pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.17189 · v1 · pith:5YUVTKGDnew · submitted 2026-06-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Exploring the Relationship Between Bars, Star Formation Activity, and Host Galaxy Properties from z sim 0 to z sim 2

Eden Wise , Shardha Jogee , Yuchen Guo , Steven L. Finkelstein , Micaela B. Bagley , Marc Huertas-Company , Kartheik G. Iyer , Elizabeth J. McGrath
show 15 more authors
Natalia C. Villanueva Tommaso Zana Anton M. Koekemoer Eric F. Bell Jean-Baptiste Billand Yingjie Cheng Alexander de la Vega Elena D'Onghia Tobias G\'eron Mauro Giavalisco Benne W. Holwerda Ray A. Lucas Fabio Pacucci Maxime Tarrasse L. Y. Aaron Yung
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 02:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galactic barsstar formation rategalaxy evolutionredshift evolutionquiescent galaxiesJWSTsecular evolutionbar fraction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bars shift from mostly star-forming disks at high redshift to common in quiescent galaxies with bulges today.

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

This paper follows barred galaxies across 10 billion years using mass-complete samples from JWST surveys. At z~1-2 barred systems show high specific star formation rates and disk-like light profiles, while at z~0 they include many with low star formation and higher central concentrations. The share of all bars that sit in quiescent galaxies climbs steeply toward the present, and the fraction of quiescent galaxies that are barred rises in parallel. A sympathetic reader would care because the pattern points to a possible route by which internal dynamical processes help shut down star formation in galaxies. The authors link the trends to repeated bar-driven gas inflows that first boost central starbursts and later leave gas-poor, bulge-containing systems where bars can persist or strengthen.

Core claim

The fractional contribution of barred quiescent galaxies to the total bar fraction rises steeply from z~2 to z~0 while the contribution from barred star-forming galaxies falls; the fraction of quiescent galaxies hosting bars also increases over the last 10 Gyr. These empirical trends agree with TNG50-1 simulations for bars longer than 1.5 kpc and allow for bar-driven secular evolution that promotes quiescence or for bars that simply survive and grow better in gas-poor hosts.

What carries the argument

The redshift evolution of the bar fraction when split by host star-formation activity (quiescent versus actively star-forming), which isolates the growing dominance of quiescent barred systems.

If this is right

  • Repeated bar-driven inflows can produce central starbursts that deplete gas and move galaxies toward quiescence.
  • Bars become stronger as gas fractions drop and bulges grow.
  • Short, dynamically young bars in gas-rich high-redshift disks can evolve into longer, stronger bars in low-gas systems.
  • Bar-driven secular evolution offers one channel for the observed decline in cosmic star-formation activity over the last 10 Gyr.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same sequence may link bar properties to the global drop in star-formation rate density if bar fractions are measured in volume-limited samples across redshift.
  • Future work could test whether bar length or torque strength at fixed stellar mass correlates with current gas fraction or bulge-to-disk ratio.
  • Analogous trends might appear for other internal drivers of secular evolution such as spirals or oval distortions.

Load-bearing premise

Bar identification and the separation of galaxies into quiescent versus star-forming categories remain accurate and unbiased from z~0 to z~2.

What would settle it

Higher-resolution imaging or an independent bar-detection method at z~1-2 that yields a flat or declining quiescent bar fraction instead of the reported steep rise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17189 by Alexander de la Vega, Anton M. Koekemoer, Benne W. Holwerda, Eden Wise, Elena D'Onghia, Elizabeth J. McGrath, Eric F. Bell, Fabio Pacucci, Jean-Baptiste Billand, Kartheik G. Iyer, L. Y. Aaron Yung, Marc Huertas-Company, Mauro Giavalisco, Maxime Tarrasse, Micaela B. Bagley, Natalia C. Villanueva, Ray A. Lucas, Shardha Jogee, Steven L. Finkelstein, Tobias G\'eron, Tommaso Zana, Yingjie Cheng, Yuchen Guo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the distribution of S´ersic indices mea￾sured in F356W in each redshift bin (0.5 ≤z < 1.0, 1.0 ≤ z < 1.5, 1.5 ≤ z ≤ 2.0) for galaxies visually identified as disks that have quality flags < 2 in F356W (E. J. Mc￾Grath et al. 2026). The quality flags refer to the quality of the GALFIT fit; sources whose fits converged and whose model magnitude fell within 3 times the dispersion in the running median off… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: We define quiescent galaxies across all redshift bins as galaxies with sSFRs below 10−11 yr−1 . This figure shows unbarred disk galaxies in green and barred disk galaxies in magenta, with the constant sSFR cut for quiescent galaxies shown as a dashed line labeled sSFR = 10−11 yr−1 . We also define actively star-forming galaxies as those with sSFRs above 10−10 yr−1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: We define quiescent galaxies as below the main sequence -1 dex. This figure shows unbarred disk galaxies in green, barred disk galaxies in magenta, and galaxies above our stellar mass cut that do not fall within those definitions in grey (e.g., spheroids, highly inclined disks, etc.). The main sequence parameterization presented in Equation 10 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Selection of quiescent barred galaxies from the sSFR method (see Section 3.4). Quiescent disks exhibit smoother morphologies, redder colors, and little evidence of ongoing SF. The RGB images were constructed using JWST NIRCam filters, with F115W mapped to the blue channel, F200W to green, and F444W to red. ibrations of SFRs. As a cross-check, we define the main sequence using CEERS data alone in the Append… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Selection of actively star-forming barred galaxies from the sSFR method (see Section 3.5). Actively star-forming disks exhibit clumpier morphologies, bluer colors, and evidence of ongoing SF. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of disk galaxies in CEERS across three redshift bins: 0.5 ≤ z < 1.0, 1.0 ≤ z < 1.5, and 1.5 ≤ z ≤ 2.0 (left to right). Barred and unbarred galaxies are shown as pink and green points, respectively. Top: log SFR versus log stellar mass. The dashed line marks log sSFR = −11 yr−1 . Barred galaxies evolve toward lower sSFR in the stellar mass-SFR plane. Bottom: log sSFR versus log S´ersic index. T… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: The total bar fraction from Y. Guo et al. (2025) based on ellipse fits is shown in black for bars with semi-major axis abar > 1.5 kpc that can be robustly detected via ellipse fits. Contributions from quiescent barred galaxies are shown in red (solid and dashed lines for sSFR and main sequence selection methods respectively), and from actively star-forming galaxies in blue. Barred quiescent galaxies … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: The observed bar fraction among quiescent disk galaxies with M⋆ > 1010 M⊙ (FQ bar) is plotted from z ∼ 2 to z ∼ 0 based on CEERS and COSMOS-Web data. The value of FQ bar is plotted against the midpoint of each redshift bin. Quiescent galaxies are identified using both the sSFR and main sequence selection methods (Section 3.4). The quiescent bar fraction rises steeply over the last 10 Gyr (z ∼ 2 to z … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Overall quiescent bar fraction (dashed purple line) and quiescent bar fraction computed after excluding ul￾tra-compact disks (Re < 2 kpc) (solid blue line) in CEERS. The steep rise in the quiescent bar fraction observed remains unchanged, confirming that the results are not driven by a dominant population of ultra-compact quiescent disk galax￾ies at higher redshifts. unable to resolve and/or robustly dete… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: The quiescent bar fraction in TNG50-1 is plotted for all bar sizes (solid magenta line) and for abar > 1.5 kpc (solid navy blue line) using the sSFR selection method. Also plotted are the observed quiescent bar fractions in CEERS (dashed purple line) and COSMOS-Web (dashed orange line) using the sSFR selection method. The TNG50-1 results for abar > 1.5 kpc agree well with the observed bar fraction i… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The distributions of bar size for quiescent (red) and actively star-forming (blue) barred galaxies identified via the sSFR method in TNG50-1 are plotted from z ∼ 0 to z ∼ 2. The medians of each distribution are plotted as dashed lines in their respective colors with the 16th and 84th percentiles shown as dotted lines. The black dotted lines mark abar = 1.5 kpc. From z ∼ 1 to z ∼ 0, the median abar for qui… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Schematic representation of the phases of bar-driven evolution described in Section 5.1. A barred galaxy can evolve from a bar-driven gas inflow phase to the CN pre-starburst, CN starburst, and CN post-starburst phases. The cycle can repeat as long as the galaxy is accreting gas. Over time, the repeated effects of bar-driven gas inflow and accelerated SF activity in the CN region can help make a galaxy qu… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The fraction of barred (red dashed line) and unbarred (purple solid line) disk galaxies that are quiescent, along with the fraction of barred (green dashed line) and un￾barred (blue solid line) disk galaxies that are actively star– forming, as a function of redshift. 5.2. Are bars more likely to form and survive in quiescent and gas-poor galaxies? Bars may form spontaneously through the growth of local an… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: We define the main sequence using CEERS data alone. The solid blue line shows the main sequence derived using CEERS data, and the dashed blue line shows the CEERS main sequence -1 dex. Unbarred disk galaxies are shown in green, barred disk galaxies in magenta, and galaxies above our stellar mass cut that do not fall within those definitions in grey (e.g., spheroids, highly inclined disks, etc.). For compa… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The observed bar fraction among quiescent disk galaxies with M⋆ > 1010 M⊙ (FQ bar) is plotted from z ∼ 2 to z ∼ 0 based on CEERS data. The dashed blue line shows the FQ bar derived using the CEERS main sequence to select quiescent galaxies and the dashed magenta line shows the FQ bar derived using the P. Popesso et al. (2023) main sequence to select quiescent galaxies. The steep rise in FQ bar remains unc… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the most comprehensive study to date of the relationship between bars, star formation, and galaxy properties from $z \sim$ 0 to $z \sim$ 2. We use a mass-complete sample of 1,171 galaxies from the JWST CEERS survey with $M_\star > 10^{10} M_\odot$ and repeat the analysis using COSMOS-Web data. Our results are: 1) At high redshift ($z \sim$ $1-2$) barred galaxies tend to have high sSFRs and low S\'ersic indices ($n \leq 2$), while at low redshifts barred galaxies emerge with both low sSFR and higher $n$, suggestive of quiescent galaxies with bulges. 2) The fractional contribution of barred quiescent galaxies to the bar fraction rises steeply from $z \sim$ 2 to $z \sim$ 0, while that of barred actively star-forming galaxies falls. 3) The fraction of quiescent galaxies that are barred rises steeply over the last 10 Gyr. 4) Our empirical results show good agreement with the TNG50-1 simulations for bars with $a_{\mathrm{bar}}$ $>$ 1.5 kpc. Our results allow for the possibility that bar-driven secular evolution may lead to quiescence and/or that bars are more likely to persist and grow in gas-poor, quiescent galaxies. The steep rise in the quiescent bar fraction over 10 Gyr may represent an evolutionary sequence whereby gas-rich disks at high redshift first develop short, dynamically young bars and over time, repeated bar-driven gas inflows lead to central starbursts and declining gas fractions that strengthen the bar as the galaxy transitions toward quiescence.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a mass-complete sample of 1,171 galaxies (M* > 10^10 Msun) from JWST CEERS and COSMOS-Web to study bar fractions as a function of specific star formation rate (sSFR), Sersic index n, and redshift from z~0 to z~2. Key results include: at z~1-2 barred galaxies show high sSFR and n≤2, while at low z they show low sSFR and higher n; the contribution of quiescent barred galaxies to the total bar fraction rises steeply toward z=0 while the star-forming barred fraction falls; the barred fraction among quiescent galaxies rises over 10 Gyr; and the trends agree with TNG50-1 for bars with a_bar >1.5 kpc. The authors interpret this as possible evidence for an evolutionary sequence in which gas-rich high-z disks form short bars that drive inflows, trigger starbursts, deplete gas, and strengthen bars en route to quiescence.

Significance. If the bar classifications prove robust, the work would supply one of the first direct observational mappings of bar demographics across the star-forming to quiescent transition over 10 Gyr, providing a concrete test of secular evolution models. The mass-complete selection, dual-survey replication, and explicit comparison to TNG50 for resolved bars are positive features that strengthen the empirical foundation.

major comments (1)
  1. [simulation comparison and discussion of evolutionary sequence] The central evolutionary-sequence interpretation (abstract and final paragraph) rests on the measured rise in the quiescent bar fraction being free of redshift-dependent detection bias. The manuscript states agreement with TNG50 only for a_bar >1.5 kpc but does not report application of the observational bar-finding pipeline (including resolution, surface-brightness limits, and visual or quantitative classification) to mock JWST images of the simulated galaxies at z~1-2. Without this test, it remains possible that the steep trend is partly driven by incompleteness for short bars in compact, low-n high-z disks rather than physical evolution.
minor comments (1)
  1. [sample selection] The stellar-mass threshold of 10^10 Msun is stated as the sample limit but its impact on bar detection completeness at the faint end of the high-z sample is not quantified.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for providing constructive comments. Below we respond to the major comment.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central evolutionary-sequence interpretation (abstract and final paragraph) rests on the measured rise in the quiescent bar fraction being free of redshift-dependent detection bias. The manuscript states agreement with TNG50 only for a_bar >1.5 kpc but does not report application of the observational bar-finding pipeline (including resolution, surface-brightness limits, and visual or quantitative classification) to mock JWST images of the simulated galaxies at z~1-2. Without this test, it remains possible that the steep trend is partly driven by incompleteness for short bars in compact, low-n high-z disks rather than physical evolution.

    Authors: We agree that applying our full bar classification pipeline to mock JWST images of TNG50 galaxies at z~1-2 would provide a more robust test of detection biases. However, generating such mocks with appropriate resolution, surface brightness limits, and noise properties is a significant effort that was beyond the scope of the current study. Our comparison is restricted to bars with a_bar > 1.5 kpc, which are expected to be more reliably detected across redshifts, and we find good agreement in the trends for these larger bars. We will revise the manuscript to explicitly discuss the potential for redshift-dependent incompleteness in shorter bars and qualify the evolutionary sequence interpretation as suggestive rather than definitive, pending more detailed forward modeling. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; purely observational measurements of bar fractions and galaxy properties.

full rationale

The paper reports direct observational measurements of bar fractions, sSFR, Sersic indices, and quiescent vs. star-forming classifications from JWST CEERS and COSMOS-Web data across redshift bins. No derivations, predictions, or fitted parameters are presented that reduce by construction to the paper's own inputs or equations. The evolutionary sequence interpretation is offered as one possible reading of the observed trends, not as a mathematical result derived from self-referential steps. Self-citations are absent from the load-bearing claims, and the TNG50 comparison is an external benchmark rather than an internal loop. The analysis is self-contained against the survey data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical observational study; central claims rest on sample selection, morphological classification, and statistical trends rather than new theoretical axioms or free parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • Stellar mass threshold of 10^10 solar masses
    Chosen to define a mass-complete sample; affects which galaxies are included.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology to convert redshift to lookback time
    Invoked when stating trends 'over the last 10 Gyr'.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5984 in / 1328 out tokens · 64971 ms · 2026-06-27T02:55:20.151293+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

138 extracted references · 132 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    K., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02197.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.303..685N 303, 685

    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

  2. [2]

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

    Alonso, M. S., Coldwell, G., & Lambas, D. G. 2013, A&A, 549, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220117 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1517 Arrabal Haro, P., Dickinson, M., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd54

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220117 2013

  3. [3]

    1992, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 259, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.2.345

    Athanassoula, E. 1992, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 259, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.2.345

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/259.2.345 1992

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    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

  5. [5]

    , keywords =

    Athanassoula, E. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1477, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08872.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08872.x 2005

  6. [6]

    , keywords =

    Athanassoula, E., Lambert, J. C., & Dehnen, W. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 496, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09445.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09445.x 2005

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbb08 2023

  9. [9]

    S., et al

    Barden, M., Rix, H.-W., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 959, doi: 10.1086/497679

    work page doi:10.1086/497679 2005

  10. [10]

    E., & Hernquist, L

    Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 705, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003421

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003421 1992

  11. [11]

    , keywords =

    Barro, G., Faber, S. M., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/104

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/104 2013

  12. [12]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace2b9

    Beane, A., Hernquist, L., D’Onghia, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace2b9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace2b9 2023

  13. [13]

    F., McIntosh, D

    Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Barden, M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L11, doi: 10.1086/381388

    work page doi:10.1086/381388 2004

  14. [14]

    , keywords =

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  15. [15]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac779b

    Bi, D., Shlosman, I., & Romano-D´ ıaz, E. 2022, ApJ, 934, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac779b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac779b 2022

  16. [16]

    A., et al

    Bittner, A., S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Gadotti, D. A., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038450

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038450 2020

  17. [17]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4118

    Federrath, C. 2024, ApJ, 968, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4118

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4118 2024

  18. [18]

    Blitz, L., & Spergel, D. N. 1991, ApJ, 379, 631, doi: 10.1086/170535

    work page doi:10.1086/170535 1991

  19. [19]

    2002, A&A, 392, 83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020920

    Bournaud, F., & Combes, F. 2002, A&A, 392, 83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020920

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020920 2002

  20. [20]

    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

  21. [21]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  22. [22]

    2009, ApJ, 694, 396, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/396

    Wadsley, J. 2009, ApJ, 694, 396, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/396

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/694/1/396 2009

  23. [23]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7429939 , url =

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2022, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.8.5 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7429939

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7429939 2022

  24. [24]

    1996, FCPh, 17, 95

    Buta, R., & Combes, F. 1996, FCPh, 17, 95

    1996

  25. [25]

    , eprint =

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  26. [26]

    , keywords =

    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

  27. [27]

    C., McLeod, D

    Carnall, A. C., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad369

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad369 2023

  28. [28]

    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

  29. [29]

    Galactic Stellar and Substellar Initial Mass Function

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  30. [30]

    L., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/162 2013

  31. [31]

    2005, AJ, 130, 65, doi: 10.1086/430526

    Vollmer, B. 2005, AJ, 130, 65, doi: 10.1086/430526

    work page doi:10.1086/430526 2005

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    Daddi, E., Renzini, A., Pirzkal, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 680, doi: 10.1086/430104

    work page doi:10.1086/430104 2005

  33. [33]

    P., et al

    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

    work page doi:10.1086/517931 2007

  34. [34]

    P., Mayer, L., Carollo, C

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

    work page doi:10.1086/504147 2006

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Dekel, A., & Birnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x 2006

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785 D’Onghia, E., & L. Aguerri, J. A. 2020, ApJ, 890, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6bd6

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/785 2009

  37. [37]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz712 2019

  38. [38]

    , keywords =

    Ellison, S. L., Nair, P., Patton, D. R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2182, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19195.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19195.x 2011

  39. [39]

    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

  40. [40]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3117

    Erwin, P. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3117

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3117 2018

  41. [41]

    B., Frogel, J

    Eskridge, P. B., Frogel, J. A., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 536, doi: 10.1086/301203 Espejo Salcedo, J. M., Pastras, S., V´ acha, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554725 Relationship Between Bars, Star Formation Activity, and Host Galaxy Properties27 Euclid Collaboration, Gentile, F., Daddi, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints...

    work page doi:10.1086/301203 2000

  42. [42]

    J., Faber, S

    Fang, J. J., Faber, S. M., Koo, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabcba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabcba 2018

  43. [43]

    , keywords =

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Haro, P. A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac966e 2022

  44. [44]

    L., Leung, G

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.04279, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.04279

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.04279 2023

  45. [45]

    L., Leung, G

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495 2024

  46. [46]

    L., Bagley, M

    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

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Fontanot, F., De Lucia, G., Monaco, P., Somerville, R. S., & Santini, P. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15058.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15058.x 2009

  48. [48]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1416 2020

  49. [49]

    A., Quillen, A

    Frogel, J. A., Quillen, A. C., & Pogge, R. W. 1996, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 209, New Extragalactic Perspectives in the New South Africa, ed. D. L. Block & J. M. Greenberg, 65, doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-0335-7 7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-009-0335-7 1996

  50. [50]

    Gadotti, D. A. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 420, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12723.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12723.x 2008

  51. [51]

    A., S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Falc´ on-Barroso, J., et al

    Gadotti, D. A., S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Falc´ on-Barroso, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 506, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2666

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2666 2019

  52. [52]

    A., Bittner, A., Falc´ on-Barroso, J., et al

    Gadotti, D. A., Bittner, A., Falc´ on-Barroso, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038448

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038448 2020

  53. [53]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv235 , 448, 3442–3454

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stv235 2015

  54. [54]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 485, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 2006

  55. [55]

    , keywords =

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5 2023

  56. [56]

    D., Monachesi, A., G´ omez, F

    Gargiulo, I. D., Monachesi, A., G´ omez, F. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2537, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac629

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac629 2022

  57. [57]

    L., Fahey, M

    Garland, I. L., Fahey, M. J., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad966

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad966 2023

  58. [58]

    2020, A&A, 644, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038810

    George, K., Joseph, P., Mondal, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038810

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038810 2020

  59. [59]

    2021, A&A, 651, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140697 G´ eron, T., Smethurst, R

    George, K., & Subramanian, S. 2021, A&A, 651, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140697 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., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140697 2021

  60. [60]

    Gnedin, O. Y. 2003, ApJ, 582, 141, doi: 10.1086/344636

    work page doi:10.1086/344636 2003

  61. [61]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    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

  62. [62]

    E., & Gott, III, J

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, III, J. R. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/151605

    work page doi:10.1086/151605 1972

  63. [63]

    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

  64. [64]

    , keywords =

    Hopkins, P. F., & Hernquist, L. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 985, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15933.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15933.x 2010

  65. [65]

    G., Angeloudi, E., et al

    Huertas-Company, M., Iyer, K. G., Angeloudi, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346800

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346800 2024

  66. [66]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.03532, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.03532

    Huertas-Company, M., Shuntov, M., Dong, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.03532, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.03532

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.03532 2025

  67. [67]

    G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S

    Iyer, K. G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2052

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2052 2019

  68. [68]

    Jedrzejewski, R. I. 1987, MNRAS, 226, 747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/226.4.747

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/226.4.747 1987

  69. [69]

    2006, in Physics of Active Galactic Nuclei at all Scales, ed

    Jogee, S. 2006, in Physics of Active Galactic Nuclei at all Scales, ed. D. Alloin, Vol. 693, 143, doi: 10.1007/3-540-34621-X 6

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-34621-x 2006

  70. [70]

    H., Laine, S., et al

    Jogee, S., Knapen, J. H., Laine, S., et al. 2002, ApJL, 570, L55, doi: 10.1086/340974

    work page doi:10.1086/340974 2002

  71. [71]

    Jogee, S., Scoville, N., & Kenney, J. D. P. 2005, ApJ, 630, 837, doi: 10.1086/432106

    work page doi:10.1086/432106 2005

  72. [72]

    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

  73. [73]

    S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B

    Kartaltepe, J. S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B. N., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acad01

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acad01 2023

  74. [74]

    Katz, N., Keres, D., Dave, R., & Weinberg, D. H. 2003, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 281, The IGM/Galaxy Connection. The Distribution of Baryons at z=0, ed. J. L. Rosenberg & M. E. Putman, 185, doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-0115-1 34 Kereˇ s, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Dav´ e, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09451.x

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0115-1 2003

  75. [75]

    D., & Combes, F

    Khoperskov, S., Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., & Combes, F. 2018, A&A, 609, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731211

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731211 2018

  76. [76]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    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

  77. [77]

    A., & Kenney, J

    Koopmann, R. A., & Kenney, J. D. P. 2004, ApJ, 613, 866, doi: 10.1086/423191

    work page doi:10.1086/423191 2004

  78. [78]

    1993, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Kormendy, J. 1993, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 153, Galactic Bulges, ed. H. Dejonghe & H. J. Habing, 209

    1993

  79. [79]

    Kormendy, J., & Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024 28Wise, Jogee, Guo et al

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024 2004

  80. [80]

    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

Showing first 80 references.