016 arXiv
[16]

A., Knapen, J

Cisternas, M., Gadotti, D. A., Knapen, J. H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 50

2013
[17]

J., et al

Cisternas, M., Jahnke, K., Inskip, K. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 726, 57

2011
[18]

Conselice, C. J. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 291

2014
[19]

G., Buta, R

Corwin, Jr., H. G., Buta, R. J., & de Vaucouleurs, G. 1994, AJ, 108, 2128

1994
[20]

2013, MNRAS, 431, 2661

Cotini, S., Ripamonti, E., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2661

2013
[21]

J., Lang, D., et al

Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V ., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604

2019
[22]

2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948

Dubois, Y ., Peirani, S., Pichon, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948

2016
[23]

L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D

Ellison, S. L., Viswanathan, A., Patton, D. R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2491 Euclid Collaboration, La Marca, A., Wang, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15317

2019 arXiv
[24]

J., Sazonova, E., et al

Ferreira, L., Conselice, C. J., Sazonova, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 94

2023
[25]

Flesch, E. W. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 49

2023
[26]

A., Magnier, E

Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7

2020
[27]

& Benz, W

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

1993
[28]

L., Walmsley, M., Silcock, M

Garland, I. L., Walmsley, M., Silcock, M. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2320

2024
[29]

2021, A&A, 650, A75

Gkini, A., Plionis, M., Chira, M., & Koulouridis, E. 2021, A&A, 650, A75

2021
[30]

D., Matthaey, E., Greene, J

Goulding, A. D., Matthaey, E., Greene, J. E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 135

2017
[31]

2008, PASP, 120, 405

Greiner, J., Bornemann, W., Clemens, C., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 405

2008
[32]

E., Bamford, S

Hart, R. E., Bamford, S. P., Willett, K. W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3663

2016
[33]

Hickox, R. C. & Alexander, D. M. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 625

2018
[34]

2013, ApJS, 208, 19

Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19

2013
[35]

F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1

2006
[36]

1926, Contributions from the Mount Wilson Observatory / Carnegie Institution of Washington, 324, 1

Hubble, E. 1926, Contributions from the Mount Wilson Observatory / Carnegie Institution of Washington, 324, 1

1926
[37]

M., Tremonti, C., et al

Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055

2003
[38]

C., Chojnowski, S

Keel, W. C., Chojnowski, S. D., Bennert, V . N., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 878

2012
[39]

Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

1998
[40]

Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

2013
[41]

2010, ApJ, 716, L125

Koss, M., Mushotzky, R., Veilleux, S., & Winter, L. 2010, ApJ, 716, L125

2010
[42]

2011, ApJ, 739, 57

Koss, M., Mushotzky, R., Veilleux, S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 57

2011
[43]

2017, ApJ, 850, 74

Koss, M., Trakhtenbrot, B., Ricci, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 74

2017
[44]

J., Assef, R., Balokovi´c, M., et al

Koss, M. J., Assef, R., Balokovi´c, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 85

2016
[45]

J., Strittmatter, B., Lamperti, I., et al

Koss, M. J., Strittmatter, B., Lamperti, I., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 29

2021
[46]

J., Treister, E., Kakkad, D., et al

Koss, M. J., Treister, E., Kakkad, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, L24

2023
[47]

H., & Peletier, R

Laine, S., Shlosman, I., Knapen, J. H., & Peletier, R. F. 2002, ApJ, 567, 97

2002
[48]

J., Schawinski, K., Keel, W., et al

Lintott, C. J., Schawinski, K., Keel, W., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 129

2009
[49]

R., Fekete, G., et al

Lupton, R., Blanton, M. R., Fekete, G., et al. 2004, PASP, 116, 133

2004
[50]

& Rieke, G

Maiolino, R. & Rieke, G. H. 1995, ApJ, 454, 95

1995
[51]

2019, MNRAS, 488, 89

Man, Z.-y., Peng, Y .-j., Kong, X., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 89

2019
[52]

L., Nichol, R

Masters, K. L., Nichol, R. C., Haynes, M. P., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2180

2012
[53]

A., Morgan, W

Matthews, T. A., Morgan, W. W., & Schmidt, M. 1964, ApJ, 140, 35

1964
[54]

H., Harbeck, D.-R., et al

McCully, C., V olgenau, N. H., Harbeck, D.-R., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 10707, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy V , ed. J. C. Guzman & J. Ib- sen, 107070K Mejía-Restrepo, J. E., Trakhtenbr...

2018
[55]

2021, A&A, 653, A70

Mountrichas, G., Buat, V ., Georgantopoulos, I., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A70

2021
[56]

B., et al

Oh, K., Koss, M., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 4

2018
[57]

Oh, S., Oh, K., & Yi, S. K. 2012, ApJS, 198, 4

2012
[58]

Y ., Ho, L

Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266

2002
[59]

Y ., Ho, L

Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097 Pérez, E., Cid Fernandes, R., González Delgado, R. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, L1 Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A11

2010
[60]

J., et al

Ricci, C., Ueda, Y ., Koss, M. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, L13

2015
[61]

K., Schlafly, E

Saydjari, A. K., Schlafly, E. F., Lang, D., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 28

2023
[62]

2013, ApJS, 209, 21

Schirmer, M. 2013, ApJS, 209, 21

2013
[63]

M., Harrison, C

Scholtz, J., Alexander, D. M., Harrison, C. M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1288

2018
[64]

Shlosman, I., Frank, J., & Begelman, M. C. 1989, Nature, 338, 45

1989
[65]

M., Renzini, A., et al

Tacchella, S., Carollo, C. M., Renzini, A., et al. 2015, Science, 348, 314

2015
[66]

Tinsley, B. M. 1980, Fund. Cosmic Phys., 5, 287

1980
[67]

M., & Simmons, B

Treister, E., Schawinski, K., Urry, C. M., & Simmons, B. D. 2012, ApJ, 758, L39

2012
[68]

2020, MNRAS, 491, 1554

Walmsley, M., Smith, L., Lintott, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1554

2020
[69]

Weedman, D. W. 1977, ARA&A, 15, 69

1977
[70]

C., Rieke, M., et al

Woodrum, C., Williams, C. C., Rieke, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 305

2024
[71]

Zhuang, M.-Y . & Ho, L. C. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1376

2023
[72]

Smooth”, “Featured

Zou, F., Yang, G., Brandt, W. N., & Xue, Y . 2019, ApJ, 878, 11 Article number, page 18 of 20 Miguel Parra Tello et al.: BASS. XLIV . Morphological preferences of local hard X-ray selected AGN Appendix A: Fringe pattern mitigation of Sinistro sources Fig. A.1: Examples of deep...

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Adams, T. F. 1977, ApJS, 33, 19

work page 1977

[2] [2]

D., Allende Prieto, C., et al

Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12

2015

[3] [3]

Alonso, S., Coldwell, G., Duplancic, F., Mesa, V ., & Lambas, D. G. 2018, A&A, 618, A149

work page 2018

[4] [4]

E., et al

Ansar, S., Pearson, S., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 37

work page 2025

[5] [5]

Barnes, J. E. & Hernquist, L. E. 1991, ApJ, 370, L65

work page 1991

[6] [6]

D., Barbier, L

Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 143

2005

[7] [7]

N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T

Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 25

2005

[8] [8]

& Gerhard, O

Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529

2016