pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27100 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Galaxy Zoo Bar Lengths: A Catalogue of Measurements from Hubble Space Telescope Images and the Evolution of Galactic Bar Structure at z < 1

Tenley Hutchinson-Smith , Brooke D. Simmons , Karen L. Masters , Alison Coil , Izzy Garland , Tobias G\'eron , Sandor Kruk , Chris Lintott
show 7 more authors
Rebecca Smethurst Amauri Tapia Kyle Willett Elisabeth Baeten Sylvia Beer Michael L. Peck Julianne Wilcox
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 09:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galactic barsdisk galaxiesbar lengthbar strengthredshift evolutionstar formation quenchingHubble Space TelescopeGalaxy Zoo
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bars in disk galaxies are about 13 percent weaker at higher redshifts, with quiescent galaxies hosting longer and wider bars.

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

The paper measures bar lengths and widths across thousands of disk galaxies imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope up to redshift three. It shows that the median ratio of bar length to width, taken as a proxy for bar strength, drops slightly toward higher redshifts. Quiescent and quenching galaxies display longer and wider bars than star-forming systems, particularly at lower redshifts and higher masses. At the low-mass end, starburst galaxies instead host relatively longer bars. These patterns point to bars as participants in the gradual shutdown of star formation within disk galaxies.

Core claim

Using a mass-complete sample from the COSMOS field at 0.25 less than z less than 1 and stellar masses above 10 to the 9.5 solar masses, the median physical bar length increases with stellar mass while the relative bar length and width both peak near 10 to the 10.25 solar masses; their ratio remains roughly constant with mass. Bars appear approximately 13 percent weaker at higher redshift. Quiescent and quenching galaxies host longer and wider bars than those on or above the star-forming sequence, with the contrast strongest at lower redshift and higher mass; at low mass, starburst galaxies show longer and stronger bars.

What carries the argument

A catalogue of visual bar identifications and direct length and width measurements from Hubble Space Telescope images, produced through Galaxy Zoo citizen science, applied to a mass-complete COSMOS sample to track changes with redshift and star-formation state.

If this is right

  • Bar strength, measured as the length-to-width ratio, stays nearly constant across stellar mass while absolute lengths grow with mass.
  • Quiescent galaxies at higher masses and lower redshifts exhibit the longest bars, consistent with bars driving slow quenching.
  • Low-mass starburst galaxies host relatively longer and stronger bars than other low-mass systems.
  • The trends align with both higher- and lower-redshift studies, reinforcing bars as a steady feature of disk evolution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The catalogue supplies a uniform dataset that simulations of galaxy evolution can test directly against observed bar-length distributions.
  • If the redshift trend holds, models must incorporate a mechanism that mildly weakens bars over the last eight billion years.
  • Extending the same visual measurement approach to JWST data could check whether the weakening continues beyond redshift one.

Load-bearing premise

Visual classification and manual length measurements of bars in HST images remain accurate and unbiased across the studied redshift and mass range, without significant misidentification from spiral arms or other features.

What would settle it

A set of independent, automated bar-length measurements on the same HST images that show no systematic change in bar strength with redshift or between quiescent and star-forming galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27100 by Alison Coil, Amauri Tapia, Brooke D. Simmons, Chris Lintott, Elisabeth Baeten, Izzy Garland, Julianne Wilcox, Karen L. Masters, Kyle Willett, Michael L. Peck, Rebecca Smethurst, Sandor Kruk, Sylvia Beer, Tenley Hutchinson-Smith, Tobias G\'eron.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Demographics of the Galaxy Zoo Bar Lengths sample, based on (a) raw classification counts and (b) plurality classification for each galaxy. In each panel, the full classification tree ( view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example images from the Galaxy Zoo Bar Lengths project (left column), with markings by individual classifiers shown as thin lines (middle column) and clustered markings of bar length and width shown in thick purple lines (right column). Marks in the middle column are color-grouped by final cluster membership. Light blue marks in the right column indicate low-confidence clusters (typically containing outlie… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Purity (blue circles) and completeness (red trian￾gles) of samples as a function of the pbar threshold used to select the barred sample from within the full set of disk galax￾ies examined in Galaxy Zoo Bar Lengths. As the threshold is raised, the sample becomes more pure (less contaminated by unbarred galaxies) but less complete. Considering these tradeoffs, we choose a threshold of pbar = 0.5 to select a … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Rest-frame galaxy stellar mass versus redshift. At left, the full COSMOS sample used here (Section 3; A. Leauthaud et al. 2007; A. Muzzin et al. 2013a,b; J. R. Weaver et al. 2022) is shown as a grayscale density plot. Solid blue contours show the subset of COSMOS galaxies examined in the GZH project (W17). From this GZH-COSMOS parent sample, disk galaxies falling within the mass-complete sample (limits dra… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows rest-frame U − V versus V − J colors for barred and unbarred galaxies in the mass-complete view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: star formation rate versus stellar mass for barred (blue circles) and unbarred (green triangles) disk galaxies, as well as for the overall COSMOS sample within the mass and redshift limits (gray 2D histogram and outer 99% dotted contour). The size of each barred-galaxy point is scaled to the relative bar length, as in view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Properties of bars in the subset of the bar-mass sample with bar width Wbar > 1.5 kpc (blue circles) versus galaxy properties. From top to bottom, y-axes show bar length in kpc, relative bar length ℓrel, relative bar width ωrel, and length-to-width ratio Lbar/Wbar (a measure of bar strength). From left to right, x-axes show redshift z, stellar mass M∗, and offset from the star-forming sequence δ log SF R. … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Bar length Lbar (top), relative bar length ℓrel (upper middle), relative bar width ωrel (lower middle), and bar strength (bottom) versus redshift z (left) and stellar mass M∗ (right) within the subset of the bar-mass sample with Wbar > 1.5 kpc. The sample has been split by star-forming status, with each galaxy assigned to be starburst (cyan dotted), on the star-forming sequence (blue solid), sub-sequence (… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Understanding the role of galactic scale bars in disk galaxy evolution requires detailed measurements of bar properties across galaxies hosting bars at many redshifts. We present measurements of bar lengths and widths in a sample of 8230 disk galaxies from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Legacy surveys. The highest-redshift barred galaxies in the sample have $z \sim 3$; most have $z \leq 1$. Using a mass-complete sample from the COSMOS field, we examine bar properties and evolution within $0.25 < z < 1$ in galaxies with stellar mass $\log(M_{\ast}/M_{\odot}) \geq 9.5$. The lowest-mass galaxies in our sample have similar star formation rate (SFR) distributions whether or not they host bars. For galaxies with $\log(M_{\ast}/M_{\odot}) \geq 10$, barred galaxies are more likely to be quiescent or quenched, consistent with bars mainly participating in slow quenching processes. The median physical bar length increases with increasing stellar mass. Relative bar lengths and widths (as a fraction of disk radius) peak at stellar mass $\log(M_{\ast}/M_{\odot}) \sim 10.25$, and change together with mass such that the median ratio, a proxy for bar strength, does not significantly change with stellar mass. Bars in our sample tend to be slightly ($\approx 13$%) weaker at higher redshift. Quiescent and quenching galaxies have longer and wider bars than those in galaxies on or above the star-forming sequence, especially at lower redshift and higher masses; at the low-mass end of our sample, starburst galaxies host relatively longer and stronger bars. Our findings are consistent with other results from studies at both higher and lower redshift, cementing the fundamental importance of bars in disk galaxy evolution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents bar length and width measurements for 8230 disk galaxies imaged by HST, derived from Galaxy Zoo citizen-science classifications. Using a mass-complete COSMOS subsample at 0.25 < z < 1 and log(M*/M⊙) ≥ 9.5, it reports that median relative bar lengths and widths peak near log M* ≈ 10.25, that bars are ≈13% weaker at higher redshift, and that quiescent/quenching galaxies host longer and wider bars than star-forming galaxies (especially at lower z and higher mass), while low-mass starbursts show relatively strong bars. These trends are interpreted as evidence for bars' role in slow quenching and disk evolution.

Significance. If the visual measurements prove robust against observational biases, the large sample size, mass-complete selection, and direct comparison to SFR sequences would provide valuable empirical constraints on bar-driven evolution across 0.25 < z < 1, consistent with lower- and higher-redshift studies. The work supplies a substantial catalog that could be used for future modeling of bar strength and quenching timescales.

major comments (3)
  1. [redshift-evolution analysis (abstract and associated results section)] The headline result that bars are ≈13% weaker at higher redshift (and the associated quiescent vs. star-forming differences) rests on the assumption that Galaxy Zoo visual bar identifications and normalized length/width measurements remain unbiased across the redshift range. No quantitative test is presented for the combined effects of coarser physical resolution (kpc-scale at z≈1) and (1+z)^4 surface-brightness dimming, which can systematically shorten or narrow apparent bars or increase confusion with spiral arms. A forward-modeling exercise or resolution-matched simulation comparison is needed to show that the observed trend exceeds these systematics.
  2. [methods and results sections] The manuscript does not supply the full error budget, measurement uncertainties on individual bar lengths/widths, or the underlying data tables for the 8230 galaxies. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the reported 13% weakening or the mass- and SFR-dependent trends are statistically significant after accounting for measurement scatter and selection effects.
  3. [SFR and quenching analysis] The claim that barred galaxies with log(M*/M⊙) ≥ 10 are more likely to be quiescent or quenched is presented without a clear control for the known correlation between bar presence and stellar mass or morphology. A matched sample or multivariate regression would be required to isolate the bar–quenching connection from these confounders.
minor comments (2)
  1. [measurement methodology] Clarify the exact definition of 'disk radius' used for normalization and whether it is measured consistently across the redshift range.
  2. [sample selection] Add a table or figure showing the redshift and mass distributions of the mass-complete subsample to allow readers to evaluate completeness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We have addressed each major point below, providing clarifications where possible and outlining revisions to strengthen the analysis and presentation of results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The headline result that bars are ≈13% weaker at higher redshift (and the associated quiescent vs. star-forming differences) rests on the assumption that Galaxy Zoo visual bar identifications and normalized length/width measurements remain unbiased across the redshift range. No quantitative test is presented for the combined effects of coarser physical resolution (kpc-scale at z≈1) and (1+z)^4 surface-brightness dimming, which can systematically shorten or narrow apparent bars or increase confusion with spiral arms. A forward-modeling exercise or resolution-matched simulation comparison is needed to show that the observed trend exceeds these systematics.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative assessment of resolution and surface-brightness effects is valuable for supporting the redshift-evolution claims. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new subsection (Section 4.3) that includes a forward-modeling test: we degraded high-resolution local bar images to match the physical resolution and surface-brightness dimming at z=0.8–1.0 and re-measured bar properties using the same Galaxy Zoo procedure. This shows that the apparent weakening bias is at most ~4–6%, below the observed 13% trend. We also cite supporting validations from prior Galaxy Zoo studies at intermediate redshifts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The manuscript does not supply the full error budget, measurement uncertainties on individual bar lengths/widths, or the underlying data tables for the 8230 galaxies. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the reported 13% weakening or the mass- and SFR-dependent trends are statistically significant after accounting for measurement scatter and selection effects.

    Authors: We acknowledge this omission. The revised manuscript now includes a complete error budget in Section 3.2, detailing how uncertainties on bar lengths and widths are derived from Galaxy Zoo vote fractions, ellipse-fitting scatter, and redshift-dependent resolution. We have also added the full data table for all 8230 galaxies (including individual measurements, uncertainties, stellar masses, SFRs, and classifications) as supplementary material in machine-readable format. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The claim that barred galaxies with log(M*/M⊙) ≥ 10 are more likely to be quiescent or quenched is presented without a clear control for the known correlation between bar presence and stellar mass or morphology. A matched sample or multivariate regression would be required to isolate the bar–quenching connection from these confounders.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this. Our original analysis already split results into mass bins (log M* = 9.5–10 and ≥10) to mitigate the mass correlation, and we noted that low-mass galaxies show no SFR difference. To further isolate the effect, the revision adds a multivariate logistic regression (Section 5.2) treating bar presence, stellar mass, and bulge-to-disk ratio as predictors of quiescence fraction. We also include a mass- and morphology-matched subsample comparison, which confirms the bar–quenching association persists at fixed mass and morphology for log M* ≥ 10. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical bar measurements

full rationale

The paper's central results (e.g., ~13% weaker bars at higher redshift, longer bars in quiescent galaxies) are statistical summaries computed directly from a catalog of bar lengths/widths measured on HST images via Galaxy Zoo visual classifications. No equations define quantities in terms of themselves, no fitted parameters are relabeled as independent predictions, and no load-bearing claims reduce to self-citations or prior author ansatzes. The analysis chain begins from external imaging data and citizen-science labels, making it self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the reliability of visual bar detection, conversion of angular sizes to physical lengths using a standard cosmology, and the definition of mass-complete and star-formation-sequence samples.

free parameters (2)
  • stellar mass completeness threshold
    log(M*/Msun) >= 9.5 chosen to define the sample for evolutionary analysis.
  • redshift range for evolution study
    0.25 < z < 1 selected for the mass-complete COSMOS analysis.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology for converting redshifts to physical distances and sizes.
    Required to report physical bar lengths in kpc.
  • domain assumption Galaxy Zoo visual classifications reliably identify bars across the redshift range.
    Central to the entire measurement catalogue.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5701 in / 1483 out tokens · 38592 ms · 2026-05-07T09:00:03.536612+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 111 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., & Merrifield, M

    Abraham, R. G., & Merrifield, M. R. 2000, AJ, 120, 2835, doi: 10.1086/316877

    work page doi:10.1086/316877 2000

  2. [2]

    D., & Begelman, M

    Abraham, R. G., Merrifield, M. R., Ellis, R. S., Tanvir, N. R., & Brinchmann, J. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 569, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02766.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02766.x 1999

  3. [3]

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810931 2009

  4. [4]

    The incidence of AGN as a function of star formation rate

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., & Georgakakis, A. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4360, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz125

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz125 2019

  5. [5]

    The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  6. [6]

    L., Crittenden, R., Melchiorri, A., Hobson, M

    Arnouts, S., Moscardini, L., Vanzella, E., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 355, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy ...

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04988.x 2002

  7. [7]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 328

    Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 328

    1992

  8. [8]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 937, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06241.x G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S

    Athanassoula, E. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1179, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06473.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06473.x 2003

  9. [9]

    2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies, ed

    Athanassoula, E. 2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies, ed. J. Falc´ on-Barroso & J. H. Knapen (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 305, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1211.6752

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1211.6752 2013

  10. [10]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts452 2013

  11. [11]

    J., Geller, M

    Barton, E. J., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 660, doi: 10.1086/308392

    work page doi:10.1086/308392 2000

  12. [12]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 20, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20 2013

  13. [13]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

    1996

  14. [14]

    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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00096.x 2005

  15. [15]

    EAZY: A Fast, Public Photometric Redshift Code

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    Bremer, M. N., Phillipps, S., Kelvin, L. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 12, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty124

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty124 2018

  17. [17]

    2005, AJ, 130, 506, doi: 10.1086/431251

    Buta, R., Vasylyev, S., Salo, H., & Laurikainen, E. 2005, AJ, 130, 506, doi: 10.1086/431251

    work page doi:10.1086/431251 2005

  18. [18]

    Caldwell, J. A. R., McIntosh, D. H., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 174, 136, doi: 10.1086/521080

    work page doi:10.1086/521080 2008

  19. [19]

    2011, PASA, 28, 128, doi: 10.1071/AS10046

    Cameron, E. 2011, PASA, 28, 128, doi: 10.1071/AS10046

    work page doi:10.1071/as10046 2011

  20. [20]

    V., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I

    Cameron, E., Carollo, C. M., Oesch, P., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 346, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17314.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17314.x 2010

  21. [21]

    L., & Kawata, D

    Carles, C., Martel, H., Ellison, S. L., & Kawata, D. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1074, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2056

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2056 2016

  22. [22]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc2bc 2023

  23. [23]

    Galaxy Zoo: Are bars responsible for the feeding of active galactic nuclei at 0.2 &lt; z &lt; 1.0?★

    Cheung, E., Trump, J. R., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 506, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2462

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2462 2015

  24. [24]

    2015, Pillow (PIL Fork) Documentation, readthedocs

    Clark, A. 2015, Pillow (PIL Fork) Documentation, readthedocs. https://buildmedia.readthedocs.org/ media/pdf/pillow/latest/pillow.pdf

    2015

  25. [25]

    , keywords =

    Davis, M., Guhathakurta, P., Konidaris, N. P., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L1, doi: 10.1086/517931 de S´ a-Freitas, C., Gadotti, D. A., Fragkoudi, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453367 de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, Jr., H. G., et al. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies. Volume I: Explanations and refe...

    work page doi:10.1086/517931 2007

  26. [26]

    , keywords =

    Debattista, V. P., & Sellwood, J. A. 1998, ApJL, 493, L5, doi: 10.1086/311118 Di Matteo, P., Combes, F., Melchior, A.-L., & Semelin, B. 2007, A&A, 468, 61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066959

    work page doi:10.1086/311118 1998

  27. [27]

    , keywords =

    Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac472

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac472 2022

  28. [28]

    L., Patton , D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, AJ, 135, 1877, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877 2008

  29. [29]

    G., Elmegreen, D

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

    work page doi:10.1086/422407 2004

  30. [30]

    D., Drew, J

    Erwin, P. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 283, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09560.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09560.x 2005

  31. [31]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 3553, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2363

    Erwin, P. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3553, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2363 Espejo Salcedo, J. M., Pastras, S., V´ acha, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554725 Euclid Collaboration, Huertas-Company, M., Walmsley, M., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15311, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15311 Euclid Collaboration, Aussel, H., Tereno, I., et a...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2363 2019

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Arrabal Haro, P., et al. 2025, ApJL, 983, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbbd3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adbbd3 2025

  33. [33]

    Fragkoudi, F., Grand, R. J. J., Pakmor, R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf389

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf389 2025

  34. [34]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 1116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2866

    Fraser-McKelvie, A., Merrifield, M., Arag´ on-Salamanca, A., et al. 2020a, MNRAS, 499, 1116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2866 26

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2866

  35. [35]

    2020b, MNRAS, 495, 4158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1416

    Fraser-McKelvie, A., Arag´ on-Salamanca, A., Merrifield, M., et al. 2020b, MNRAS, 495, 4158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1416

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1416

  36. [36]

    2013, ApJS, 206, 10, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/2/10

    Galametz, A., Grazian, A., Fontana, A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 206, 10, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/2/10

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/206/2/10 2013

  37. [37]

    A., Willett, K

    Galloway, M. A., Willett, K. W., Fortson, L. F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv235

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv235 2015

  38. [38]

    L., Walmsley, M., Silcock, M

    Garland, I. L., Walmsley, M., Silcock, M. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1620 G´ eron, T., Smethurst, R. J., Lintott, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2064 G´ eron, T., Smethurst, R. J., Lintott, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad66b7 G´ eron, T., Smethurst, R. J., Dickinson, H., e...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1620 2024

  39. [39]

    2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/318

    Giavalisco, M. 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/318

    2012

  40. [40]

    , keywords =

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93, doi: 10.1086/379232

    work page doi:10.1086/379232 2004

  41. [41]

    Graham, A. W. 2019, PASA, 36, e035, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.23

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.23 2019

  42. [42]

    Grand, R. J. J., G´ omez, F. A., Marinacci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 179, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx071

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx071 2017

  43. [43]

    Grand, R. J. J., van de Voort, F., Zjupa, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4786, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2928

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2928 2019

  44. [44]

    L., Cooper, M

    Griffith, R. L., Cooper, M. C., Newman, J. A., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/200/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/200/1/9 2012

  45. [45]

    , keywords =

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 2011

  46. [46]

    C., Giavalisco, M., et al

    Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/24

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/24 2013

  47. [47]

    L., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acacfb 2023

  48. [48]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc8a7

    Guo, Y., Jogee, S., Wise, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc8a7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc8a7 2025

  49. [49]

    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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  50. [50]

    G., Almaini, O., Mortlock, A., et al

    Hartley, W. G., Almaini, O., Mortlock, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 3045, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt383

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt383 2013

  51. [51]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Hoyle, B., Masters, K. L., Nichol, R. C., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3627, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18979.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18979.x 2011

  52. [52]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  53. [53]

    Accurate photometric redshifts for the CFHT Legacy Survey calibrated using the VIMOS VLT Deep Survey

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 841, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065138

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065138 2006

  54. [54]

    Jang, D., Kim, W.-T., & Lee, Y. H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07353, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07353

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.07353 2025

  55. [55]

    D., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Jogee, S., Barazza, F. D., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2004, ApJL, 615, L105, doi: 10.1086/426138

    work page doi:10.1086/426138 2004

  56. [56]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 937, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06241.x G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 54, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06292.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06292.x 2003

  57. [57]

    S., Bremer, M

    Kelvin, L. S., Bremer, M. N., Phillipps, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty933

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty933 2018

  58. [58]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2300

    Kim, T., Athanassoula, E., Sheth, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2300

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2300 2021

  59. [59]

    UNVEILING THE STRUCTURE OF BARRED GALAXIES AT 3.6 μm WITH THE SPITZER SURVEY OF STELLAR STRUCTURE IN GALAXIES (S<sup>4</sup>G). I. DISK BREAKS

    Kim, T., Gadotti, D. A., Sheth, K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/64

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/2/64 2014

  60. [60]

    , keywords =

    Koekemoer, A. M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 196, doi: 10.1086/520086

    work page doi:10.1086/520086 2007

  61. [61]

    M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 , 197, 36

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 2011

  62. [62]

    Kolmogorov, A. N. 1933, Giorn Dell’inst Ital Degli Att, 4, 89

    1933

  63. [63]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/60

    Kraljic, K., Bournaud, F., & Martig, M. 2012, ApJ, 757, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/60

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/60 2012

  64. [64]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9fa3

    Krishnarao, D., Tremonti, C., Fraser-McKelvie, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9fa3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9fa3 2020

  65. [65]

    J., Lintott, C

    Kruk, S. J., Lintott, C. J., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1026 La Marca, A., Nardone, M. T., Wang, L., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556236

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1026 2017

  66. [66]

    L., Crittenden, R., Melchiorri, A., Hobson, M

    Laurikainen, E., & Salo, H. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1118, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.06008.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.06008.x 2002

  67. [67]

    Laurikainen, E., Salo, H., Buta, R., & Knapen, J. H. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 401, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12299.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12299.x 2007

  68. [68]

    L., Crittenden, R., Melchiorri, A., Hobson, M

    Laurikainen, E., Salo, H., & Rautiainen, P. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 880, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05243.x Le Conte, Z. A., Gadotti, D. A., Ferreira, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1984, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae921 Le Conte, Z. A., Gadotti, D. A., Ferreira, L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2010

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05243.x 2002

  69. [69]

    , keywords =

    Leauthaud, A., Massey, R., Kneib, J.-P., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 219, doi: 10.1086/516598

    work page doi:10.1086/516598 2007

  70. [70]

    DO BARS TRIGGER ACTIVITY IN GALACTIC NUCLEI?

    Lee, G.-H., Woo, J.-H., Lee, M. G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/141

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/141 2012

  71. [71]

    J., Le Fèvre, O., Renzini, A., et al

    Lilly, S. J., Le F` evre, O., Renzini, A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 70, doi: 10.1086/516589

    work page doi:10.1086/516589 2007

  72. [72]

    C., Rossi, E

    Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2008a, MNRAS, 391, 1137, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14004.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14004.x 2008

  73. [73]

    M., Primack, J., & Madau, P

    Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P. 2004, AJ, 128, 163, doi: 10.1086/421849

    work page doi:10.1086/421849 2004

  74. [74]

    M., Davis, M., Faber, S

    Lotz, J. M., Davis, M., Faber, S. M., et al. 2008b, ApJ, 672, 177, doi: 10.1086/523659

    work page doi:10.1086/523659

  75. [75]

    Circumnuclear Dust in Nearby Active and Inactive Galaxies. II. Bars, Nuclear Spirals, and the Fueling of Active Galactic Nuclei

    Martini, P., Regan, M. W., Mulchaey, J. S., & Pogge, R. W. 2003, ApJ, 589, 774, doi: 10.1086/374685 Massey Jr., F. J. 1951, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46, 68, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1951.10500769 27

    work page doi:10.1086/374685 2003

  76. [76]

    V., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I

    Masters, K. L., Nichol, R. C., Hoyle, B., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2026, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17834.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17834.x 2011

  77. [77]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    Masters, K. L., Nichol, R. C., Haynes, M. P., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2180, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21377.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21377.x 2012

  78. [78]

    L., Lintott, C

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1153 2019

  79. [79]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 2882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2397 Men´ endez-Delmestre, K., Sheth, K., Schinnerer, E., Jarrett, T

    Melvin, T., Masters, K., Lintott, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2882, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2397 Men´ endez-Delmestre, K., Sheth, K., Schinnerer, E., Jarrett, T. H., & Scoville, N. Z. 2007, ApJ, 657, 790, doi: 10.1086/511025

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2397 2014

  80. [80]

    L., G´ eron, T., et al

    Mengistu, P., Masters, K. L., G´ eron, T., et al. 2026, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag561

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag561 2026

Showing first 80 references.