Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Invariant manifolds in barred galaxy simulations. III. Self-regulated weakening of strong spiral arms

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Strong spiral arms in barred galaxies weaken themselves by shifting the equilibrium points that shape their supporting orbits.

desk verdict Solid single-sim mechanism paper: spiral self-gravity shifts L-points by tens of degrees and scrambles manifold flows; the feedback story is coherent but not yet isolated from other decay channels. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27963 v1 pith:F6QT2BSM submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.GA

T. Soler-Terricabras , S. Roca-Fàbrega , M. Romero-Gómez This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords barredgalaxiesspiralarmsinvariantmanifoldsLagrangianpointsgalacticdynamicsN-bodysimulationsorbitalflowsself-regulation
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 asks why strong spiral arms in barred galaxies systematically fade even when invariant manifolds can form them. Using a self-consistent N-body barred galaxy, the authors rebuild the gravitational potential, locate the Lagrangian points, and track how those points move as the spiral grows. When the arms become strong enough to reshape the potential, the saddle points L1 and L2 swing tens of degrees off the bar major axis. That geometric shift rewires the manifold tubes so that coherent outward streams along the arms are joined by competing inward streams that dump stars back into the bar, eroding orbital support for the arms. As the arms fade, the equilibrium points drift back toward the bar axes and the standard manifold geometry returns, so a new strong-arm episode can begin. The result is a self-regulating cycle: barred galaxies can keep making spiral activity over long times, but each individual strong-arm episode is intrinsically short-lived.

What carries the argument

Spiral-induced angular displacement of the Lagrangian points (especially L1 and L2) and the resulting distorted invariant-manifold geometry. When the points leave the bar major axis, interior unstable manifold branches open pathways that send material from the inner arms back into the bar, competing with the exterior unstable branches that normally feed the arms outward.

What would settle it

In other barred simulations or galaxies with strong bisymmetric arms, measure whether L1/L2 angular offsets track spiral m=2 strength, and whether face-on radial-velocity maps show the predicted switch: outward flow beyond the displaced saddles and inward flow along the inner arms feeding the bar when arms are strong, vanishing when arms weaken and the points realign.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Sufficiently strong, self-gravitating spiral arms displace the Lagrangian points by up to 20–50° from the bar major axis. That displacement reconfigures the invariant-manifold branches so that opposing inward and outward stellar flows coexist along the arms, destroying the coherent manifold support of the spiral pattern. As the spiral weakens, the points realign with the bar and the conditions for manifold-driven arms are restored, on a timescale of order 200 Myr in the simulation studied. Invariant manifolds and the spirals they generate are therefore coupled by a self-regulating feedback loop, so individual strong-arm episodes are transient even if spiral activity can recur.

Load-bearing premise

Each snapshot is treated with one pattern speed equal to the bar’s everywhere, and the bar and arms are assumed to stay strongly coupled with arms attached to the bar ends; the whole quantitative case also rests on a single isolated N-body model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Individual strong spiral-arm episodes in barred galaxies are expected to be transient even if spiral activity recurs over long times.
  • When arms are strong, manifold transport need not permanently drain the bar; inward interior-branch flows can recycle arm material into the bar’s chaotic envelope.
  • The ends of the bar cannot always be used as a proxy for the location of the saddle points or corotation once spirals are strong enough to shift L1 and L2.
  • Apparent disconnection of outer arm segments from the bar can arise naturally when manifold geometry is distorted, with new arms able to re-emerge after realignment.
  • The same feedback offers a dynamical account of the recurrent weaken–reform cycle commonly seen in barred N-body discs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the cycle is generic, surveys of barred galaxies should find a continuum of L1/L2–bar offsets correlated with arm-to-bar strength, not a fixed alignment.
  • Adding gas and star formation could tie the predicted bar-ward inflows to the observed star-formation peaks at bar ends during strong-arm phases.
  • Multi-pattern-speed or detached-arm systems may weaken by different channels; comparing those runs would test how necessary the single-pattern, attached-arm premise is.
  • Chemical gradients might show temporary arm-like abundances mixed into the bar during strong-spiral episodes if the interior-branch recycling is efficient.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper (III in a series) argues that strong, self-gravitating spiral arms in a barred N-body galaxy displace the saddle Lagrangian points L1/L2 by 20–50° from the bar major axis, reconfiguring the associated invariant manifolds so that competing inward and outward flows coexist along the arms. The resulting loss of orbital coherence, together with manifold-guided return of material to the bar via interior unstable branches, weakens the spiral pattern on a ~200 Myr timescale in the analysed run; as the arms fade, the equilibrium points realign and manifold-driven arms can reform. The authors interpret this as a self-regulating feedback loop between manifolds and spirals, implying that individual strong-arm episodes are intrinsically transient even if spiral activity can recur over longer times. The analysis uses AGAMA-reconstructed potentials of the B1 simulation of Roca-Fàbrega et al. (2013), with supporting checks from brute-force Φ_eff, Fourier amplitudes, manifold geometry, particle-bundle tracking, interior-branch trapping fractions, and v_R maps.

Significance. If the proposed feedback is real, it supplies a concrete dynamical mechanism—within the invariant-manifold framework—for the recurrent weakening and reformation of strong spiral arms in barred galaxies, a behaviour long seen in N-body work but not previously tied to manifold geometry in a fully self-consistent setting. Strengths include the multi-probe evidence chain (AGAMA potentials cross-checked with brute-force Φ_eff in Fig. 2; tight Δψ–A2 correspondence in Fig. 1; standard vs distorted manifold geometries in Fig. 3; particle tracking in Fig. 4 vs Appendix B; interior trapping with CCF≈0.9 in Appendix A; kinematic v_R morphology in Fig. 5) and the first quantitative measurement of spiral-induced L-point angular offsets. The work also usefully connects flux-tube and apocentric manifold formulations and clarifies that bar ends need not coincide with corotation when spirals are strong. The result is of clear interest to galactic dynamics, though its generality beyond the single, strongly bar–spiral-coupled model remains to be established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4–§5.1; Figs. 1, 3–5; App. A] The central causal claim—that spiral-induced L1/L2 displacement and the resulting manifold reconfiguration are what drive the arm weakening—is supported by strong temporal correlations (Figs. 1, 4, 5, A.1) but is not isolated from other spiral-decay channels (swing amplification, multi-mode interference, ordinary winding). A load-bearing control would recompute manifolds and trapping in a frozen bar-only (or spiral-suppressed) potential at the same epochs, or show that opposing radial streams and A2 decline do not appear when Δψ is artificially held near zero. Absent that, §5.1 and the abstract should state clearly that the geometric feedback is a demonstrated correlated pathway in this run, not yet proven to be the dominant or unique cause of weakening.
  2. [Abstract; §2; §5.3; §6] All quantitative results come from one isolated N-body model (B1), analysed snapshot-by-snapshot with a single rigid pattern speed equal to the bar’s at all radii (§2; caveat §5.3). The abstract and conclusions nonetheless generalise to “barred galaxies” and “individual episodes of strong spiral arms.” Given that the mechanism requires arms attached to the bar ends and a shared interface pattern speed (§5.3), the broad claims should be qualified to this morphological class, and the ~200 Myr timescale explicitly labelled as run-specific (as already noted in §5.1) rather than presented as characteristic without further models.
  3. [Appendix A; §4.2; dependence on Papers I–II] Appendix A reports that interior-unstable-branch trapping tracks A_spiral_2/A_bar_2 with CCF_max≈0.9 and no lag, and is used as key evidence that distorted manifolds actively feed inflows that weaken the arms. The trapping criterion, manifold-compatible energy window, and exterior-branch baseline are imported wholesale from Papers I–II. For this paper to stand alone on the self-regulation claim, the main text (not only the appendix) should briefly restate the trapping definition and the size of the manifold-compatible population (~30–40% of the disc), and should show the exterior-branch trapped fraction over the same interval so that the rise of interior trapping can be compared directly to the decline of exterior support reported in Paper II.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract states a restoration timescale of “~200 Gyr”; the body (§5.1, conclusions context) consistently uses ~200 Myr. This is almost certainly a typographical error and must be corrected—200 Gyr is unphysical for the process described.
  2. [Fig. 1; §3] Fig. 1 left: the caption says “blue dotted-dashed” for Δψ_1,2 while the text says “blue dash-dotted”; keep notation consistent. Also clarify whether the pink spiral A2 average is over [R1,10] or [R0,10]—caption and text disagree in one place.
  3. [Fig. 3; §4.1; §6 point 4] Fig. 3 omits exterior stable branches “for clarity”; a brief note on whether those branches play any role in the proposed recycling (or explicitly do not, as stated later for bisymmetric grand-design cases) would help readers coming from the ring literature.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption; Acknowledgements] In §3, “ans L5” → “and L5”; “equilibium” → “equilibrium” (Fig. 1 caption). A few other minor typos appear (e.g. “finantial” in acknowledgements).
  5. [§2; §4.2] The planar cuts (|z|<400 pc, |vz|<20 km s−1) and the 10°≤θ≤40° bundle selection are free analysis choices. A short sensitivity remark (even qualitative) would strengthen confidence that the inflow picture is not cut-dependent.
  6. [§2; §5.1] References to “Fig. 1 of Paper I” and “Fig. A1 of Paper II” are necessary but dense; a one-sentence reminder of what those figures showed would improve readability for non-series readers.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Methodological self-citation from Papers I–II supplies the trapping diagnostic; the new L-point geometry and flow measurements are independent and not circular by construction.

  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract / Sec. 1; Appendix A]
    "in particular, it has been shown that the fraction of particles trapped by the exterior unstable manifold branches closely follows the temporal evolution of spiral-arm strength. ... The quantification follows the same procedure described in Section 2 of Paper II —namely, the use of constant-azimuth sections of the manifold branches and the application of the trapping criterion defined therein"

    The premise that manifold trapping tracks spiral strength, and the operational definition of ‘trapped,’ are taken from Papers I–II by the same authors and reused without independent re-derivation. That frames the question this paper answers, but the new observables (Δψ, manifold geometry, inward flows, vR) are measured separately and do not reduce to that prior claim by construction.

full rationale

The paper’s causal story is an empirical chain measured in one N-body run: reconstruct Φ with AGAMA (and cross-check with brute-force Φ_eff), locate L1/L2, measure angular offsets Δψ vs A2^spiral, recompute manifold branches, and track particle bundles and vR. None of these steps defines the output in terms of the input. The decline of exterior-manifold trapping with spiral strength was reported in Papers I–II by the same authors and is reused (App. A re-applies Paper II’s trapping criterion to interior branches); that is real self-citation dependence for the diagnostic framing, not a definitional loop or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No uniqueness theorem is imported, no ansatz is smuggled in as a forced result, and the self-regulation claim is an interpretation of new geometric/kinematic correlations rather than a tautology. Score 2 reflects minor non-load-bearing self-citation only.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The result sits on standard galactic dynamics plus the flux-tube invariant-manifold program, applied to one pre-existing N-body galaxy under a single-pattern-speed and near-planar cut. No new particles or forces are postulated; the main non-standard loads are modeling choices (one sim, bar pattern speed everywhere, manifold-compatible energy window from prior papers) and the interpretive step that competing manifold flows are the dominant cause of the observed A2 decline rather than other known spiral-decay channels.

free parameters (4)
  • Planar selection cuts |z|<400 pc, |v_z|<20 km/s = |z|<400 pc, |v_z|<20 km/s
    Hand-chosen midplane window used for all dynamical analysis; justified by isolation and prior planar-manifold studies but not varied.
  • Angular bundle selection 10°≤θ≤40° from L1/L2 = 10–40 degrees
    Defines which manifold-trapped particles are tracked in Fig. 4 / App. B; choice affects how cleanly arm vs bar material is isolated.
  • Radial averaging windows for A_bar_2 and A_spiral_2 = [R0,R1] vs [R1,10] kpc
    Bar amplitude averaged on [R0,R1], spiral on [R1,10] kpc following Dehnen et al. 2023 edges; these windows define the strong vs weak spiral regimes that drive the narrative.
  • Manifold energy window E_L1,2 ≤ E_J ≤ E_man = ~30–40% of disc particles
    Inherited from Paper I; defines the ~30–40% 'manifold-compatible' population against which trapping fractions are normalized.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flux-tube invariant manifolds associated with Lyapunov orbits around L1/L2 are the dynamical backbone guiding spiral-arm stellar flows in barred galaxies.
    Core framework from Romero-Gómez et al. 2006, 2007 and Papers I–II; assumed throughout Secs. 1–4 rather than re-derived.
  • domain assumption Each snapshot may be treated in a rotating frame with a single pattern speed equal to the instantaneous bar pattern speed at all radii.
    Stated in Sec. 5.3; required to define effective potential, Lagrangian points, and manifolds per snapshot.
  • domain assumption AGAMA + Dehnen et al. (2023) reconstruction yields a smooth potential faithful enough to locate saddles and manifolds for large-scale morphology.
    Sec. 2 methodology; partially cross-checked with brute-force Φ_eff in Fig. 2 but still an intermediate model of the N-body field.
  • domain assumption Near-planar stellar motion dominates the manifold-driven spiral structures of interest in this isolated galaxy.
    Sec. 2 planar cut; supported by cited planar-manifold literature (Ollé & Pfenniger 1998, etc.).
  • standard math Standard Hamiltonian/effective-potential equilibrium-point theory in a rotating frame (Binney & Tremaine).
    Used to identify L1–L5 and saddle vs maximum character throughout Sec. 3.
  • ad hoc to paper The B1 simulation’s bar–spiral morphology (arms attached to bar ends, shared pattern speed at the interface) is a valid arena for testing manifold self-regulation.
    Single-model choice from Roca-Fàbrega et al. 2013; generality caveats only in Sec. 5.3.
invented entities (1)
  • Self-regulating manifold–spiral feedback loop (distorted vs standard manifold configurations)
    purpose: Names the closed causal cycle: spiral self-gravity shifts L points → competing manifold flows → arm weakening → L-point realignment → possible reformation.
    Not a new physical force or particle; it is a named dynamical regime built from existing manifold objects. Independent evidence inside the paper includes Δψ–A2 tracking, v_R morphology, and interior-branch trapping correlation, but no external prediction (e.g., a specific observable in a named galaxy) is tested here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Invariant manifolds in barred galaxy simulations. III. Self-regulated weakening of strong spiral arms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F6QT2BSM

@misc{pith2026260727963,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Invariant manifolds in barred galaxy simulations. III. Self-regulated weakening of strong spiral arms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F6QT2BSM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27963}
}
read the original abstract

We investigated the origin of the weakening of strong spiral arms in barred galaxies, seeking the physical mechanism responsible for the decline in the fraction of manifold-trapped particles over time. We reconstructed the gravitational potential of a fully self-consistent N-body simulation of a barred galaxy using AGAMA, computed the Lagrangian points, and quantified how their spiral-induced angular displacement affects the geometry of the invariant manifolds and the associated orbital flows. We find that sufficiently strong, self-gravitating spiral arms significantly reshape the gravitational potential of a barred galaxy, displacing the equilibrium points up to 20-50{\deg} from the bar major axis, where they are expected to lie in the standard invariant-manifold framework. This shift alters the configuration of the manifold branches and disrupts the coherent stellar flows that sustain the spiral structure. As the spiral weakens, the equilibrium points gradually return to their standard configuration, restoring the conditions for manifold-driven spiral arm formation on a timescale of ~200 Gyr. We show for the first time that invariant manifolds and the spiral structures they generate are coupled through a self-regulating feedback mechanism, allowing the spiral pattern to recur over time. Our results therefore indicate that, although barred galaxies may sustain spiral activity over long timescales, individual episodes of strong spiral arms are intrinsically transient.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27963 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Time evolution of the angular offset of the equilibium points L1 and L2 with respect to the semimajor axis of the bar, ∆ψ1,2 (blue dotted-dashed line), and the angular displacement of L4 ans L5 with respect to the semi-minor axis of the bar, ∆ψ4,5 (green dashed line). The pink lines trace the evolution of the m = 2 Fourier amplitude, A2, of the bar (dotted line, averaged over [R0, R1] kpc) and of the spiral ar… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effective gravitational potential Φeff of the barred galaxy at two different stage: t = 0.837, Gyr (top panel; strong spiral-arm regime) and t = 1.237, Gyr (bottom panel; bar-dominated regime). Colours rep￾resent Φeff values, with warmer tones indicating deeper effective poten￾tial wells and colder colours indicating higher effective potential values. Black lines denote equipotential contours. which the spiral struc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the invariant manifold branches at t = 0.869 Gyr (left panel) and t = 1.109 Gyr (right panel). The black dots mark the positions of the Lagrangian points, Li , with i ∈ {1, ..., 5}. The black closed curves around L1 and L2 represent the corresponding Lyapunov orbits. The red curves show the unstable invariant manifolds, Wu ℓi , i ∈ {1, 2}, emanating from these orbits, while the blue curve… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of the bundle of particles initially trapped within the exterior unstable branches at t = 0.820 Gyr, within the angular interval 10◦ ≤ θ ≤ 40◦ . A total of 26,617 particles are overlaid in each panel (13,967 associated with the L1 exterior unstable branc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Face-on projection of the stellar component of the galaxy at two different times of the simulation. The top row (a,b) corresponds to a snapshot in the strong spiral-arm regime (t = 0.853 Gyr), while the bottom row (c,d) shows a later, bar-dominated stage (t = 1.141 Gyr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 328

    Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 328

    1992

  2. [2]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, L46

    Athanassoula, E. 2012, MNRAS, 426, L46

    2012

  3. [3]

    Athanassoula, E., Romero-Gómez, M., Bosma, A., & Masdemont, J. J. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1433

    2010

  4. [4]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 2954

    Baba, J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2954

    2015

  5. [5]

    R., & Wada, K

    Baba, J., Saitoh, T. R., & Wada, K. 2013, ApJ, 763, 46

    2013

  6. [6]

    & Tremaine, S

    Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  7. [7]

    J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al

    Buta, R. J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 32

    2015

  8. [8]

    Carlberg, R. G. & Freedman, W. L. 1985, ApJ, 298, 486

    1985

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    & Athanassoula, E

    Colin, J. & Athanassoula, E. 1989, A&A, 214, 99

    1989

  2. [10]

    2009, Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, V ol

    Contopoulos, G. 2009, Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, V ol. 8, Chaos in Astronomy, ed. G. Contopoulos & P. A. Patsis (Springer)

    2009

  3. [11]

    & Grosbol, P

    Contopoulos, G. & Grosbol, P. 1989, A&A Rev., 1, 261

    1989

  4. [12]

    & Papayannopoulos, T

    Contopoulos, G. & Papayannopoulos, T. 1980, A&A, 92, 33

    1980

  5. [13]

    & Patsis, P

    Contopoulos, G. & Patsis, P. A., eds. 2009, Chaos in Astronomy, Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings (Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer) de Vaucouleurs, G. & Freeman, K. C. 1970, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 38, The Spiral Structure of our Galaxy, ed. W. Becker & G. I. Kontopoulos, 356

    2009

  6. [14]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 2712 Díaz-García, S., Salo, H., Knapen, J

    Dehnen, W., Semczuk, M., & Schönrich, R. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2712 Díaz-García, S., Salo, H., Knapen, J. H., & Herrera-Endoqui, M. 2019, A&A, 631, A94

    2023

  7. [15]

    2010, European Physical Journal Special Topics, 186, 91

    Efthymiopoulos, C. 2010, European Physical Journal Special Topics, 186, 91

    2010

  8. [16]

    2020, A&A, 636, A44

    Efthymiopoulos, C., Harsoula, M., & Contopoulos, G. 2020, A&A, 636, A44

    2020

  9. [17]

    E., Páez, R

    Efthymiopoulos, C., Kyziropoulos, P. E., Páez, R. I., Zouloumi, K., & Gravvanis, G. A. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1487

    2019

  10. [18]

    2024, in EAS2024, European Astronomical Society Annual Meeting, 292

    Efthymiopoulos, C., Zouloumi, K., & Harsoula, M. 2024, in EAS2024, European Astronomical Society Annual Meeting, 292

    2024

  11. [19]

    E., James, P

    Font, J., Beckman, J. E., James, P. A., & Patsis, P. A. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5362

    2019

  12. [20]

    Grand, R. J. J., Kawata, D., & Cropper, M. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1529

    2012

  13. [21]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 3419

    Harsoula, M., Efthymiopoulos, C., & Contopoulos, G. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3419

    2016

  14. [22]

    & Katsanikas, M

    Harsoula, M. & Katsanikas, M. 2025, A&A, 699, A13

    2025

  15. [23]

    & Patsis, P

    Katsanikas, M. & Patsis, P. A. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5232

    2022

  16. [24]

    S., Lo, M

    Koon, W. S., Lo, M. W., Marsden, J. E., & Ross, S. D. 2000, Chaos, 10, 427

    2000

  17. [25]

    C., Sandstrom, K

    Lee, J. C., Sandstrom, K. M., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, L17 Łokas, E. L. 2016, ApJ, 830, L20

    2023

  18. [26]

    Meidt, S. E. & van der Wel, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.04827 Ollé, M. & Pfenniger, D. 1998, A&A, 334, 829

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Patsis, P. A. 2006, MNRAS, 369, L56

    2006

  20. [28]

    Patsis, P. A. 2009, Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, V ol. 8, Chaos in Astronomy, ed. G. Contopoulos & P. A. Patsis (Springer)

    2009

  21. [29]

    A., Kalapotharakos, C., & Grosbøl, P

    Patsis, P. A., Kalapotharakos, C., & Grosbøl, P. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 22

    2010

  22. [30]

    Patsis, P. A. & Tsigaridi, L. 2017, Ap&SS, 362, 129

    2017

  23. [31]

    1984, A&A, 141, 171

    Pfenniger, D. 1984, A&A, 141, 171

    1984

  24. [32]

    & Salo, H

    Rautiainen, P. & Salo, H. 1999, A&A, 348, 737

    1999

  25. [33]

    & Salo, H

    Rautiainen, P. & Salo, H. 2000, A&A, 362, 465 Roca-Fàbrega, S., Valenzuela, O., Figueras, F., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2878 Romero-Gómez, M., Athanassoula, E., Masdemont, J. J., & García-Gómez, C. 2007, A&A, 472, 63 Romero-Gómez, M., Masdemont, J. J., Athanassoula, E., & Garcí...

    2000 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Sellwood, J. A. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1637

    2011

  27. [35]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Carlberg, R. G. 1984, ApJ, 282, 61

    1984

  28. [36]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Carlberg, R. G. 2014, ApJ, 785, 137

    2014

  29. [37]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Carlberg, R. G. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 116

    2019

  30. [38]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Masters, K. L. 2022, ARA&A, 60 [arXiv:2110.05615]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Sellwood, J. A. & Wilkinson, A. 1993, Reports on Progress in Physics, 56, 173

    1993

  32. [40]

    N., Regan, M

    Sheth, K., V ogel, S. N., Regan, M. W., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 2581

    2002

  33. [41]

    & Patsis, P

    Tsigaridi, L. & Patsis, P. A. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2922

    2013

  34. [42]

    & Patsis, P

    Tsigaridi, L. & Patsis, P. A. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3081

    2015

  35. [43]

    2008, MNRAS, 387, 1264

    Tsoutsis, P., Efthymiopoulos, C., & V oglis, N. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1264

    2008

  36. [44]

    2009, A&A, 495, 743 van der Wel, A

    Tsoutsis, P., Kalapotharakos, C., Efthymiopoulos, C., & Contopoulos, G. 2009, A&A, 495, 743 van der Wel, A. & Meidt, S. E. 2025, A&A, 704, A147

    2009

  37. [45]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525 V oglis, N., Stavropoulos, I., & Kalapotharakos, C

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525 V oglis, N., Stavropoulos, I., & Kalapotharakos, C. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 901

    2019

  38. [46]

    Wada, K., Baba, J., & Saitoh, T. R. 2011, ApJ, 735, 1

    2011

  39. [47]

    G., Lee, J

    Williams, T. G., Lee, J. C., Larson, K. L., et al. 2024, ApJS, 273, 13

    2024

  40. [48]

    Zouloumi, K., Harsoula, M., & Efthymiopoulos, C. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1941 Article number, page 10 of 13 Soler-Terricabras et al.: Invariant manifolds in barred galaxy simulations – III Appendix A: Manifold-trapping in the unstable interior branches To examine the behaviour descr...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.