Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 84 references

AGN contribution on the morphological parameters of their host galaxies up to intermediate redshifts of z~2

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in COSMOS-like conditions up to $z\sim2$, the four concentration-type morphological parameters change significantly when the AGN contributes more than 25% of the total light and the galaxy is fainter than…

desk verdict Useful z~2 extension of the AGN-morphology calibration grid, but the PSF handling in the simulation needs to be verified before trusting the quantitative thresholds. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22453 v1 pith:2KTHOCWS submitted 2025-07-30 astro-ph.GA

Tilahun Getachew-Woreta , Mirjana Pović , Jaime Perea , Isabel Marquez , Josefa Masegosa , Antoine Mahoro , Shimeles Terefe Mengistue This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Galaxies:high-redshiftformationfundamentalparametersnucleievolutionAGNhostgalaxiesmorphologicalclassificationnon-parametricmorphology
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

This paper tries to establish how much an active galactic nucleus contaminates the six non-parametric morphological measurements used to classify galaxies, and where the practical limits lie when observing galaxies out to $z\sim2$ in a deep survey like COSMOS. It simulates adding an AGN point source contributing 5% to 75% of the total light to thousands of local galaxies with known visual morphology, then moves them to the magnitudes and redshifts of COSMOS. The central finding is that the concentration parameters change significantly when the AGN contributes more than 25% and the galaxy is fainter than $F814W\sim23$, and that the Gini coefficient is the most stable parameter throughout, followed by M20, CCON, and CABR. If true, this gives survey designers and morphology users a degradation map: which parameters and diagram combinations can be trusted, up to which depth and AGN fraction.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a simulation pipeline that takes 2251 local non-AGN galaxies with visual T-type classifications, injects a PSF-convolved AGN point source contributing 5% to 75% of total flux at the galaxy centre, rescales the images to match the magnitude and redshift distributions of five COSMOS F814W-limited samples ($F814W<21$, $22$, $23$, $24$, $25$), and drops them into real COSMOS background images to reproduce depth and resolution. The six parameters are measured with the galSVM code, and the effect is quantified by the variance statistic $\mathrm{Var}[\%]$, the average absolute relative change per galaxy, with a change of $\ge 20\%$ taken as significant.

What would settle it

Measure the same six parameters on real, well-resolved AGN host galaxies at $z\sim1$--$2$ with independently known AGN fractions (for example from spectral decomposition or X-ray luminosity) and check whether the Gini coefficient stays below 20% variance for AGN fractions up to 75% and whether the concentration parameters cross the 20% threshold at AGN fraction about 25% and magnitude about 23.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that when an unresolved AGN contributes more than 25% of a galaxy's total light and the galaxy is observed at $F814W>23$ ($z>1$), the four commonly used concentration parameters---CABR, CCON, GINI, and M20---shift by more than 20% relative to the uncontaminated local values. Among these, the Gini coefficient is the most stable under both AGN contamination and magnitude/redshift degradation, followed by M20, then CCON, then CABR, the last being the most sensitive to central light. The paper also claims that the most reliable two-dimensional diagnostics for classifying active galaxies at high redshift are the CABR-versus-CCON and CABR-versus-ASYM diagrams, while GINI-versus-M20 fails to separate morphological types under these conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume that local $z\sim0$ galaxies are faithful structural templates for galaxies at $z\sim2$, so the intrinsic light distribution of high-redshift galaxies does not evolve in ways the simulation does not include.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Survey users should treat morphology measurements of AGN hosts at $F814W>23$ with AGN fraction above 25% as unreliable, especially for spiral galaxies.
  • The Gini coefficient can be used up to $z\sim2$ with low variance even at high AGN fractions, making it a suitable primary classifier for active galaxies in deep fields.
  • CABR versus CCON and CABR versus ASYM diagrams separate early- and late-type galaxies up to $F814W<22$ and AGN fractions of 25% or less, while GINI versus M20 is not recommended for active galaxies.
  • The AGN effect dominates the magnitude/redshift effect when the AGN contributes at least 50% of the light, so nuclear contamination sets the practical depth limit for morphology measurements.
  • Late spirals are the most affected morphological class, so high-redshift studies of star-forming AGN hosts need extra caution when interpreting morphological parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The local-template assumption implies the derived thresholds give a conservative picture if real $z\sim2$ galaxies are intrinsically clumpier or more irregular than local galaxies; in that case, the magnitude where parameters change could be brighter than $F814W\sim23$.
  • The stability ranking suggests a practical selection strategy for deep surveys: use GINI as the primary parameter, M20 as a secondary check, and avoid SMOOTH entirely because it is measurable for only a small fraction of sources.
  • The variance metric is an average absolute relative change, which can overstate instability for parameters with values near zero, so testing ASYM and SMOOTH with an absolute-difference or signal-to-noise-based metric could change their ranking.
  • Running the same simulation on JWST/NIRCam images rather than HST/ACS F814W would test whether the 25% and $F814W\sim23$ thresholds hold at longer wavelengths and higher resolution, where high-redshift morphology is now routinely measured.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a simulation study of how unresolved AGN light affects six non-parametric morphological parameters (CABR, GINI, CCON, M20, ASYM, SMOOTH) for galaxies observed in conditions mimicking the COSMOS survey up to z~2. Starting from 2251 local non-AGN SDSS galaxies with visual morphological classifications, the authors add AGN point sources contributing 5-75% of total flux, redshift and dim the galaxies to five magnitude/redshift limits matching COSMOS, insert them into real COSMOS backgrounds, and measure the parameters with galSVM. Changes are quantified by a mean absolute relative deviation (called variance) with a 20% significance threshold. The main results are that combined magnitude/redshift/AGN effects have the largest impact; spiral galaxies are more affected than early types; GINI is the most stable parameter, followed by M20, CCON and CABR; significant changes in concentration parameters typically occur for AGN contributions above 25% and magnitudes above 23; and the CABR-CCON and CABR-ASYM diagrams are the most effective for classifying AGN hosts.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper would give survey users a quantitative guide to which morphological parameters and diagram combinations can be trusted under AGN contamination and survey depth/resolution effects up to z~2. The experimental design is a strength: the simulations are described carefully, with rest-frame band matching to reduce K-correction effects, real COSMOS backgrounds for noise, and a full grid of five magnitude/redshift limits and five AGN fractions. The ranking of parameter stability is a useful, falsifiable output. However, the significance is conditional on the fidelity of the simulations to real COSMOS observations; the PSF calibration and the use of purely local structural templates are the main uncertainties. The paper also overstates the universality of its 'all concentration parameters' conclusion, since GINI remains stable for early-type galaxies in the authors' own measurements.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and 3.2] The simulations are labeled 'COSMOS-like,' but the galaxies are convolved with 'their point spread function (PSF) obtained from the SDSS survey' (Section 3.1), and the AGN is modeled with an SDSS Moffat PSF (Section 3.2). The target data are HST/ACS F814W images with a PSF of about 0.09 arcsec FWHM, whereas the SDSS PSF is about 1.4 arcsec FWHM. After rebinning to 0.03 arcsec/pix, convolving with the SDSS PSF leaves the simulated images at ground-based seeing rather than HST resolution. Because all six parameters are non-parametric light-distribution measures, the reported thresholds (AGN contribution >25%, mag>23) and the stability ranking (GINI > M20 > CCON > CABR) are sensitive to PSF size; a broad PSF smears the unresolved AGN and dilutes the central light excess, potentially miscalibrating the AGN effect and shifting the magnitude boundary. The authors should either re-run the simulations with the appropriate ACS PSF or demonstrate quantitatively that the conclusions are unchanged with a narrower PSF; otherwise, the external claim of 'COSMOS-like conditions' is not supported.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Section 5] The only structural templates are local z~0 galaxies, randomly scaled in brightness to match the COSMOS magnitude and redshift distributions (Section 3.1). This assumes no evolution in the intrinsic light distribution of galaxies: no compactness evolution, no clumpy star-forming structures, and no increasing irregularity fraction. The paper does not validate this assumption against observed high-redshift galaxies. If real z~2 galaxies are structurally different, the per-parameter variances and the thresholds would shift in actual COSMOS data. The authors should add a validation test using observed high-redshift galaxies (e.g., from COSMOS or CANDELS) or clearly restrict the conclusions to 'local templates observed at higher redshift' and temper the claims about COSMOS-like conditions at z~2.
  3. [Abstract and Section 6] The statement in Section 6 that 'all four concentration parameters will undergo significant changes of >20% for >25% of the added AGN' and the abstract's 'all the concentration parameters change significantly if the AGN contribution is >25%' are contradicted by the authors' own measurements for GINI in early-type galaxies. Appendix A2 shows Var<20% for GINI in early types at all magnitude limits even at 75% AGN, and Section 4.3 states GINI shows 'variance of <20% in almost all cases, regardless of morphological type.' The universal claim should be qualified by morphological type and parameter, or the threshold should be revised; as written, this is an internal inconsistency in the paper's central claim.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eq. (1)] The variance values in Eq. (1) are point estimates of mean absolute relative deviation, but the paper provides no uncertainties (e.g., bootstrap or jackknife) for these values or for the derived parameter ranking. The ranking GINI > M20 > CCON > CABR is based on point estimates; in the total sample at 25% AGN, CABR (42%) and GINI (41%) are nearly identical (Appendices A1 and A2), so the ordering is not clearly significant without error bars. The authors should provide confidence intervals or a significance test for the ranking and for the 20% threshold crossings, or at least demonstrate that the ordering is stable across subsets and bootstrap resamples.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'moved all the galaxies to lower magnitudes (higher redshifts)' should be 'fainter magnitudes (higher redshifts)' to avoid confusion with the magnitude scale.
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The caption contains the typo 'mag_hzmag_hz < 24'; it should read 'mag_hz < 24'.
  3. [References] Reference [60] is cited as the source for the AB magnitude system, but the AB system is defined by Oke and Gunn (1983); Parekh et al. (2015) is not the standard reference for this definition.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The quantity in Eq. (1) is called 'variance' but is actually a mean absolute relative deviation; consider renaming it to avoid confusion with the statistical variance.
  5. [Section 4.1] In the CABR bullet, the sentence 'the variance in the parameter is significant in all magnitude and redshift conditions when the contribution of the AGN is equal to or larger than 25%, 50%, and 75%, respectively' is ambiguous; please specify which morphological types correspond to which threshold.
  6. [Header] The received/revised dates contain the typo '22 July 202'; it should be '22 July 2025'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stability ranking and variance thresholds are measured outputs of a controlled simulation, not quantities fitted from or defined by the inputs.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain and found no step in which a predicted result reduces by construction to an input. The six morphological parameters (CABR, GINI, CCON, M20, ASYM, SMOOTH) are standard external definitions, and the paper measures them on images that were generated by scaling local galaxies in brightness, adding unresolved AGN contributions, and dropping the result into real COSMOS backgrounds. The headline quantities — the variance values, the "AGN > 25% and magnitude > 23" thresholds, and the ranking GINI > M20 > CCON > CABR — are emergent outputs of the variance statistic in Eq. 1, not fitted parameters or predetermined labels. No parameter is fit to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction. The paper does rely on the authors' previous works [37,38] for the local sample, parameter definitions, the z~0 baseline, and the methodological framework, and on [31] for the galSVM code; however, these are the experimental apparatus rather than the conclusion. The high-redshift variance measurements are newly computed in this paper, and the z~2 ranking is not imported from [38]. The most serious caveat is external validity, not circularity: Section 3.1 states that the simulated galaxies were "convolved with their point spread function (PSF) obtained from the SDSS survey," whereas the advertised COSMOS-like conditions correspond to HST/ACS F814W imaging; if the SDSS PSF was not replaced by the ACS PSF, the resolution of the simulated images may not match the real COSMOS survey, which would affect the numerical thresholds and ranking. Similarly, the use of z~0 galaxies as structural templates assumes limited morphological evolution to z~2. Both issues concern whether the simulation faithfully represents COSMOS, not whether the derivation is circular. I therefore find no significant circularity, with the score reflecting only the paper's heavy but non-load-bearing reliance on the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three hand-chosen design quantities (AGN fraction grid, magnitude limits, significance threshold), on standard domain assumptions (local templates for high-z structure, visual T-types as ground truth, BPT selection of non-AGN, Moffat PSF for the AGN), and on the stated cosmology. None of these are fitted to the target result, so the circularity burden stays low, but the quantitative thresholds should be read as conditional on this specific simulation design.

free parameters (3)
  • AGN fraction grid = 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% of total flux
    Hand-chosen grid of AGN contributions intended to cover type-1 and type-2 AGN, justified by literature values (5-80% locally, [70]; 20-70% at z>4, [71]). Not fitted, but the central threshold claim "significant above 25%" is only as fine as this grid spacing.
  • Magnitude/redshift limits = F814W <= 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    Five hand-chosen cuts to map COSMOS-like conditions. The claim "significant effects at magnitude > 23" is a direct function of this grid, so the threshold is quantized to the grid points.
  • Significance threshold = Var >= 20%
    Threshold adopted from prior works [38,53] to declare a parameter "significantly affected". This scalar underlies all qualitative statements about where parameters break.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Local z~0 galaxies, resampled to COSMOS resolution and depth, are representative templates for z~2 galaxies
    Section 3.1: galaxies are flux-scaled and re-sampled to simulate high redshift. No validation against a real high-z sample; if intrinsic structure evolves, the quantitative thresholds shift.
  • standard math Standard flat LCDM cosmology (Omega_L=0.7, Omega_M=0.3, H0=70)
    Stated in the Introduction; used only for distance and scale conversions.
  • domain assumption Nair and Abraham (2010) visual T-types are ground truth for morphology
    The local sample classification is taken from this catalog (Section 2); errors in visual classification propagate to all type-dependent claims.
  • domain assumption BPT-NII diagnostics correctly identify non-AGN galaxies
    Section 2: galaxies selected as non-AGN using BPT-NII from MPA-JHU SDSS DR7. AGN contamination in the "non-active" baseline would bias all comparisons.
  • domain assumption An unresolved Moffat PSF point source adequately models an AGN
    Section 3.2: AGN simulated by adding a PSF-convolved point source using the Moffat function. Real AGN have extended narrow-line regions, jets, and host dust attenuation, which could change the measured parameter response.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AGN contribution on the morphological parameters of their host galaxies up to intermediate redshifts of z~2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KTHOCWS

@misc{pith2026250722453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AGN contribution on the morphological parameters of their host galaxies up to intermediate redshifts of z~2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KTHOCWS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22453}
}
read the original abstract

The presence of Active Galaxy Nuclei (AGN) can affect the morphological classification of galaxies. This work aims to determine how the contribution of AGN affects the most used morphological parameters down to the redshift of z~2 in COSMOS-like conditions. We use a sample of > 2000 local non-active galaxies, with a well-known visual morphological classification, and add an AGN as an unresolved component that contributes to the total galaxy flux with 5%-75%. We moved all the galaxies to lower magnitudes (higher redshifts) to map the conditions in the COSMOS field, and we measured six morphological parameters. The greatest impact on morphology occurs when considering the combined effect of magnitude, redshift and AGN, with spiral galaxies being the most affected. In general, all the concentration parameters change significantly if the AGN contribution is > 25% and the magnitude > 23. We find that the GINI coefficient is the most stable in terms of AGN and magnitude/redshift, followed by the M20, Conselice-Bershady (CCON), and finally the Abraham (CABR) concentration indexes. We find that, when using morphological parameters, the combination of CABR, CCON and asymmetry is the most effective in classifying active galaxies at high-redshift, followed by the combination of CABR and GINI.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22453 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: The g-band magnitude (left) and redshift (right) distributions for the selected sample of non-active local galaxies. Bottom: The F814W magnitude (left) and redshift (right) of the used COSMOS sample. 3. Methodology Non-parametric methods of morphological classification have been widely used to separate galaxies with different structures, especially when dealing with large datasets and faint sources at higher re… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The simulated magnitude (left plot per magnitude limit) and redshift (right plot per magnitude limit) distributions of the non-AGN local galaxies after moving them to higher redshift to represent the distribution of galaxies in the COSMOS field at F814W ≤ 21 (top left plots), F814W ≤ 22 (top right plots), F814W ≤ 23 (middle left plots), F814W ≤ 24 (middle right plots), and F814W ≤ 25 (bottom plots). All additional i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Summary of analysis and comparisons carried out in Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. 4.1. Impact of magnitude, redshift, and AGN on morphological parameters In this section, we want to analyse how the morphological classification of galaxies can be affected by the magnitude, redshift, and AGN contribution, when all are combined and when non-parametric methods are used. To do so, we analysed the impact of the magnitude, re… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Change (Var) in CABR, GINI, CCON, and M20 parameters (from top to bottom) when comparing the original sample at z ∼ 0 with no AGN added and the simulated sample at COSMOS￾like conditions without AGN and with five AGN contributions added from 5% to 75% (from left to rig…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relation between CABR and CCON morphological parameters for a simulated sample moved to fainter magnitudes of mag_hz < 21 (a), mag_hz < 22 (b), mag_hz < 23 (c), mag_hz < 24 (d), and mag_hz < 25 (e). For each panel a - e, we present the distribution of early-type (red c…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A morphological study of galaxies in ZwCl0024+1652, a galaxy cluster at redshift z ∼ 0.4

    Beyoro-Amado, Z.; Povi´ c, M.; Sánchez-Portal, M.; Tessema, S.B.; Bongiovanni, A.; Cepa, J.; Cervi ´ no, M.; González-Serrano, J.I.; Nadolny, J.; Pérez Garcia, A.M.; et al. A morphological study of galaxies in ZwCl0024+1652, a galaxy cluster at redshift z ∼ 0.4. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2019, 485, 1528

    2019

  2. [2]

    The evolution of galaxy structure over cosmic time

    Conselice, C.J. The evolution of galaxy structure over cosmic time. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2014, 52, 291–337

    2014

  3. [3]

    Coincidence between morphology and star formation activity through cosmic time: The impact of the bulge growth

    Dimauro, P .; Daddi, E.; Shankar, F.; Cattaneo, A.; Huertas-Company, M.; Bernardi, M.; Caro, F.; Dupke, R.; Häußler, B.; Johnston, E.; et al. Coincidence between morphology and star formation activity through cosmic time: The impact of the bulge growth. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2022, 513, 256–281

    2022

  4. [4]

    Active Galactic Nucleus Host Galaxy Morphologies in COSMOS.Astrophys

    Gabor, J.M.; Impey, C.D.; Jahnke, K.; Simmons, B.D.; Trump, J.R.; Koekemoer, A.M.; Brusa, M.; Cappelluti, N.; Schinnerer, E.; Smolˇ ci´ c, V .; et al. Active Galactic Nucleus Host Galaxy Morphologies in COSMOS.Astrophys. J. 2009, 691, 705–722

    2009

  5. [5]

    Morphology-density relation, quenching, and mergers in CARLA clusters and protoclusters at 1.4 < z < 2.8

    Mei, S.; Hatch, N.A.; Amodeo, S.; Afanasiev, A.V .; De Breuck, C.; Stern, D.; Cooke, E.A.; Gonzalez, A.H.; Noirot, G.; Rettura, A.; et al. Morphology-density relation, quenching, and mergers in CARLA clusters and protoclusters at 1.4 < z < 2.8. Astron. Astrophys. 2023, 670, A58

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    OTELO Survey: Deep BVRI Broadband Photometry of the Groth Strip

    Povi´ c, M.; Sánchez-Portal, M.; Pérez García, A.M.; Bongiovanni, A.; Cepa, J.; Alfaro, E.; Castaneda, H.; Lorenzo, M.F.; Gallego, J.; González-Serrano, J.I.; et al. OTELO Survey: Deep BVRI Broadband Photometry of the Groth Strip. II. Optical Properties of X-Ray Emitters. Astrophys. J. 2009, 706, 810

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    On the Anticorrelation Between Galaxy Light Concentration and X-ray-to-Optical Flux Ratio

    Povi´ c, M.; Sánchez-Portal, M.; Pérez García, A.M.; Bongiovanni, A.; Cepa, J.; Lorenzo, M.F.; Lara-López, M.A.; González-Serrano, J.I.; Alfaro, E.J. On the Anticorrelation Between Galaxy Light Concentration and X-ray-to-Optical Flux Ratio. Astrophys. J. 2009, 702, L51

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Aguerri, J

    Povi´ c, M.; Huertas-Company, M. ; Aguerri, J. A. L.; Márquez, I.; Masegosa, J.; Husillos, C.; Molino, A.; Cristóbal-Hornillos, D.; Perea, J.; Benítez, N.; et al. The ALHAMBRA survey: Reliable morphological catalogue of 22 051 early- and late-type galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2013, 435, 3444–3461

    work page 2013

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    X-ray luminosity functions of different morphological and X-ray type AGN populations

    Povi´ c, M.; Pérez García, A.M.; Sánchez-Portal, M.; Bongiovanni, A.; Cepa, J.; Lorenzo, M.F.; Lara-López, M.A.; Gallego, J.; Ederoclite, A.; Márquez, I.; et al. X-ray luminosity functions of different morphological and X-ray type AGN populations. Astron. Nachrichten 2013, 334...

    2013

  2. [10]

    Galaxy Zoo: Morphologies derived from visual inspection of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

    Lintott, C.J.; Schawinski, K.; Slosar, A.; Land, K.; Bamford, S.; Thomas, D.; Raddick, M.J.; Nichol, R.C.; Szalay, A.; Andreescu, D.; et al. Galaxy Zoo: Morphologies derived from visual inspection of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2008, 3...

    2008

  3. [11]

    Galaxy Morphology

    Buta, R.J. Galaxy Morphology. In Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems ; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 1–89

    2013

  4. [12]

    Star formation in far-IR AGN and non-AGN galaxies in the green valley-II

    Mahoro, A.; Povi´ c, M.; Nkundabakura, P .; Nyiransengiyumva, B.; Väisänen, P . Star formation in far-IR AGN and non-AGN galaxies in the green valley-II. Morphological analysis. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2019, 485, 452–463

    2019

  5. [13]

    A catalog of detailed visual morphological classifications for 14,034 galaxies in the sloan digital sky survey

    Nair, P .B.; Abraham, R.G. A catalog of detailed visual morphological classifications for 14,034 galaxies in the sloan digital sky survey. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2010, 186, 427–456

    2010

  6. [14]

    Galaxy Zoo: Quantitative visual morphological classifications for 48,000 galaxies from CANDELS

    Simmons, B.D.; Lintott, C.; Willett, K.W.; Masters, K.L.; Kartaltepe, J.S.; Häußler, B.; Kaviraj, S.; Krawczyk, C.; Kruk, S.J.; McIntosh, D.H.; et al. Galaxy Zoo: Quantitative visual morphological classifications for 48,000 galaxies from CANDELS. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2017...

    2017

  7. [15]

    Galaxy Zoo: Morphological classifications for 120, 000 galaxies in HST legacy imaging

    Willett, K.W.; Galloway, M.A.; Bamford, S.P .; Lintott, C.J.; Masters, K.L.; Scarlata, C.; Simmons, B.D.; Beck, M.; Cardamone, C.N.; Cheung, E.; et al. Galaxy Zoo: Morphological classifications for 120, 000 galaxies in HST legacy imaging. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2017, 464, 4176–4203

    2017

  8. [16]

    Catalogue with visual morphological classification of 32,616 radio galaxies with optical hosts

    Zywucka, N.; Koziel Wierzbowska, D.; Goyal, A. Catalogue with visual morphological classification of 32,616 radio galaxies with optical hosts. Proc. Int. Astron. Union 2021, 356, 361–363

    2021

  9. [17]

    A New Tool for Image Analysis Based on Chebyshev Rational Functions: CHEF Functions.Astrophys

    Jiménez-Teja, Y.; Benítez, N. A New Tool for Image Analysis Based on Chebyshev Rational Functions: CHEF Functions.Astrophys. J. 2012, 745, 150

    2012

  10. [18]

    The OTELO survey as a morphological probe

    Nadolny, J.; Bongiovanni, Á.; Cepa, J.; Cerviño, M.; García, A.M.P .; Povi´ c, M.; Martínez, R.P .; Sánchez-Portal, M.; de Diego, J.A.; Pintos-Castro, I.; et al. The OTELO survey as a morphological probe. Last ten Gyr of galaxy evolution. The mass-size relation up to z = 2. As...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Detailed Structural Decomposition of Galaxy Images.Astrophys

    Peng, C.Y.; Ho, L.C.; Impey, C.D.; Rix, H.-W. Detailed Structural Decomposition of Galaxy Images.Astrophys. J. 2002, 124, 266–293

    2002

  12. [20]

    Detailed Decomposition of Galaxy Images

    Peng, C.Y.; Ho, L.C.; Impey, C.D.; Rix, H.-W. Detailed Decomposition of Galaxy Images. II. Beyond Axisymmetric Models. Astron. J. 2010, 139, 2097–2129

    2010

  13. [21]

    The southern barred spiral NGC 2442

    Sersic J.L. The southern barred spiral NGC 2442. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 1993, 98, 21–27. Galaxies 2025, 1, 0 42 of 44

    1993

  14. [22]

    A Catalog of Bulge+disk Decompositions and Updated Photometry for 1.12 Million Galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

    Simard, L.; Mendel, J.T.; Patton, D.R.; Ellison, S.L.; McConnachie, A.W. A Catalog of Bulge+disk Decompositions and Updated Photometry for 1.12 Million Galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2011, 196, 11

    2011

  15. [23]

    Diagnosing DASH: A catalogue of structural properties for the COSMOS-DASH survey

    Cutler, S.E.; Whitaker, K.E.; Mowla, L.A.; Brammer, G.B.; van der Wel, A.; Marchesini, D.; van Dokkum, P .G.; Momcheva, I.G.; Song, M.; Akhshik, M.; et al. Diagnosing DASH: A catalogue of structural properties for the COSMOS-DASH survey. Astrophys. J. 2022, 925, 34

    2022

  16. [24]

    MegaMorph multi-wavelength measurement of galaxy structure: Physically meaningful bulge-disc decomposition of galaxies near and far

    Vika, M.; Bamford, S.P .; Häußler, B.; Rojas, A.L. MegaMorph multi-wavelength measurement of galaxy structure: Physically meaningful bulge-disc decomposition of galaxies near and far. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2014, 444, 3603–3621

    2014

  17. [25]

    Galaxies decomposition with spiral arms-I: 29 galaxies from S4G.Mon

    Chugunov, I.V .; Marchuk, A.A; Mosenkov, A.V .; Savchenko, S.S.; Shishkina, E.V .; I Chazov, M.; E Nazarova, A.; Skryabina, M.N.; Smirnova, P .I.; A Smirnov, A. Galaxies decomposition with spiral arms-I: 29 galaxies from S4G.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2024, 527, 9605

    2024

  18. [26]

    Galaxies decomposition with spiral arms-II

    Marchuk, A.A.; Chugunov, I.V .; Gontcharov, G.A.; Mosenkov, A.V .; Il’in, V .B.; Savchenko, S.S.; Smirnov, A.A.; Poliakov, D.M.; Seguine, J.; Chazov, M.I. Galaxies decomposition with spiral arms-II. A multiwavelength case study of M51. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2024, 528, 1276–1295

    2024

  19. [27]

    The Morphologies of Distant Galaxies

    Abraham, R.G.; Bergh, S.; Glazebrook, K.; Ellis, R.S.; Santiago, B.X.; Surma, P .; Griffiths, R.E. The Morphologies of Distant Galaxies. II. Classifications from the Hubble Space Telescope Medium Deep Survey. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 1996, 107, 1

    1996

  20. [28]

    The Morphologies of Distant Galaxies

    Abraham, R.G.; Valdes, F.; Yee, H.K.C.; van den Bergh, S. The Morphologies of Distant Galaxies. I. an Automated Classification System. Astrophys. J. 1994, 432, 75

    1994

  21. [29]

    A Direct Measurement of Major Galaxy Mergers at z ≤ 3

    Conselice, C.J.; Bershady M.A.; Dickinson, M.; Papovich, C. A Direct Measurement of Major Galaxy Mergers at z ≤ 3. Astron. J. 2003, 126, 1183

    2003

  22. [30]

    The asymmetry of galaxies: Physical morphology for nearby and high-redshift galaxies

    Conselice, C.J.; Bershady, M.A.; Jangren A. The asymmetry of galaxies: Physical morphology for nearby and high-redshift galaxies. Astrophys. J. 2000, 529, 886–910

    2000

  23. [31]

    A robust morphological classification of high-redshift galaxies using support vector machines on seeing-limited images

    Huertas-Company, M.; Rouan, D.; Tasca, L.; Soucail, G.; Le Fèvre, O. A robust morphological classification of high-redshift galaxies using support vector machines on seeing-limited images. I. Method description. Astron. Astrophys. 2008, 478, 971–980

    2008

  24. [32]

    Automating galaxy morphology classification using k-nearest neighbours and non- parametric statistics

    Mukundan, K.; Nair, P .; Bailin, J.; Li, W. Automating galaxy morphology classification using k-nearest neighbours and non- parametric statistics. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2024, 533, 292–312

    2024

  25. [33]

    Non-parametric galaxy morphology from stellar and nebular emission with the CALIFA sample

    Nersesian, A.; Zibetti, S.; D’eUgenio, F.; Baes, M. Non-parametric galaxy morphology from stellar and nebular emission with the CALIFA sample. Astron. Astrophys. 2023, 673, A63

    2023

  26. [34]

    A new approach to galaxy morphology

    Abraham, R.G.; van den Bergh, S.; Nair, P . A new approach to galaxy morphology. I. Analysis of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey early data release. Astrophys. J. 2003, 588, 218

    2003

  27. [35]

    A New Nonparametric Approach to Galaxy Morphological Classification.Astron

    Lotz, J.M.; Primack, J.; Madau, P . A New Nonparametric Approach to Galaxy Morphological Classification.Astron. J. 2004, 128, 163–182

    2004

  28. [36]

    Structural and photometric classification of galaxies

    Bershady M.A.; Jangren A.; Conselice, C.J. Structural and photometric classification of galaxies. I. Calibration based on a nearby galaxy sample, Astron. J. 2000, 119, 2645

    2000

  29. [37]

    Povi´ c, M.; Márquez, I.; Masegosa, J.; Perea, J.; Olmo, A.; Simpson, C.; Aguerri, J.A.L.; Ascaso, B.; Jiménez-Teja, Y.; López-Sanjuan, C.; et al, The impact from survey depth and resolution on the morphological classification of galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2015, 453, ...

    2015

  30. [38]

    Effect of AGN on the morphological properties of their host galaxies in the local Universe

    Getachew-Woreta, T.; Povi´ c, M.; Masegosa, J.; Perea, J.; Beyoro-Amado, Z.; Márquez, I. Effect of AGN on the morphological properties of their host galaxies in the local Universe. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2022, 514, 607

    2022

  31. [39]

    Multi-wavelength landscape of the young galaxy cluster RXJ 1257.2+4738 at z = 0.866

    Pintos-Castro, I.; Povi´ c, M.; Sanchez-Portal, M.I.; Cepa, J.; Altieri, B.; Bongiovanni, Á.; Duc, P .A.; Ederoclite, A.; Oteo, I.; García, A.M.P .; et al. Multi-wavelength landscape of the young galaxy cluster RXJ 1257.2+4738 at z = 0.866. II. Morphological properties. Astron...

    2016

  32. [40]

    AGN-host galaxy connection: Morphology and colours of X-ray selected AGN at z ≤ 2

    Povi´ c, M.; Sánchez-Portal, M.; Pérez García, A.M.; Bongiovanni, A.; Cepa, J.; Huertas-Company, M.; Lara-López, M.A.; Lorenzo, M.F.; Ederoclite, A.; Alfaro, E.; et al. AGN-host galaxy connection: Morphology and colours of X-ray selected AGN at z ≤ 2. Astron. Astrophys. 2012, ...

    2012

  33. [41]

    MEGS: Morphological Evaluation of Galactic Structure-Principal component analysis as a galaxy morphology model

    Çakir, U.; Buck, T. MEGS: Morphological Evaluation of Galactic Structure-Principal component analysis as a galaxy morphology model. Astron. Astrophys. 2024, 691, 320

    2024

  34. [42]

    Morphological classification of galaxies with deep learning: Comparing 3-way and 4-way CNNs

    Cavanagh, M.K.; Bekki, K.; Groves, B.A. Morphological classification of galaxies with deep learning: Comparing 3-way and 4-way CNNs. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2021, 506, 659–676

    2021

  35. [43]

    Compact Bright Radio-loud AGNs

    Cheng, X.-P .; An, T.; Frey, S.; Hong, X.Y.; He, X.; Kellermann, K.I.; Lister, M.L.; Lao, B.Q.; Li, X.F.; Mohan, P .; et al. Compact Bright Radio-loud AGNs. III. A Large VLBA Survey at 43 GHz. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2020, 247, 57

    2020

  36. [44]

    Galaxy classification: Deep learning on the OTELO and COSMOS databases.Astron

    de Diego, J.A.; Nadolny, J.; Bongiovanni, Á.; Cepa, J.; Povi´ c, M.; García, A.M.P .; Torres, C.P .P .; Lara-López, M.A.; Cerviño, M.; Martínez, R.P .; et al. Galaxy classification: Deep learning on the OTELO and COSMOS databases.Astron. Astrophys. 2020, 638, 134. Galaxies 202...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Nonsequential neural network for simultaneous, consistent classification, and photometric redshifts of OTELO galaxies

    de Diego, J.A.; Nadolny, J.; Bongiovanni, Á.; Cepa, J.; Lara-López, M.A.; Gallego, J.; Cerviño, M.; Sánchez-Portal, M.; González- Serrano, J.I.; Alfaro, E.J.; et al. Nonsequential neural network for simultaneous, consistent classification, and photometric redshifts of OTELO ga...

    2021

  38. [46]

    SDSS-IV DR17: Final release of MaNGA PyMorph photometric and deep-learning morphological catalogues

    Domínguez Sánchez, H.; Margalef, B.; Bernardi, M.; Huertas-Company, M. SDSS-IV DR17: Final release of MaNGA PyMorph photometric and deep-learning morphological catalogues. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2022, 509, 4024–4036

    2022

  39. [47]

    Galaxy morphological classification in deep-wide surveys via unsupervised machine learning

    Martin, G.; Kaviraj, S.; Hocking, A.; Read, S.C.; Geach, J.E. Galaxy morphological classification in deep-wide surveys via unsupervised machine learning.. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2020, 491, 1408–1426

    2020

  40. [48]

    First tidal disruption events discovered by SRG/eROSITA: X-ray/optical properties and X-ray luminosity function at z < 0.6

    Sazonov, S.; Gilfanov, M.; Medvedev, P .; Yao, Y.; Khorunzhev, G.; Semena, A.; Sunyaev, R.; Burenin, R.; Lyapin, A.; Meshcheryakov, A.; et al. First tidal disruption events discovered by SRG/eROSITA: X-ray/optical properties and X-ray luminosity function at z < 0.6. Astron. As...

    2021

  41. [49]

    The Impact of AGN Feedback on Galaxy Formation: A Multi-Wavelength Study

    Urrutia-Viscarra, F.; Méndez-Abreu, J.; de Souza, R.S.; Smith, A.B.; Johnson, C.D.; Lee, E.F.; Martínez-González, P .; Chen, H.-L.; O’Connell, R.W.; Thompson, K.L.; et al. The Impact of AGN Feedback on Galaxy Formation: A Multi-Wavelength Study. Astrophys. J. 2023, 935, 125–145

    2023

  42. [50]

    Machine learning technique for morphological classification of galaxies from the SDSS

    Vavilova, I.B.; Dobrycheva, D.V .; Vasylenko, M.Y.; Elyiv, A.A.; Melnyk, O.V .; Khramtsov, V . Machine learning technique for morphological classification of galaxies from the SDSS. I. Photometry-based approach. Astron. Astrophys. 2021, 648, A122

    2021

  43. [51]

    HORIZON-AGN simulation: Morphological diversity of galaxies promoted by AGN feedback

    Dubois, Y.; Peirani, S.; Pichon, C.; Devriendt, J.; Gavazzi, R.; Welker, C.; Volonteri, M. HORIZON-AGN simulation: Morphological diversity of galaxies promoted by AGN feedback. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2016, 463, 3948–3964

    2016

  44. [52]

    The host galaxies of active galactic nuclei.Mon

    Kauffmann, G.; Heckman, T.M.; Tremonti, C.; Brinchmann, J.; Charlot, S.; White, S.D.M.; Ridgway, S.E.; Brinkmann, J.; Fukugita, M.; Hall, P .B.; et al. The host galaxies of active galactic nuclei.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2003, 346, 1055–1077

    2003

  45. [53]

    The effects of an active galactic nucleus on host galaxy colour and morphology measurements

    Pierce, C.M.; Lotz, J.M.; Primack, J.R.; Rosario, D.J.V .; Griffith, R.L.; Conselice, C.J.; Faber, S.M.; Koo, D.C.; Coil, A.L.; Salim, S.; et al. The effects of an active galactic nucleus on host galaxy colour and morphology measurements. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2010, 405, 718–734

    2010

  46. [54]

    AEGIS: Host Galaxy Morphologies of X-Ray-selected and Infrared-selected Active Galactic Nuclei at 0.2 ≤z < 1.2

    Pierce, C.M.; Lotz, J.M.; Laird, E.S.; Lin, L.; Nandra, K.; Primack, J.R.; Faber, S.M.; Barmby, P .; Park, S.Q.; Willner, S.P .; et al. AEGIS: Host Galaxy Morphologies of X-Ray-selected and Infrared-selected Active Galactic Nuclei at 0.2 ≤z < 1.2. Astrophys. J. 2007, 660, L19–L22

    2007

  47. [55]

    Environmental Dependence of Active Galactic Nucleus Activity

    Choi, Y.; Woo, J.; Park, C. Environmental Dependence of Active Galactic Nucleus Activity. I. The Effects of Host Galaxy.Astrophys. J. 2009, 699, 1679–1689

    2009

  48. [56]

    Host Galaxies, Clustering, Eddington Ratios, and Evolution of Radio, X-Ray, and Infrared-Selected AGNs

    Hickox, R.C.; Jones, C.; Forman, W.R.; Murray, S.S.; Kochanek, C.S.; Eisenstein, D.; Jannuzi, B.T.; Dey, A.; Brown, M.J.I.; Stern, D.; et al. Host Galaxies, Clustering, Eddington Ratios, and Evolution of Radio, X-Ray, and Infrared-Selected AGNs. Astrophys. J. 2009, 696, 891–919

    2009

  49. [57]

    Dust-corrected colors reveal bimodality in the host-galaxy colors of active galactic nuclei at z ∼ 1

    Cardamone, C.N.; Urry, C.M.; Schawinski, K.; Treister, E.; Brammer, G.; Gawiser, E. Dust-corrected colors reveal bimodality in the host-galaxy colors of active galactic nuclei at z ∼ 1. Astrophys. J. 2010, 721, L38–L42

    2010

  50. [58]

    The biases of optical line-ratio selection for active galactic nuclei and the intrinsic relationship between black hole accretion and galaxy star formation

    Trump, J.R.; Sun, M.; Zeimann, G.R.; Luck, C.; Bridge, J.S.; Grier, C.J.; Hagen, A.; Juneau, S.; Montero-Dorta, A.; Rosario, D.J.; et al. The biases of optical line-ratio selection for active galactic nuclei and the intrinsic relationship between black hole accretion and galax...

    2015

  51. [59]

    Merging Galaxies in COSMOS and Galaxy Evolution

    Scoville, N. Merging Galaxies in COSMOS and Galaxy Evolution. Astron. Astrophys. 2010, 215, 33802

    2010

  52. [60]

    Morphology parameters: substructure identification in X-ray galaxy clusters

    Parekh, V .; Heyden, K.v.; Ferrari, C.; Angus, G.; Holwerda, B. Morphology parameters: substructure identification in X-ray galaxy clusters. Astron. Astrophys. 2015, 575, A127

    2015

  53. [61]

    Classification parameters for the emission-line spectra of extragalactic objects

    Baldwin, J.A.; Phillips, M.M.; Terlevich, R. Classification parameters for the emission-line spectra of extragalactic objects. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 1981, 93, 5

    1981

  54. [62]

    On The Robustness of z = 0-1 Galaxy Size Measurements Through Model and Non-Parametric Fits

    Mosleh, M.; Williams, R.J.; Franx, M. On The Robustness of z = 0-1 Galaxy Size Measurements Through Model and Non-Parametric Fits. Astrophys. J. 2013, 777, 117

    2013

  55. [63]

    The cosmic evolution survey (COSMOS): Overview

    Scoville, N.; Aussel, H.; Brusa, M.; Capak, P .; Carollo, C.M.; Elvis, M.; Giavalisco, M.; Guzzo, L.; Hasinger, G.; Impey, C.; et al. The cosmic evolution survey (COSMOS): Overview. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2007, 172, 1–8

    2007

  56. [64]

    The COSMOS Survey: Hubble Space Telescope Advanced Camera for Surveys Observations and Data Processing

    Koekemoer, A.M.; Aussel, H.; Calzetti, D.; Capak, P .; Giavalisco, M.; Kneib, J.; Leauthaud, A.; Le Fevre, O.; McCracken, H.J.; Massey, R.; et al. The COSMOS Survey: Hubble Space Telescope Advanced Camera for Surveys Observations and Data Processing. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. ...

    2007

  57. [65]

    Weak gravitational lensing with COSMOS: Galaxy selection and shape measurements

    Leauthaud, A.; Massey, R.; Kneib, J.P .; Rhodes, J.; Johnston, D.E.; Capak, P .; Heymans, C.; Ellis, R.S.; Koekemoer, A.M.; Le Fevre, O.; et al. Weak gravitational lensing with COSMOS: Galaxy selection and shape measurements. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2007, 172, 219–238

    2007

  58. [66]

    Cosmos Photometric Redshifts with 30-Bands for 2-deg 2

    Ilbert, O.; Capak, P .; Salvato, M.; Aussel, H.; McCracken, H.J.; Sanders, D.B.; Scoville, N.; Kartaltepe, J.; Arnouts, S.; Floc’h, E.L.; et al. Cosmos Photometric Redshifts with 30-Bands for 2-deg 2. Astrophys. J. 2009, 690, 1236

    2009

  59. [67]

    LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines

    Chang, C.C.; Lin, C.J. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM T rans. Intell. Syst. T echnol. (TIST) 2011, 2, 27

    2011

  60. [68]

    SExtractor: Software for source extraction

    Bertin, E.; Arnouts, S. SExtractor: Software for source extraction. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 1996, 117, 393. Galaxies 2025, 1, 0 44 of 44

    1996

  61. [69]

    A Theoretical Investigation of Focal Stellar Images in the Photographic Emulsion and Application to Photographic Photometry

    Moffat, A.F.J. A Theoretical Investigation of Focal Stellar Images in the Photographic Emulsion and Application to Photographic Photometry. Astron. Astrophys. 1969, 3, 455

    1969

  62. [70]

    AGN populations in the local Universe: Their alignment with the main sequence, stellar population characteristics, accretion efficiency, and the impact of AGN feedback

    Mountrichas, G.; Ruiz, A.; Georgantopoulos, I.; Pouliasis, E.; Akylas, A.; E., E.; Drigga, D. AGN populations in the local Universe: Their alignment with the main sequence, stellar population characteristics, accretion efficiency, and the impact of AGN feedback. Astron. Astrop...

    2024

  63. [71]

    Exploring the AGN Fraction of a Sample of JWST’s Little Red Dots at 5 < z < 8: Overmassive Black Holes Are Strongly Favored

    Durodola, E.; Pacucci, F.; Hickox, R.C. Exploring the AGN Fraction of a Sample of JWST’s Little Red Dots at 5 < z < 8: Overmassive Black Holes Are Strongly Favored. Astrophys. J. 2025, 985, 2

    2025

  64. [72]

    RMS asymmetry: A robust metric of galaxy shapes in images with varied depth and resolution

    Sazonova, E.; Morgan, C.; Balogh, M.; Alatalo, K.; Benavides, J.A.; Bluck, A.; Brough, S.; Busa, I.; Demarco, R.; Donevski, D.; et al. RMS asymmetry: A robust metric of galaxy shapes in images with varied depth and resolution. Open J. Astrophys. 2024, 7, 77

    2024

  65. [73]

    The Relation between Morphological Asymmetry and Nuclear Activity in Low-redshift Galaxies

    Zhao, Y.; Li, Y.A.; Shangguan, J.; Zhuang, M.-Y.; Ho, L.C. The Relation between Morphological Asymmetry and Nuclear Activity in Low-redshift Galaxies. Astrophys. J. 2022, 925, 70

    2022

  66. [74]

    A catalogue of structural and morphological measurements for DES Y1

    Tarsitano, F.; Hartley, W.G.; Amara, A.; Bluck, A.; Bruderer, C.; Carollo, M.; Conselice, C.; Melchior, P .; Moraes, B.; Refregier, A.; et al. A catalogue of structural and morphological measurements for DES Y1. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2018, 481, 2018–2040

    2018

  67. [75]

    Is the Gini Coefficient a Stable Measure of Galaxy Structure?

    Lisker, T. Is the Gini Coefficient a Stable Measure of Galaxy Structure?. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2008, 179, 319–325

    2008

  68. [76]

    Galaxy merger morphologies and time-scales from simulations of equal-mass gas-rich disc mergers

    Lotz, J.M.; Jonsson, P .; Cox, T.J.; Primack, J.R. Galaxy merger morphologies and time-scales from simulations of equal-mass gas-rich disc mergers. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2008, 391, 1137–1162

    2008

  69. [77]

    The Gini Coefficient as a Tool for Image Family Identification in Strong Lensing Systems with Multiple Images

    Florian, M.K.; Gladders, M.D.; Li, N.; Sharon, K. The Gini Coefficient as a Tool for Image Family Identification in Strong Lensing Systems with Multiple Images. Astrophys. J. 2016, 816, L23

    2016

  70. [78]

    Deep GALEX Imaging of the COSMOS HST Field: A First Look at the Morphology of z≤0.7 Star-forming Galaxies

    Zamojski, M.A.; Schiminovich, D.; Rich, R.M.; Mobasher, B.; Koekemoer, A.M.; Capak, P .; Taniguchi, Y.; Sasaki, S.S.; McCracken, H.J.; Mellier, Y.; et al. Deep GALEX Imaging of the COSMOS HST Field: A First Look at the Morphology of z≤0.7 Star-forming Galaxies. Astrophys. J. S...

    2007

  71. [79]

    Morphological classification of galaxies through structural and star formation parameters using machine learning

    Aguilar-Argüello, G.; Fuentes-Pineda, G.; Hern ´ ndez-Toledo, H.M.; Martínez-Vázquez, L.A.; Vázquez-Mata, J.A.; Brough, S.; Demarco, R.; Ghosh, A.; Jiménez-Teja, Y.; Martin, G.; et al. Morphological classification of galaxies through structural and star formation parameters us...

    2025

  72. [80]

    A Comparison of the Morphological Properties between Local andz ∼1 Infrared Luminous Galaxies: Are Local and High-z (U)LIRGs Different? Astrophys

    Hung, C.-L.; Sanders, D.B.; Casey, C.M.; Koss, M.; Larson, K.L.; Lee, N.; Li, Y.; Lockhart, K.; Shih, H.-Y.; Barnes, J.E.; et al. A Comparison of the Morphological Properties between Local andz ∼1 Infrared Luminous Galaxies: Are Local and High-z (U)LIRGs Different? Astrophys. ...

    2014

  73. [81]

    Evolution of Nonparametric Morphology of Galaxies in the JWST CEERS Field at z≃ 0.8–3.0

    Yao, Y.; Song, J.; Kong, X.; Fang, G.; Zhang, H.X.; Chen, X. Evolution of Nonparametric Morphology of Galaxies in the JWST CEERS Field at z≃ 0.8–3.0. Astrophys. J. 2023, 954, 113

    2023

  74. [82]

    Mapping galaxy images across ultraviolet, visible and infrared bands using generative deep learning

    Zaazou, Y.; Bihlo, A.; Tricco, T.S. Mapping galaxy images across ultraviolet, visible and infrared bands using generative deep learning. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2501.15149

    2025 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Asymmetry at low surface brightnesses as an indicator of environmental processes in the Fornax cluster

    Xu, X.; Peletier, R.F.; Awad, P .; Raj, M.A.; Smith, R. Asymmetry at low surface brightnesses as an indicator of environmental processes in the Fornax cluster. Astron. Astrophys. 2025, 695, 219

    2025

  76. [84]

    Central concentration of asymmetric features in post-starburst galaxies at z 0.8

    Himoto, K.G.; Kajisawa, M. Central concentration of asymmetric features in post-starburst galaxies at z 0.8. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2023, 519, 4110–4127. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the ind...

    2023

Pith tools

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