Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 95 references

The role of bars in triggering active galactic nuclei galaxies

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Barred spiral galaxies are more likely than similar unbarred ones to host a powerful active nucleus, according to a matched survey of thousands of AGNs.

desk verdict A solid, incremental empirical paper: the barred-unbarred AGN excess is real but mostly a reprise of the group's earlier work; the new value is in the GZ DECaLS-based strong/weak bar and environment analysis, and the main soft spot is the control sample's mixed origin and unmatched inclination. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23958 v1 pith:ZT2GVMRK submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.GA

V. Marels , V. Mesa , M. Jaque Arancibia , S. Alonso , G. Coldwell , G. Damke , V. Contreras Rojas This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords barredgalaxiesactivegalacticnucleiAGNtriggeringgalaxybarsZooDECaLS[OIII]luminosityblackholeaccretionenvironment
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 claims that bars in spiral galaxies are not passive bystanders: barred galaxies host a higher fraction of powerful active galactic nuclei than unbarred galaxies with matched stellar mass, redshift, absolute magnitude, concentration, and local density. Using morphological classifications from the Galaxy Zoo DECaLS catalog and SDSS spectra, the authors build 1,330 barred AGNs and 1,651 unbarred AGNs and compare their [OIII]5007 luminosities and an accretion-rate parameter. They find 53.4% ± 1.3% of barred AGNs exceed log Lum[OIII] > 6.2 versus 42.3% ± 1.2% of unbarred AGNs, a gap that persists at the extreme threshold log Lum[OIII] > 7 (15% versus 10%). The enhancement is stronger for strong bars than weak bars, and the strong-bar excess is most visible in low- and high-density environments rather than intermediate ones. If the comparison is unbiased, bars are a real channel for funneling gas toward supermassive black holes in the local Universe.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a matched control sample: barred spirals from Galaxy Zoo DECaLS (selected with bar and face-on probability thresholds above 0.7, at z < 0.1) are compared to unbarred spirals drawn from the same catalog and supplemented with Galaxy Zoo 2, matched on redshift, stellar mass, local density Σ5, absolute r-band magnitude, and concentration index, with KS and Anderson-Darling tests confirming the distributions match. Nuclear power is measured by the [OIII]λ5007 luminosity, used as a star-formation-insensitive tracer of AGN power, with thresholds log Lum[OIII] = 6.2 (powerful) and 7 (extremely powerful), and by the accretion rate R = log(Lum[OIII])/M_BH computed from black hole masses derived from the M_BH-σ* relation. Bar strength is taken from the Galaxy Zoo DECaLS strong- versus weak-bar probabilities, and environment from the fifth-nearest-neighbor density Σ5, split into three density regimes.

What would settle it

Re-run the analysis with the unbarred control selected from the same DECaLS imaging, requiring the same face-on inclination cut (p_disk_edge_on_no > 0.7) and the same visual bar-confirmation procedure used for the barred sample, and check whether the roughly 11 percentage-point excess in powerful AGN fraction survives; if it shrinks to null, the result is an orientation or survey-depth artifact rather than a bar effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the presence of a bar raises the chance that an AGN is powerful: the fraction of AGNs with log Lum[OIII] > 6.2 is about 11 percentage points higher in barred galaxies than in a control sample matched on redshift, stellar mass, local density, absolute magnitude, and concentration index. The same offset appears for extremely powerful AGNs (log Lum[OIII] > 7) and for the accretion-rate parameter R, defining powerful AGNs as R > -0.9. The paper also reports that barred galaxies show a mild tendency to host less massive black holes that accrete more efficiently, and that when bars are split by strength, strong bars show higher nuclear activity than weak bars, with the difference appearing mainly at the low- and high-density extremes of the environment distribution. The authors interpret the excess as bars channeling gas inward, enhancing black hole feeding without being the sole determinant of AGN activity.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison stands on the assumption that the unbarred control sample is a true counterfactual for the barred sample in every respect that affects [OIII] luminosity, even though the control was partly built from a different survey and was not explicitly matched on galaxy inclination, while the barred sample is restricted to face-on systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bar fraction should be included as a covariate in any local-Universe AGN demographics or black-hole growth study, since barred and unbarred hosts differ in nuclear power at fixed stellar mass.
  • If strong bars feed black holes more efficiently, galaxy evolution models that include secular evolution should tie bar strength to supermassive black hole accretion episodes.
  • The reported tendency for barred galaxies to host less massive, more efficiently accreting black holes implies the M_BH-σ* relation may need separate calibrations for barred hosts.
  • Environment-dependent differences suggest that the bar's fueling role is modulated by gas availability: strong bars matter most where the gas supply is either scarce (low density) or being replenished by interactions (high density).

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to measure the same excess using bar classifications from infrared imaging (for example, Spitzer) to check that the optical Galaxy Zoo labels are not biased by dust or inclination.
  • The paper's matched-sample logic could be applied to radio-selected or X-ray-selected AGNs to see whether the bar enhancement is specific to narrow-line [OIII] selection.
  • If bars channel gas in the way the paper suggests, the excess should correlate with signs of recent nuclear inflow, such as central molecular gas concentrations or nuclear star formation; that correlation is not tested here.
  • Because the control is not explicitly inclination-matched, an orientation-dependent projection of the bar onto the [OIII] selection could mimic part of the excess; comparing edge-on barred galaxies would separate bar physics from geometry.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper compares the nuclear activity of barred and unbarred AGN host galaxies using Galaxy Zoo DECaLS morphological classifications and SDSS DR7/MPA-JHU spectroscopy. The authors construct 1330 barred AGNs and 1651 unbarred controls matched on redshift, stellar mass, local density, absolute magnitude, and concentration, and report that barred galaxies host a higher fraction of powerful AGNs at both log(Lum[OIII])=6.2 (53.4% vs 42.3%) and log(Lum[OIII])=7 (15% vs 10%), as well as a higher fraction with accretion-rate parameter R>-0.9 (45% vs 35%). They also examine trends with stellar mass, color, Dn(4000), black-hole mass, bar strength, and environment, concluding that bars enhance AGN activity, especially for strong bars in low- and high-density environments.

Significance. If the control-sample construction is sound, the central result adds to observational evidence that bars are associated with enhanced AGN activity, using deeper DECaLS imaging than most previous SDSS-based studies. The paper's strengths include the use of an independent luminosity threshold (log Lum[OIII]>7 from Kauffmann et al. 2003), KS and Anderson-Darling tests for the matched parameters, bootstrap errors, and a large, visually classified sample with bar-strength information. The secondary claims about black-hole mass, accretion efficiency, and environmental dependence are interesting but rest on additional assumptions that need scrutiny. The manuscript does not provide reproducibility code, but the catalogs are public and the selection steps are, in principle, reproducible.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.2 (control sample)] The unbarred control is the load-bearing comparison for the central claim, but its construction is not matched to the barred sample in inclination. Section 3.1 restricts barred galaxies to face-on orientation with p_disk_edge_on_no > 0.7, while Section 3.2 does not state any inclination cut for the large GZ2 supplement (~1450 of 1651 galaxies); it only says that GZ2 galaxies were visually inspected in DECaLS imaging to confirm the absence of a bar. If the GZ2 supplement contains systematically more edge-on or dusty systems, their [OIII] luminosities could be attenuated (even after Balmer-decrement correction) and/or their bar classification could be affected, shifting the unbarred fraction of powerful AGNs downward and producing exactly the reported excess. Please either restrict the control to face-on systems, match the p_disk_edge_on_no distribution between the two samples, or repeat the comparison using only the ~200 GZ DECaLS unbarred AGNs and demonstrate that the excess persists.
  2. [4 (threshold definitions)] The definition of the 'powerful AGN' threshold needs clarification. The text states that log(Lum[OIII])=6.2 'coincides with the median of the data' and that the vertical line in Fig. 3 represents 'the median of the barred sample.' If the threshold is the barred-sample median, then the 53.4% quoted for barred galaxies with Lum[OIII]>6.2 is inconsistent with a median by definition; if it is the median of the combined sample, that should be stated explicitly. The same issue applies to R=-0.9. The independent check at log Lum[OIII]>7 is reassuring, but the median-based thresholds should be justified, and it should be made clear whether they were set before or after examining the sample being compared.
  3. [4.2 / Table 5] The environmental claim in the abstract and conclusions—that strong bars show enhanced activity in low- and high-density environments but not intermediate-density ones—is stronger than the quoted uncertainties support. For example, in low-density environments, the Lum[OIII]>6.2 fractions are 54.4%±3.7% (strong) vs 46.5%±4.9% (weak), a difference of roughly 1.3 sigma; the R>-0.9 low-density difference (48.8%±3.7% vs 29.7%±4.5%) is the only comparison approaching 3 sigma. Please add explicit significance tests for the environment subsamples and temper the conclusion accordingly, or show that the differences are significant after multiple-comparison correction.
  4. [4 (black hole mass and accretion rate)] The conclusion that barred galaxies host less massive black holes and accrete more efficiently is derived by applying the same MBH-sigma relation to both samples, as stated in Section 4. Since the paper itself cites Graham (2008) that velocity dispersion may be affected by bars and the MBH-sigma relation may differ for barred galaxies, the black-hole-mass and R trends could be partly a scaling-relation artifact. Please show the distributions of sigma and black-hole mass for both samples and test the sensitivity of the R results to alternative MBH-sigma calibrations, including the barred-specific values mentioned in the text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors (e.g., 'wich' for 'which', 'ins section' for 'in Section', 'avaliable' for 'available', missing superscripts in units). A thorough language edit is needed.
  2. [Fig. 3 / Section 4] The caption and text are inconsistent about the dashed line in the lower panel: the text explains that different alpha/beta values were explored but the same values are used in the rest of the analysis, while the caption appears to present the dashed line as the standard case. Please clarify what the dashed line actually shows.
  3. [3.2] The Anderson-Darling test is mentioned as supporting the KS results, but the AD p-values are not presented in Fig. 2 or Table 1. Please provide them, at least in a table or appendix.
  4. [Tables 2, 4, and 5] The error bars on the percentages are not described in the text or captions. If they are bootstrap errors, state the resampling procedure and number of iterations; if they are binomial errors, say so.
  5. [References] Some references are duplicated or inconsistently formatted (e.g., Abazajian et al. 2009a and 2009b both cite ApJS 182, 543), and the in-text citation 'Alonso et al. (2006)' has a reference entry that is unusually formatted. Please check the reference list against the journal style.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Secondary threshold choices are data-defined, but the central barred-versus-unbarred AGN comparison is an external, testable observational result.

  1. self definitional [Section 4, paragraph defining powerful/weak AGN thresholds (page 5, after Fig. 3; see also Table 2)]
    "In the case of accretion rate, we also define R = -0.9 as the value at which the excess becomes significant for the barred galaxies relative to the control sample, in the same way as for Lum[OIII], this value represents the median of the data."

    The 'powerful AGN' threshold for R is not an independent physical cut but is set from the same barred/control comparison, at the point where the excess is already significant and at the sample median. The resulting percentages in Table 2 (45% vs 35%) therefore reflect the chosen cut and are not an independent measurement of the bar-AGN connection. The same issue applies to the Lum[OIII] threshold, which 'coincides with the median of the data.' This is a secondary, summary-level circularity: the central claim does not rest on these percentages alone, because the full-distribution KS tests reject equality and the fixed Kauffmann limit log Lum[OIII] > 7 reproduces the Lum[OIII] excess.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that barred AGN hosts show a higher fraction of powerful [OIII] AGNs than unbarred controls is an observational comparison of two samples rather than a prediction derived from a fitted model. The samples are matched on redshift, stellar mass, local density, absolute magnitude, and concentration using KS and Anderson-Darling tests, and the difference is checked against an external Kauffmann et al. (2003) cut at log Lum[OIII] > 7, which reproduces the excess. Self-citations, including the Coldwell et al. (2017) AGN catalog and Alonso et al. (2018) for the [OIII] threshold, are background methodology and prior results rather than the load-bearing derivation; the AGN selection is BPT-based on SDSS data, and the black-hole masses use the external Tremaine et al. (2002) relation. The only mild circularity is summary-level: the 'powerful' thresholds for Lum[OIII] and R are set from the sample median, and R = -0.9 is explicitly chosen as the value at which the excess becomes significant, so the percentages in Table 2 are partly shaped by that choice. This does not force the central result because the full-distribution KS tests also reject equality and the fixed external luminosity threshold confirms the trend. The unmatched-inclination control-sample issue raised by the skeptic is a potential selection bias rather than a circularity and should be weighed as a correctness risk instead of in this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on several external catalogs and scaling relations rather than on a derivation. The main free numbers are the data-defined AGN power thresholds, Galaxy Zoo probability cuts, and environment bin boundaries; none of these are fitted to the barred-versus-unbarred difference itself, but they shape the measured fractions. No new physics entity is invented. The strongest assumptions are that the BPT-based AGN sample, the [OIII] activity indicator, and the same MBH-sigma relation for barred and unbarred galaxies are all valid.

free parameters (4)
  • Powerful AGN luminosity threshold log(Lum[OIII]) = 6.2 Lsun = 6.2 (log Lsun)
    Chosen as the median of the data to split powerful from weak AGNs; used in Table 2 and Figures 4-5. Data-dependent, not externally fixed.
  • Accretion-rate threshold R = -0.9 = -0.9
    Chosen as the median of the data, the value at which the barred excess becomes significant; used for R > -0.9 fractions.
  • Galaxy Zoo morphology probability thresholds = 0.7 (barred and face-on), 0.3 (unbarred)
    Hand-chosen selection cuts for p_feature_or_disk, p_spiral, p_strong+weak_bar, and p_disk_edge_on_no; these define the samples being compared.
  • Environment density bins log(Sigma5) = -0.57 and 0.05
    Boundaries for low, medium, and high density adopted from Alonso et al. (2006); not fit here, but they partition the environment analysis.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption BPT diagram with Kauffmann et al. (2003) demarcation correctly identifies AGNs in the Coldwell et al. (2017) catalog.
    The entire AGN sample depends on this external classification; no AGN subtype separation is used.
  • domain assumption [OIII] 5007 luminosity is a reliable tracer of nuclear activity with negligible star formation contamination.
    Lum[OIII] is the primary activity indicator used for the powerful and weak AGN split.
  • domain assumption The Tremaine et al. (2002) MBH-sigma relation applies with the same coefficients to barred and unbarred galaxies.
    Needed to compute the accretion-rate parameter R and black hole mass; the paper itself cites Graham (2008) showing bars can alter sigma but proceeds with identical coefficients.
  • domain assumption Local density Sigma5 from the fifth nearest neighbor with Mr < -20.5 and dv < 1000 km/s is an adequate environmental measure.
    Used to bin galaxies into low, medium, and high density environments.
  • domain assumption Matching on z, M*, Sigma5, Mr, and C removes the relevant confounders between barred and unbarred samples.
    KS and AD p > 0.05 are taken as evidence of similarity, but unmeasured properties such as inclination and dust are not explicitly controlled.
  • domain assumption Galaxy Zoo DECaLS bar probabilities correctly classify bars, and visual inspection of GZ2 galaxies removes misclassified bars.
    Morphological classification underpins the barred and unbarred sample definitions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The role of bars in triggering active galactic nuclei galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZT2GVMRK

@misc{pith2026250523958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The role of bars in triggering active galactic nuclei galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZT2GVMRK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23958}
}
read the original abstract

Bars are considered an efficient mechanism for transporting gas toward the central regions of galaxies, potentially enhancing nuclear activity. However, the extent to which bars influence active galactic nuclei (AGNs), and whether their efficiency varies with environment, remain open questions. In this study, we aim to quantify the role of bars in triggering AGNs by comparing the AGN fraction in barred and non-barred galaxies across different environments. We constructed a sample from the Galaxy Zoo DECaLS catalog, ensuring a control selection where both samples share similar distributions in stellar mass, redshift, magnitude, concentration index, and local density parameter. AGNs were identified using spectroscopic data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, yielding 1330 barred AGNs and 1651 unbarred AGNs. We use the [OIII]5007 luminosity (Lum[OIII]) and the accretion rate parameter R as indicators of nuclear activity. Based on these, we applied criteria to distinguish powerful from weak AGNs, allowing a more precise assessment of the bar's impact on the supermassive black hole. Our analysis reveals that barred galaxies tend to host a higher fraction of powerful AGNs. From Lum[OIII], we find that more active nuclei reside in massive, blue galaxies with young stellar populations. We also observe a slight tendency for barred galaxies to host less massive black holes accreting more efficiently. The classification of strong and weak bars shows that more prominent bars correlate with higher nuclear activity. While this trend shows no significant differences in intermediate-density environments, it becomes evident in both low- and high-density regions, where galaxies with strong bars show enhanced AGN activity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23958 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of barred galaxies from DECaLS (left panels) and SDSS (right panels). first time, automatic classifications were provided, with both the survey depth and the weighting of volunteer votes playing a key role in the model training process. For AGNs sample, we use the photometric and spectroscopic data from the SDSS Data Release 7 (Abazajian et al. 2009a, SDSS-DR7). The main galaxy sample consist of approximate… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalized distributions of redshift, z, stellar mass, log(M), the local density parameter Σ5, absolute magnitude in the r band, Mr and the concentration index C for barred and unbarred galaxies. The D and p-values of the KS test are presented. 2. In addition, the Anderson–Darling (AD, Scholz (1987)) test returns p-values above 0.05 for the key parameters, providing further support for the consistency between the tw… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the Lum[OIII] (top panel) and R (bottom panel) distributions for barred (solid line) and non-barred AGN (full surfaces). In the case of accretion rate, the dashed line represent the distribution of R using α = 7.67±0.115 and β = 4.08±0.751. These parameters, as adopted in Alonso et al. (2018) illustrate that employing the specific values for barred galaxies result in an improved estimation of the accretion rat… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fraction of Lum[OIII] > 106.2L⊙ as a function of stellar mass, color (Mu-Mr), and the Dn(4000) parameter (left, center, and right graphs, respectively). The values of the difference σ between the samples in each of the panels are presented. The inner graphs show the fr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fraction of R > −0.9 as a function of stellar mass, color (Mu-Mr), and the Dn(4000) parameter (left, center, and right graphs, respectively). The values of the difference σ between the samples in each of the panels are presented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fraction of R > −0.9 as a function of black hole mass. Inner box show the distribution of black hole mass and values of KS-test are presented. there are differences in the surface brightness profile of weak and strong bars (Elmegreen et al. 1996; Kim et al. 2015). For …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fraction of Lum[OIII] > 106.2L⊙ as a function of stellar mass, color (Mu-Mr), and the Dn(4000) parameter (left, center, and right graphs, respectively). The graph separates by bar strength, either strong (yellow line) or weak (lightblue dashed line), compared to the co…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fraction of R > −0.9 as a function of stellar mass, color (Mu-Mr), and the Dn(4000) parameter (left, center, and right graphs, respectively). The graph separates by bar strength, either strong (yellow line) or weak (lightblue dashed line), compared to the control sampl…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: <Lum[OIII]> of AGN as a function of log(Σ5) for full barred sample (top panel, violet line) and the control sample (grey line.) and the sample separated (bottom panel) into strong bars (yellow line) and weak bars (lightblue line) in addition to the control sample [PI…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Valdes, F., Yee, H

    Abraham, R. G., Valdes, F., Yee, H. K. C., & van den Bergh, S. 1994, ApJ, 432, 75

    1994

  2. [2]

    Aguerri, J. A. L., Cuomo, V ., Rojas-Roncero, A., & Morelli, L. 2023, A&A, 679, A5

    2023

  3. [3]

    Alexander, D. M. & Hickox, R. C. 2012, New A Rev., 56, 93

    2012

  4. [4]

    S., Coldwell, G., & Lambas, D

    Alonso, M. S., Coldwell, G., & Lambas, D. G. 2013, A&A, 549, A141

    2013

  5. [5]

    S., Tissera, P

    Alonso, M. S., Tissera, P. B., Lambas, D. G., & Coldwell, G. 2006, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, V ol. 26, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 187

    2006

  6. [6]

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

    2018

  7. [7]

    Alonso, S., Coldwell, G., & Lambas, D. G. 2014, A&A, 572, A86

    2014

  8. [8]

    2024, A&A, 690, A273

    Alonso, S., Vera-Rueda, M., Coldwell, G., Duplancic, F., & Mesa, V . 2024, A&A, 690, A273

    2024

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    2003, MNRAS, 341, 1179

    Athanassoula, E. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1179

    2003

  2. [10]

    Athanassoula, E., Machado, R. E. G., & Rodionov, S. A. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1949

    2013

  3. [11]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

    1981

  4. [12]

    L., Baldry, I

    Balogh, M. L., Baldry, I. K., Nichol, R., et al. 2004, ApJ, 615, L101

    2004

  5. [13]

    L., Morris, S

    Balogh, M. L., Morris, S. L., Yee, H. K. C., Carlberg, R. G., & Ellingson, E. 1999, ApJ, 527, 54

    1999

  6. [14]

    D., Bhavsar, S

    Barrow, J. D., Bhavsar, S. P., & Sonoda, D. H. 1984, MNRAS, 210, 19P

    1984

  7. [15]

    H., & Fricke, K

    Berentzen, I., Athanassoula, E., Heller, C. H., & Fricke, K. J. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 220

    2004

  8. [16]

    Blanton, M. R. & Roweis, S. 2007, AJ, 133, 734

    2007

  9. [17]

    R., Schlegel, D

    Blanton, M. R., Schlegel, D. J., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 2562

    2005

  10. [18]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151

    2004

  11. [19]

    & Combes, F

    Buta, R. & Combes, F. 1996, Fund. Cosmic Phys., 17, 95

    1996

  12. [20]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

    2000

  13. [21]

    R., Athanassoula, E., et al

    Cheung, E., Trump, J. R., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 506

    2015

  14. [22]

    & Gadotti, D

    Coelho, P. & Gadotti, D. A. 2011, ApJ, 743, L13

    2011

  15. [23]

    V ., Lambas, D

    Coldwell, G. V ., Lambas, D. G., Söchting, I. K., & Gurovich, S. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 88

    2009

  16. [24]

    V ., Pereyra, L., Alonso, S., Donoso, E., & Duplancic, F

    Coldwell, G. V ., Pereyra, L., Alonso, S., Donoso, E., & Duplancic, F. 2017, MN- RAS, 467, 3338

    2017

  17. [25]

    & Elmegreen, B

    Combes, F. & Elmegreen, B. G. 1993, A&A, 271, 391

    1993

  18. [26]

    & Sanders, R

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

    1981

  19. [27]

    & Maiolino, R

    Cresci, G. & Maiolino, R. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 179 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1963, ApJS, 8, 31

    2018

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    1980

  22. [30]

    L., Nair, P., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Nair, P., Patton, D. R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2182

    2011

  23. [31]

    L., Wong, T., Sánchez, S

    Ellison, S. L., Wong, T., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, L46

    2021

  24. [32]

    Bissell, B. A. 1996, AJ, 111, 2233

    1996

  25. [33]

    M., Elmegreen, B

    Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., & Bellin, A. D. 1990, ApJ, 364, 415

    1990

  26. [34]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 5372

    Erwin, P. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5372

    2018

  27. [35]

    B., Frogel, J

    Eskridge, P. B., Frogel, J. A., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 536

    2000

  28. [36]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

    2012

  29. [37]

    & Merritt, D

    Ferrarese, L. & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9

    2000

  30. [38]

    2017, A&A, 601, A143

    Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., Shankar, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A143

    2017

  31. [39]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 4586

    Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4586

    2019

  32. [40]

    Gadotti, D. A. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3308

    2011

  33. [41]

    Gadotti, D. A. & Dos Anjos, S. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 230, Galaxy Disks and Disk Galaxies, ed. J. G. Funes & E. M. Corsini, 237–238

    2001

  34. [42]

    A., Willett, K

    Galloway, M. A., Willett, K. W., Fortson, L. F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3442

    2015

  35. [43]

    L., Walmsley, M., Silcock, M

    Garland, I. L., Walmsley, M., Silcock, M. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2320 Géron, T., Smethurst, R. J., Lintott, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1775 Géron, T., Smethurst, R. J., Lintott, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4389

    2024

  36. [44]

    Graham, A. W. 2008, ApJ, 680, 143

    2008

  37. [45]

    Greene, J. E. & Ho, L. C. 2007, ApJ, 670, 92

    2007

  38. [46]

    Heckman, T. M. 1980, A&A, 87, 152

    1980

  39. [47]

    M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al

    Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 109

    2004

  40. [48]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2012, MNRAS, 420, L8

    2012

  41. [49]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3768 Jr., F

    Irodotou, D., Fragkoudi, F., Pakmor, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3768 Jr., F. J. M. 1951, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46, 68

    2022

  42. [50]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

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

    2003

  43. [51]

    J., Heisler, C

    Kewley, L. J., Heisler, C. A., Dopita, M. A., & Lumsden, S. 2001, ApJS, 132, 37

    2001

  44. [52]

    & Choi, Y .-Y

    Kim, M. & Choi, Y .-Y . 2020, ApJ, 901, L38

    2020

  45. [53]

    A., et al

    Kim, T., Sheth, K., Gadotti, D. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 99

    2015

  46. [54]

    H., Shlosman, I., & Peletier, R

    Knapen, J. H., Shlosman, I., & Peletier, R. F. 2000, ApJ, 529, 93

    2000

  47. [55]

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

    2013

  48. [56]

    & Kennicutt, Jr., R

    Kormendy, J. & Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603

    2004

  49. [57]

    H., & Peletier, R

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

    2002

  50. [58]

    G., et al

    Lee, G.-H., Woo, J.-H., Lee, M. G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 141

    2012

  51. [59]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 105 Łokas, E

    Lin, L., Li, C., He, Y ., Xiao, T., & Wang, E. 2017, ApJ, 838, 105 Łokas, E. L., Ebrová, I., del Pino, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 227

    2017

  52. [60]

    1969, Nature, 223, 690

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, Nature, 223, 690

    1969

  53. [61]

    & Roy, J.-R

    Martin, P. & Roy, J.-R. 1994, ApJ, 424, 599 Martínez, H. J. & Muriel, H. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L148

    1994

  54. [62]

    L., Nichol, R., Bamford, S., et al

    Masters, K. L., Nichol, R., Bamford, S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 792

    2010

  55. [63]

    L., Nichol, R

    Masters, K. L., Nichol, R. C., Hoyle, B., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2026

    2011

  56. [64]

    McConnell, N. J. & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184 Méndez-Abreu, J., Sánchez-Janssen, R., & Aguerri, J. A. L. 2010, ApJ, 711, L61 Menéndez-Delmestre, K., Sheth, K., Schinnerer, E., Jarrett, T. H., & Scoville, N. Z. 2007, ApJ, 657, 790

    2013

  57. [65]

    Mihos, J. C. & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 464, 641

    1996

  58. [66]

    C., McGaugh, S

    Mihos, J. C., McGaugh, S. S., & de Blok, W. J. G. 1997, ApJ, 477, L79

    1997

  59. [67]

    Nair, P. B. & Abraham, R. G. 2010, ApJS, 186, 427

    2010

  60. [68]

    A., Wisotzki, L., et al

    Neumann, J., Gadotti, D. A., Wisotzki, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A26

    2019

  61. [69]

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

    2012

  62. [70]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 748

    Perez, J., Tissera, P., & Blaizot, J. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 748

    2009

  63. [71]

    G., Stone, J

    Piner, B. G., Stone, J. M., & Teuben, P. J. 1995, ApJ, 449, 508

    1995

  64. [72]

    Reines, A. E. & V olonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82

    2015

  65. [73]

    A., Bender, R., et al

    Richstone, D., Ajhar, E. A., Bender, R., et al. 1998, Nature, 385, A14

    1998

  66. [74]

    Robichaud, F., Williamson, D., Martel, H., Kawata, D., & Ellison, S. L. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3722

    2017

  67. [75]

    & Elmegreen, B

    Saha, K. & Elmegreen, B. 2018, ApJ, 858, 24

    2018

  68. [76]

    M., Charlot, S., et al

    Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 267

    2007

  69. [77]

    2007, MNRAS, 382, 1415

    Schawinski, K., Thomas, D., Sarzi, M., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1415

    2007

  70. [78]

    Scholz, F. W., . S. M. A. 1987, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(399), 918–924

    1987

  71. [79]

    Sellwood, J. A. 2014, Reviews of Modern Physics, 86, 1

    2014

  72. [80]

    C., & Frank, J

    Shlosman, I., Begelman, M. C., & Frank, J. 1990, Nature, 345, 679

    1990

  73. [81]

    & Rees, M

    Silk, J. & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1

    1998

  74. [82]

    A., Martins, L

    Silva-Lima, L. A., Martins, L. P., Coelho, P. R. T., & Gadotti, D. A. 2022, A&A, 661, A105

    2022

  75. [83]

    A., Masters, K

    Skibba, R. A., Masters, K. L., Nichol, R. C., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1485

    2012

  76. [84]

    J., Lintott, C

    Smethurst, R. J., Lintott, C. J., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2986

    2016

  77. [85]

    R., et al

    Strateva, I., Ivezi´c, Ž., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 1861

    2001

  78. [86]

    A., Weinberg, D

    Strauss, M. A., Weinberg, D. H., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1810

    2002

  79. [87]

    2002, ApJ, 574, 740

    Tremaine, S., Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740

    2002

  80. [88]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

    2004

  81. [89]

    & Osterbrock, D

    Veilleux, S. & Osterbrock, D. E. 1987, ApJS, 63, 295

    1987

  82. [90]

    2016, A&A, 595, A63

    Vera, M., Alonso, S., & Coldwell, G. 2016, A&A, 595, A63

    2016

  83. [91]

    2007, A&A, 474, 43

    Verley, S., Combes, F., Verdes-Montenegro, L., Bergond, G., & Leon, S. 2007, A&A, 474, 43

    2007

  84. [92]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 3966

    Walmsley, M., Lintott, C., Géron, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3966

    2022

  85. [93]

    W., Lintott, C

    Willett, K. W., Lintott, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2835

    2013

  86. [94]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579

    2000

  87. [95]

    & King, A

    Zubovas, K. & King, A. R. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 400 Article number, page 12 of 12

    2014

Pith tools

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