Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 147 references

The shapes of spiral arms in the S$^4$G survey and their connection with stellar bars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In 391 nearby spiral galaxies, the tightness of spiral arms shows no dependence on stellar bar strength, black-hole mass, or shear, while spiral amplitude does grow with bar strength.

desk verdict A careful, large-sample null result on bar-driven spiral structure, but the central 'no correlation' claim outruns the measurement error budget without a power analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04246 v3 pith:USE62G24 submitted 2019-08-12 astro-ph.GA

Simón Díaz-García , Heikki Salo , Johan H. Knapen , Martín Herrera-Endoqui This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:structureevolutionstatisticsspiralfundamentalparametersphotometryarmpitchanglestellarbars
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

Spiral galaxies differ widely in how tightly their arms are wound, and a long-standing question is whether stellar bars create or shape those arms. The paper measures the pitch angle, the angle between an arm and a circle around the galaxy centre, for 391 nearby spiral galaxies from infrared images, combining multiple fitted arm segments into a global value and checking it with independent Fourier measurements on a subsample. Across grand-design, multi-armed, and flocculent classes, pitch angle does not correlate with bar strength, is only weakly correlated with spiral amplitude, and is nearly independent of the estimated central black-hole mass, central stellar mass concentration, and shear. The amplitude of spiral structure does correlate with bar strength, but the authors read this as shared disc responsiveness rather than bars driving spirals. If correct, the results rule out bar-driven and manifold-driven spiral formation as the dominant mechanism and undercut pitch-angle-based black-hole mass estimators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pitch angle $\phi$ of a logarithmic spiral arm, defined as the angle between the tangent to the arm and the tangent to a circle at the same radius, with the arm shape written $r(\theta) = R e^{\theta \tan \phi}$. The paper turns many per-segment fits into a global pitch angle by a mean, a median, the mean of the innermost segments, and an arc-length-weighted mean, where each segment's arc length is approximated by $s_i \approx |r_i' - r_i|\sqrt{1+\tan^2 |\phi_i|}/\tan |\phi_i|$. On the bar side, strength is quantified by the tangential-to-radial force ratio $Q_T$ and by the normalized $m=2$ Fourier amplitude $A_2$, computed both in the bar region and over the radial ranges of the fitted spiral segments. These proxies allow the two central tests: whether pitch angle tracks bar torque as the invariant-manifold picture of arm formation (arms as orbit tubes emerging from the unstable points at the bar ends) predicts, and whether spiral amplitude tracks bar strength. Every claimed correlation is assessed with Spearman rank statistics, so the machinery is not a model but a systematic comparison of these measured shapes and force ratios.

What would settle it

Measure pitch angles with an automated Fourier or machine-vision method on the full 391-galaxy sample, propagating per-galaxy uncertainties, and re-test the Spearman correlation between pitch angle and bar torque at the bar end; a bar-driven trend at the level predicted by manifold simulations should then appear as a clear positive correlation, and its continued absence would confirm the paper's null result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that observational data do not support the idea that stellar bars are the main drivers of spiral arms. Using 391 S4G galaxies spanning grand-design, multi-armed, and flocculent spirals, the paper finds that the global pitch angle, defined as the mean or arc-length-weighted mean of individually fitted logarithmic spiral segments, is essentially independent of bar strength measured by tangential-to-radial force ratios and by m=2 Fourier amplitudes, whether evaluated at the bar radius or after halo correction. The same null result holds for Fourier-based pitch angles and for the innermost segments closest to the bar. Meanwhile, the amplitude of the spiral pattern does increase with bar strength and bar length, including when only the outermost spiral segments are considered, which the authors interpret as evidence that discs prone to forming strong bars are also reactive to forming prominent spirals. The paper also reports that pitch angle is barely correlated with supermassive black-hole mass inferred from velocity dispersion, with central stellar mass concentration, or with shear, challenging several published scaling relations.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on per-galaxy pitch angles that are simple averages of visually fitted spiral segments, so if human fitting scatter is as large as the reported roughly 10-degree internal dispersion, the null correlations could be false negatives rather than real absences of a trend.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If spiral arms were predominantly bar-driven, pitch angle should rise strongly with bar torque; the observed correlation is far too weak to support that picture, so bar-driving cannot be the primary formation mechanism for most local spirals.
  • Because the bar-spiral amplitude coupling appears even in flocculent galaxies and in the outermost segments of multi-armed galaxies, it is better read as shared disc responsiveness than as evidence that bars excite arms.
  • The near-zero correlation between pitch angle and inferred black-hole mass implies that pitch-angle-based black-hole mass estimators will not work at current measurement precision.
  • The roughly 10-degree internal scatter in pitch angle within a single galaxy means a single global number cannot characterise arm winding on its own; radial and segment-by-segment information is needed.
  • More than 90% of late-type spirals with T>5 are barred, so models of late-type disc evolution must treat bars as a near-universal feature of these galaxies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if shared disc reactivity is the real driver, then simulations that vary disc responsiveness while holding bar strength fixed should still produce correlated bar and spiral amplitudes; this is a controlled test the paper does not run.
  • Editorial inference: the null bar-strength/pitch-angle result used global per-galaxy pitch angles; re-running the correlations on a full-sample catalogue of Fourier pitch angles with per-measurement errors could either confirm the null or reveal a weak trend that segment averaging washed out.
  • Editorial inference: the failure of the black-hole-mass/pitch relation in 391 galaxies, if confirmed with direct black-hole masses, would imply that earlier tight relations were artefacts of small samples or inhomogeneous pitch-angle methods.
  • Editorial inference: if bars do not set the winding angle, then kinematic measurements of bar and spiral pattern speeds in the same galaxies should frequently find them decoupled; existing data could test this directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses 391 nearby S4G spiral galaxies with inclinations below 65 degrees to characterize spiral arm pitch angles and amplitudes, using the visual segment measurements of Herrera-Endoqui et al. (2015) plus a 32-galaxy Fourier subsample. It defines several global pitch-angle proxies (mean, median, inner-segment mean, and arc-length-weighted mean) and combines them with bar and spiral strength measures from Díaz-García et al. (2016b) and with velocity-dispersion-based black hole mass estimates. The main reported results are: a large within-galaxy scatter of about 9.5 degrees in pitch angle; similar pitch angle versus Hubble-type distributions for barred and non-barred galaxies; only weak correlations between pitch angle and bar strength; a clear correlation between spiral amplitude and bar strength; and essentially no correlation between pitch angle and black hole mass or central concentration. The authors conclude that there is no observational evidence that spiral arms are driven by stellar bars or by invariant manifolds, and favor an interpretation in which bar-prone disks are also reactive to spiral formation.

Significance. If the null results hold after a proper treatment of measurement uncertainty, the paper would be an important, large-sample challenge to manifold-theory predictions and to previously claimed pitch-angle scaling relations, especially the MBH-pitch relation. The paper provides a valuable public catalog in Table A.1, cross-checks the segment-based pitch angles with Fourier methods, and honestly reports weak correlations as null results. The positive correlation between spiral amplitude and bar strength is supported across multiple proxies, radial ranges, and a bar-only torque measure, strengthening the interpretation that bar-prone disks are also spiral-reactive. The main limitation is that the dominant pitch-angle measurement error is not propagated into the correlation tests, so the strength of the null claims is currently underexploited.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 7.1 and Figs. 11/13] The central null result ('the pitch angle is not correlated with bar strength') is not quantitatively supported because the dominant measurement uncertainty in |phi| is not propagated into the correlation tests. The paper itself reports a mean within-galaxy scatter of sigma_|phi| ~ 9.5 degrees (Sect. 5.2) and mean absolute differences of 6.8 +/- 1.0 degrees between |phi|mean and |phi|Fourier, and 10.0 +/- 2.2 degrees for |phi|inner (Sect. 3.3). The Spearman coefficients rho = 0.18-0.20 quoted in Sect. 7.1 are computed on these noisy estimates without accounting for that error. With measurement noise of this order, an underlying monotonic trend between |phi| and QT(rbar) would be attenuated toward the observed small rho, so the statement 'we hardly find any dependence' is not yet distinguishable from 'the test could not detect the predicted trend.' I request that the authors propagate the measurement uncertainties into the rank-correlation analysis, for example by Monte Carlo resampling of the segment-level pitch angles, and report the minimum detectable |rho| or slope at the sample size N ~ 391.
  2. [Sect. 7.1] The comparison with the manifold-theory prediction is too qualitative to support the conclusion that the theory is ruled out. The expected relation from Athanassoula et al. (2009a) is overlaid as a rough trace taken by eye from their Fig. 5, and it is evaluated at rbar rather than at the L1 point, as the authors acknowledge. The statement that the binned averages are 'consistent with those in the simulations' while the correlation is nearly absent conflates agreement in normalization with a test of the predicted slope. Please specify the predicted (|phi|, QT(L1)) relation quantitatively, fit or compare it to the data with a stated statistic, and discuss how the rbar-to-L1 offset affects the comparison; without this, the rejection of the manifold prediction is not a quantitative inference.
  3. [Sect. 8.1 and Fig. 19] The MBH null result is presented as questioning the Davis et al. (2017) scaling relation, but the analysis is not yet sensitive enough for that claim. MBH is estimated only indirectly from central velocity dispersions via Eq. (12), with no propagation of the scatter in that calibration, and the result depends strongly on which pitch proxy is used: rho = -0.24 (p = 0.008) for |phi|mean, rho = -0.10 (p = 0.27) for |phi|inner, and rho = -0.03 (p = 0.78) for |phi|weighted. The manuscript itself states that the lack of correlation may be due to uncertainty in |phi| or to indirect MBH estimates. Please either add a sensitivity analysis, for example using only galaxies with direct MBH measurements or varying the adopted sigma-MBH relation, and report the detectable effect size, or soften the conclusion to a cautionary null consistent with the acknowledged large uncertainties.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] Several entries list a zero error (e.g., NGC2710, NGC3310, NGC3893) while one entry has +/- 16.8 degrees; the text says uncertainties come from reducing the radial fit range by 20%, so please explain why some fits produce exactly zero uncertainty and whether those galaxies should be treated differently.
  2. [Fig. B.1] The lower-right panel prints the p-value as '0.00 . 10-4', which is not a valid number; use e.g. p < 10^-4.
  3. [Sect. 3.1, Eq. (2)] The symbol R is introduced as the starting radius and then used again later (R25.5); please use a distinct symbol or explicitly state the notation to avoid confusion.
  4. [Footnote 8] The phrase 'we do not sample galaxies hosting rings of type R2 exclusively' is ambiguous; please rephrase to clarify that the sample contains no R2-only ring galaxies.
  5. [Fig. 13, lower panel] The Fourier-based |phi| measurements are shown but no Spearman coefficient is given for this subsample; adding the rho and p for the combined literature plus this-work points would make the methodology cross-check quantitative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the null correlations are comparisons among independently measured pitch angles, force amplitudes, and externally calibrated MBH estimates; the paper's own caveats are sensitivity limitations, not input-output identity.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing results are statistical comparisons of independently determined quantities. Pitch angles come from visual logarithmic-segment fits of Herrera-Endoqui et al. (2015) and from 2-D Fourier fits made here, cross-calibrated against Yu et al. (2018) and Davis et al. (2017) (Sect. 3.3, Figs. 4-6). Bar and spiral strengths are taken from the NIR-QB force and Fourier decompositions of Diaz-Garcia et al. (2016b); no pitch angle enters those decompositions, and the bar-only torque Qbar-only is explicitly used to suppress spiral contamination (Sect. 7.2, Fig. 15). MBH is estimated from central velocity dispersions via the external Gültekin et al. (2009) calibration, Eq. (12), and compared with direct measurements in Fig. 18; no pitch-angle-dependent fit is used to generate MBH. The Athanassoula et al. (2009a) curve is an external theoretical prediction overlaid as 'roughly traced from their Fig. 5' at rbar rather than L1; the paper does not fit it to the data. The main caveats the paper itself states, including internal segment-to-segment scatter sigma_|phi| ~ 9.5 deg, evaluation at rbar instead of L1, and 'the lack of clear correlation can be due to the uncertainty in |phi| or to the use of indirect estimates of MBH,' are detection-power and measurement-robustness concerns, not circularity. None of the paper's equations defines a predicted quantity in terms of its inputs, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-cited uniqueness theorem. The central null results could be false negatives, but that is a correctness risk, not circular reasoning.

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

No model is fitted to the data, so there are no free parameters. The 20 percent radial range reduction for Fourier uncertainties (Sect. 3.2) is an arbitrary uncertainty estimate, not a fitted parameter. The paper introduces no new physical entities; it reuses measured galaxy properties.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Spiral arms can be modeled as logarithmic spirals r(theta)=R e^(theta tan phi) (Eq. 1).
    Standard geometric model from Lin & Shu (1964), used for pitch angle definition and arc-length weighting.
  • domain assumption 3.6 micrometer emission traces the old stellar backbone of spiral arms.
    Standard S4G assumption, stated in Sect. 2.1 and 9; affects all amplitude and pitch measurements.
  • domain assumption The deprojected orientation parameters (inclination, position angle) and Hubble classifications from S4G catalogs are correct.
    Used throughout; errors in these would bias pitch angles (Sect. 2 and 3).
  • domain assumption All measured spiral segments are trailing, so pitch angles are taken positive.
    Stated in Sect. 3; a leading population would distort the statistics.
  • domain assumption The MBH-sigma relation of Gültekin et al. (2009) applies to these galaxies (Eq. 12).
    Used to estimate black hole masses for 117 galaxies; scatter in the calibration contributes to the null result.
  • domain assumption Bar strength proxies (A2 max, Qb) from Diaz-Garcia et al. (2016b) measure bar gravitational forcing independently of spiral arms.
    Used in Sect. 4.1 and 7; the paper also uses a bar-only version to remove spiral contamination, but residual coupling is possible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The shapes of spiral arms in the S$^4$G survey and their connection with stellar bars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/USE62G24

@misc{pith2026190804246,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The shapes of spiral arms in the S$^4$G survey and their connection with stellar bars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/USE62G24}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04246}
}
abstract

Spiral galaxies are common in the local Universe, but their formation, evolution, and interplay with bars remain poorly understood. We use a sample of 391 nearby galaxies from the S$^4$G survey to characterise the winding angle and amplitude of spiral arms as a function of disc properties, such as bar strength, in all kinds of spirals (grand-design, multi-armed, and flocculent). We derive global pitch angles in 3.6 $\mu$m de-projected images from i) average measurements of individual logarithmic spiral segments, and ii) for a subsample of 32 galaxies, from 2-D Fourier analyses. The strength of spirals is quantified from the tangential-to-radial force ratio and from the normalised $m=2$ Fourier density amplitudes. In galaxies with more than one measured logarithmic segment, the spiral pitch angle varies on average by $\sim 10^{\circ}$ between segments, but by up to $\gtrsim 15-20^{\circ}$. The distribution of the global pitch angle versus Hubble type ($T$) is very similar for barred and non-barred galaxies when $1 \lesssim T \lesssim 5$. Most spiral galaxies ($>90\%$) are barred for $T>5$. The pitch angle is not correlated with bar strength, and only weakly with spiral strength. The amplitude of spirals is correlated with bar strength (and less tightly, with bar length) for all types of spirals. The mean pitch angle is hardly correlated with the mass of the supermassive black hole (estimated from central stellar velocity dispersion), with central stellar mass concentration, or with shear, questioning previous results in the literature using smaller samples. We do not find observational evidence that spiral arms are driven by stellar bars or by invariant manifolds. Most likely, disks that are prone to the development of strong bars are also reactive to the formation of prominent spirals, explaining the observed coupling between bar and spiral amplitudes (Abridged).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04246 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 3.6 µm image of NGC 5194 (upper panels) and NGC 3992 (lower panels) in sky plane (left), with fitted spiral arm segments, and logarithmic polar plot of the same galaxies de-projected to the disc plane (right). Images and measurements are taken from Herrera￾Endoqui et al. (2015). 2007; Athanassoula et al. 2009b). Numerical simulations show that galactic material gets confined in tubes (invariant manifolds) that exten… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between mean and a) median pitch angle, b) mean of the innermost logarithmic segments, and c) mean weighted by the arc length of the arms. The y = x straight line is shown in red, and the dotted green line shows the linear fit to the cloud of points. Error bars indicate the standard deviation of the mean calculated from the segments fitted in each galaxy. 2.4. Sample of not-highly inclined spiral galaxies… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper panels: Logarithmic fit to the spiral arms in the de-projected 3.6 µm image of NGC 5194 (left) (only central parts considered) (18-23 µ3.6µm(AB) magnitude scale) and NGC 3992 (right) (21-25 µ3.6µm(AB) magnitude scale), using 2-D Fourier transform spectral analysis (see text). Lower panels: Logarithm of the m = 2 Fourier amplitude as a function of the pitch angle for the two galaxies shown above. The vertical l… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: For a subsample of 11 S4G galaxies, comparison between the pitch angles obtained in this work and in the literature (see legend) ap￾plying Fourier analysis (see text). The y = x straight line is shown in red. Galaxy Rinner Router |φ|Fourier Error |φ|Fourier ( 00) ( 00)…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between mean and weighted mean pitch angles calculated in this work, and the pitch angle obtained by Yu et al. (2018) (black) and Davis et al. (2017) (blue diamonds) via Fourier analysis (see the text). The dashed red line corresponds to the straight line y …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: For a subsample of S4G galaxies, comparison between the pitch angles determined with Fourier methods (from this work, see text) and a) mean pitch angle, b) inner mean pitch angles, and c) mean pitch an￾gle weighted by the arc length of the segments. We show measurement…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between the proxies of the amplitude of the spi￾rals used in this work (Eqs. 9, 10, and 11). We show the mean value per galaxy, and measurements over individual segments. The Spear￾man’s rank correlation coefficients (significances) are 0.62 (4.14·10−43) and…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mean pitch angle (left panel), mean of the two innermost spiral segments (middle panel), and weighted mean pitch angle (right panel) as a function of the integer value of the revised numerical Hubble stage, for all the grand-design and multi-armed spirals in our sample…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Weighted mean pitch angle (upper panel) and mean of the innermost spiral segments (middle panel) versus tangential-to-radial forces evaluated at the bar radius. The blue diamonds and line outline the trend in the simulations by Athanassoula et al. (2009a) for QT(L1). …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Bar strength (from Díaz-García et al. 2016b) as a function of spiral strength, measured from m = 2 Fourier amplitudes (Eq. 11) (left), from tangential-to-radial forces (Eq. 9) (middle), also including the correction for the halo dilution (Eq. 10) (right). Different ty…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Bar-only force versus spiral strength (Eq. 9). The colour palette and symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Bar size, in physical units (left) and normalised to the disc size (central and right panels), as a function of the spiral strength, measured from the m = 2 Fourier amplitude and from the tangential-to-radial forces. The colour palette and symbols are the same as in …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Mean pitch angle as a function of spiral strength, measured from tangential-to-radial forces (Eq. 6). The colour palette and symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: and Fig. C.1. in Díaz-García et al. 2019). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: For a sample of S4G disc galaxies with inclinations lower than 65◦ , we show a comparison of direct measurements of black hole masses from the compilations by Graham & Scott (2013); Sahu et al. (2019); Davis et al. (2019) - and also from Cisternas et al. (2013) (ob￾ta…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Mass of supermassive black holes (left) (estimated from central stellar velocity dispersions) and inner slope of the stellar component of the rotation curve (right) (tracer of central stellar mass concentration) as a function of mean pitch angle. The red dashed straig…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2003, , 341, 1179

    Athanassoula , E. 2003, , 341, 1179

    2003

  4. [4]

    2012, , 426, L46

    Athanassoula , E. 2012, , 426, L46

    2012

  5. [5]

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

    2013

  6. [6]

    & Misiriotis , A

    Athanassoula , E. & Misiriotis , A. 2002, , 330, 35

    2002

  7. [7]

    Athanassoula , E., Romero-G \'o mez , M., Bosma , A., & Masdemont , J. J. 2009 a , , 400, 1706

    2009

  8. [8]

    Athanassoula , E., Romero-G \'o mez , M., & Masdemont , J. J. 2009 b , , 394, 67

    2009

Show all 147 references
  1. [9]

    C., Davis , B

    Berrier , J. C., Davis , B. L., Kennefick , D., et al. 2013, , 769, 132

    2013

  2. [10]

    & Tremaine , S

    Binney , J. & Tremaine , S. 1987, Galactic dynamics

    1987

  3. [11]

    A., Elmegreen , B

    Bittner , A., Gadotti , D. A., Elmegreen , B. G., et al. 2017, , 471, 1070

    2017

  4. [12]

    L., Bertin , G., Stockton , A., et al

    Block , D. L., Bertin , G., Stockton , A., et al. 1994, , 288, 365

    1994

  5. [13]

    L., Buta , R., Knapen , J

    Block , D. L., Buta , R., Knapen , J. H., et al. 2004, , 128, 183

    2004

  6. [14]

    L., Puerari , I., Knapen , J

    Block , D. L., Puerari , I., Knapen , J. H., et al. 2001, , 375, 761

    2001

  7. [15]

    & Combes , F

    Bournaud , F. & Combes , F. 2002, , 392, 83

    2002

  8. [16]

    & Block , D

    Buta , R. & Block , D. L. 2001, , 550, 243

    2001

  9. [17]

    L., & Knapen , J

    Buta , R., Block , D. L., & Knapen , J. H. 2003, , 126, 1148

    2003

  10. [18]

    2004, , 127, 279

    Buta , R., Laurikainen , E., & Salo , H. 2004, , 127, 279

    2004

  11. [19]

    2005, , 130, 506

    Buta , R., Vasylyev , S., Salo , H., & Laurikainen , E. 2005, , 130, 506

    2005

  12. [20]

    J., Knapen , J

    Buta , R. J., Knapen , J. H., Elmegreen , B. G., et al. 2009, , 137, 4487

    2009

  13. [21]

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

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

    2015

  14. [22]

    A., Knapen , J

    Cisternas , M., Gadotti , D. A., Knapen , J. H., et al. 2013, , 776, 50

    2013

  15. [23]

    & Sanders , R

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

    1981

  16. [24]

    & Athanassoula , E

    Considere , S. & Athanassoula , E. 1982, , 111, 28

    1982

  17. [25]

    & Athanassoula , E

    Considere , S. & Athanassoula , E. 1988, , 76, 365

    1988

  18. [26]

    L., Berrier , J

    Davis , B. L., Berrier , J. C., Shields , D. W., et al. 2012, , 199, 33

    2012

  19. [27]

    L., Berrier , J

    Davis , B. L., Berrier , J. C., Shields , D. W., et al. 2016, 2DFFT: Measuring Galactic Spiral Arm Pitch Angle , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    2016

  20. [28]

    L., Graham , A

    Davis , B. L., Graham , A. W., & Cameron , E. 2019, , 873, 85

    2019

  21. [29]

    L., Graham , A

    Davis , B. L., Graham , A. W., & Seigar , M. S. 2017, , 471, 2187

    2017

  22. [30]

    L., Kennefick , D., Kennefick , J., et al

    Davis , B. L., Kennefick , D., Kennefick , J., et al. 2015, , 802, L13

    2015

  23. [31]

    Davis , D. R. & Hayes , W. B. 2014, , 790, 87

    2014

  24. [32]

    1959, Handbuch der Physik, 53, 275

    de Vaucouleurs , G. 1959, Handbuch der Physik, 53, 275

    1959

  25. [33]

    2016, PhD thesis, University of Oulu

    D \' az-Garc \' a , S. 2016, PhD thesis, University of Oulu

    2016

  26. [34]

    H., & Salo , H

    D \' az-Garc \' a , S., D \' az-Su \'a rez , S., Knapen , J. H., & Salo , H. 2019, , 625, A146

    2019

  27. [35]

    2016 a , , 596, A84

    D \' az-Garc \' a , S., Salo , H., & Laurikainen , E. 2016 a , , 596, A84

    2016

  28. [36]

    2016 b , , 587, A160

    D \' az-Garc \' a , S., Salo , H., Laurikainen , E., & Herrera-Endoqui , M. 2016 b , , 587, A160

    2016

  29. [37]

    2016 c , ArXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1611.01844 ]

    D \' az-Garc \' a , S., Salo , H., Laurikainen , E., & Leaman , R. 2016 c , ArXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1611.01844 ]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    2015, , 808, L8

    D'Onghia , E. 2015, , 808, L8

    2015

  31. [39]

    2013, , 766, 34

    D'Onghia , E., Vogelsberger , M., & Hernquist , L. 2013, , 766, 34

    2013

  32. [40]

    W., & Verdes-Montenegro , L

    Durbala , A., Buta , R., Sulentic , J. W., & Verdes-Montenegro , L. 2009, , 397, 1756

    2009

  33. [41]

    Elmegreen , B. G. 1990, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 596, 40

    1990

  34. [42]

    Elmegreen , B. G. & Elmegreen , D. M. 1985, , 288, 438

    1985

  35. [43]

    Elmegreen , B. G. & Elmegreen , D. M. 1989, , 342, 677

    1989

  36. [44]

    G., Elmegreen , D

    Elmegreen , B. G., Elmegreen , D. M., & Montenegro , L. 1992, , 79, 37

    1992

  37. [45]

    Elmegreen , D. M. 1981, , 47, 229

    1981

  38. [46]

    Elmegreen , D. M. & Elmegreen , B. G. 1982, , 201, 1021

    1982

  39. [47]

    Elmegreen , D. M. & Elmegreen , B. G. 1984, , 54, 127

    1984

  40. [48]

    Elmegreen , D. M. & Elmegreen , B. G. 1987, , 314, 3

    1987

  41. [49]

    M., Elmegreen , B

    Elmegreen , D. M., Elmegreen , B. G., Yau , A., et al. 2011, , 737, 32

    2011

  42. [50]

    H., Leaman , R., et al

    Erroz-Ferrer , S., Knapen , J. H., Leaman , R., et al. 2016, , 458, 1199

    2016

  43. [51]

    2018, , 474, 5372

    Erwin , P. 2018, , 474, 5372

    2018

  44. [52]

    B., Frogel , J

    Eskridge , P. B., Frogel , J. A., Pogge , R. W., et al. 2002, , 143, 73

    2002

  45. [53]

    2019, , 875, L1

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2019, , 875, L1

    2019

  46. [54]

    G., Hora , J

    Fazio , G. G., Hora , J. L., Allen , L. E., et al. 2004, , 154, 10

    2004

  47. [55]

    E., James , P

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

    2019

  48. [56]

    S., B \'e dorf , J., Baba , J., & Portegies Zwart , S

    Fujii , M. S., B \'e dorf , J., Baba , J., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2018, , 477, 1451

    2018

  49. [57]

    A., Seidel , M

    Gadotti , D. A., Seidel , M. K., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez , P., et al. 2015, , 584, A90

    2015

  50. [58]

    & Athanassoula , E

    García Gómez , C. & Athanassoula , E. 1993, , 100, 431

    1993

  51. [59]

    2009, , 692, 1075

    Gillessen , S., Eisenhauer , F., Trippe , S., et al. 2009, , 692, 1075

    2009

  52. [60]

    & Haynes , M

    Giovanelli , R. & Haynes , M. P. 1988, Extragalactic neutral hydrogen. , ed. K. I. Kellermann & G. L. Verschuur , 522--562

    1988

  53. [61]

    & Lynden-Bell , D

    Goldreich , P. & Lynden-Bell , D. 1965 a , , 130, 97

    1965

  54. [62]

    & Lynden-Bell , D

    Goldreich , P. & Lynden-Bell , D. 1965 b , , 130, 125

    1965

  55. [63]

    Graham , A. W. & Scott , N. 2013, , 764, 151

    2013

  56. [64]

    W., Soria , R., & Davis , B

    Graham , A. W., Soria , R., & Davis , B. L. 2019, , 484, 814

    2019

  57. [65]

    Grand , R. J. J., Kawata , D., & Cropper , M. 2013, , 553, A77

    2013

  58. [66]

    O., Gebhardt , K., et al

    G \"u ltekin , K., Richstone , D. O., Gebhardt , K., et al. 2009, , 698, 198

    2009

  59. [67]

    E., Bamford , S

    Hart , R. E., Bamford , S. P., Willett , K. W., et al. 2016, , 461, 3663

    2016

  60. [68]

    B., Davis , D., & Silva , P

    Hayes , W. B., Davis , D., & Silva , P. 2017, , 466, 3928

    2017

  61. [69]

    2015, , 582, A86

    Herrera-Endoqui , M., D \' az-Garc \' a , S., Laurikainen , E., & Salo , H. 2015, , 582, A86

    2015

  62. [70]

    C., Li , Z.-Y., Barth , A

    Ho , L. C., Li , Z.-Y., Barth , A. J., Seigar , M. S., & Peng , C. Y. 2011, , 197, 21

    2011

  63. [71]

    Julian , W. H. & Toomre , A. 1966, , 146, 810

    1966

  64. [72]

    Kalnajs , A. J. 1975, in La Dynamique des galaxies spirales, ed. L. Weliachew , Vol. 241, 103

    1975

  65. [73]

    C., & Clarke , C

    Kendall , S., Kennicutt , R. C., & Clarke , C. 2011, , 414, 538

    2011

  66. [74]

    & Hodge , P

    Kennicutt , Jr., R. & Hodge , P. 1982, , 253, 101

    1982

  67. [75]

    Kennicutt , Jr., R. C. 1981, , 86, 1847

    1981

  68. [76]

    Knapen , J. H. & Beckman , J. E. 1996, , 283, 251

    1996

  69. [77]

    & Kennicutt , Jr., R

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

    2004

  70. [78]

    & Norman , C

    Kormendy , J. & Norman , C. A. 1979, , 233, 539

    1979

  71. [79]

    & Richstone , D

    Kormendy , J. & Richstone , D. 1995, , 33, 581

    1995

  72. [80]

    2016, , 596, A25

    Laine , J., Laurikainen , E., & Salo , H. 2016, , 596, A25

    2016

  73. [81]

    2014, , 441, 1992

    Laine , J., Laurikainen , E., Salo , H., et al. 2014, , 441, 1992

    2014

  74. [82]

    & Salo , H

    Laurikainen , E. & Salo , H. 2002, , 337, 1118

    2002

  75. [83]

    2004, , 607, 103

    Laurikainen , E., Salo , H., & Buta , R. 2004, , 607, 103

    2004

  76. [84]

    2002, , 331, 880

    Laurikainen , E., Salo , H., & Rautiainen , P. 2002, , 331, 880

    2002

  77. [85]

    2013, , 433, L30

    Lelli , F., Fraternali , F., & Verheijen , M. 2013, , 433, L30

    2013

  78. [86]

    S., & Schombert , J

    Lelli , F., McGaugh , S. S., & Schombert , J. M. 2016, , 152, 157

    2016

  79. [87]

    Lin , C. C. & Shu , F. H. 1964, , 140, 646

    1964

  80. [88]

    Lin , C. C. & Shu , F. H. 1966, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 55, 229

    1966

  81. [89]

    2011, , 410, 166

    Lintott , C., Schawinski , K., Bamford , S., et al. 2011, , 410, 166

    2011

  82. [90]

    & Rees , M

    Lynden-Bell , D. & Rees , M. J. 1971, , 152, 461

    1971

  83. [91]

    E., Puerari , I., Rosales-Ortega , F

    Mart \' nez-Garc \' a , E. E., Puerari , I., Rosales-Ortega , F. F., et al. 2014, , 793, L19

    2014

  84. [92]

    L., Lintott , C

    Masters , K. L., Lintott , C. J., Hart , R. E., et al. 2019, [ [arXiv] 1904.11436 ]

    2019 arXiv

  85. [93]

    2011, , 527, A147

    Minchev , I., Famaey , B., Combes , F., et al. 2011, , 527, A147

    2011

  86. [94]

    P., Somerville , R

    Moster , B. P., Somerville , R. S., Maulbetsch , C., et al. 2010, , 710, 903

    2010

  87. [95]

    C., Sheth , K., Regan , M., et al

    Mu \ n oz-Mateos , J. C., Sheth , K., Regan , M., et al. 2015, , 219, 3

    2015

  88. [96]

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

    2006

  89. [97]

    2016, , 827, L2

    Pour-Imani , H., Kennefick , D., Kennefick , J., et al. 2016, , 827, L2

    2016

  90. [98]

    L., Elmegreen , B

    Puerari , I., Block , D. L., Elmegreen , B. G., Frogel , J. A., & Eskridge , P. B. 2000, , 359, 932

    2000

  91. [99]

    & Dottori , H

    Puerari , I. & Dottori , H. A. 1992, , 93, 469

    1992

  92. [100]

    G., & Block , D

    Puerari , I., Elmegreen , B. G., & Block , D. L. 2014, , 148, 133

    2014

  93. [101]

    W., Roberts , M

    Roberts , Jr., W. W., Roberts , M. S., & Shu , F. H. 1975, , 196, 381

    1975

  94. [102]

    J., & Garc \' a-G \'o mez , C

    Romero-G \'o mez , M., Athanassoula , E., Masdemont , J. J., & Garc \' a-G \'o mez , C. 2007, , 472, 63

    2007

  95. [103]

    J., Athanassoula , E., & Garc \' a-G \'o mez , C

    Romero-G \'o mez , M., Masdemont , J. J., Athanassoula , E., & Garc \' a-G \'o mez , C. 2006, , 453, 39

    2006

  96. [104]

    Rosse , T. E. O. 1850, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series I, 140, 499

  97. [105]

    W., & Davis , B

    Sahu , N., Graham , A. W., & Davis , B. L. 2019, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1903.04738 ]

    2019 arXiv

  98. [106]

    & Laurikainen , E

    Salo , H. & Laurikainen , E. 2000 a , , 319, 377

    2000

  99. [107]

    & Laurikainen , E

    Salo , H. & Laurikainen , E. 2000 b , , 319, 393

    2000

  100. [108]

    & Laurikainen , E

    Salo , H. & Laurikainen , E. 2017, , 835, 252

    2017

  101. [109]

    Salo , H., Laurikainen , E., Buta , R., & Knapen , J. H. 2010, , 715, L56

    2010

  102. [110]

    2015, , 219, 4

    Salo , H., Laurikainen , E., Laine , J., et al. 2015, , 219, 4

    2015

  103. [111]

    Salo , H., Ohtsuki , K., & Lewis , M. C. 2018, in Planetary Ring Systems , ed. M. S. Tiscareno & C. D. Murray , 434--493

    2018

  104. [112]

    1999, , 117, 792

    Salo , H., Rautiainen , P., Buta , R., et al. 1999, , 117, 792

    1999

  105. [113]

    F., Kennicutt , R

    S \'a nchez , S. F., Kennicutt , R. C., Gil de Paz , A., et al. 2012, , 538, A8

    2012

  106. [114]

    K., P \'e rez , I., & Peletier , R

    S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez , P., Ocvirk , P., Gibson , B. K., P \'e rez , I., & Peletier , R. F. 2011, , 415, 709

    2011

  107. [115]

    & Gadotti , D

    S \'a nchez-Janssen , R. & Gadotti , D. A. 2013, , 432, L56

    2013

  108. [116]

    F., P \'e rez , I., et al

    S \'a nchez-Menguiano , L., S \'a nchez , S. F., P \'e rez , I., et al. 2017, , 603, A113

    2017

  109. [117]

    Sanders , R. H. & Huntley , J. M. 1976, , 209, 53

    1976

  110. [118]

    Savchenko , S. S. & Reshetnikov , V. P. 2013, , 436, 1074

    2013

  111. [119]

    2002, Nature, 419, 694

    Sch \"o del , R., Ott , T., Genzel , R., et al. 2002, Nature, 419, 694

    2002

  112. [120]

    1976, , 31, 313

    Schweizer , F. 1976, , 31, 313

    1976

  113. [121]

    K., Falc \'o n-Barroso , J., Mart \' nez-Valpuesta , I., et al

    Seidel , M. K., Falc \'o n-Barroso , J., Mart \' nez-Valpuesta , I., et al. 2015, , 451, 936

    2015

  114. [122]

    Seiden , P. E. & Gerola , H. 1979, , 233, 56

    1979

  115. [123]

    S., Block , D

    Seigar , M. S., Block , D. L., Puerari , I., Chorney , N. E., & James , P. A. 2005, , 359, 1065

    2005

  116. [124]

    S., Bullock , J

    Seigar , M. S., Bullock , J. S., Barth , A. J., & Ho , L. C. 2006, , 645, 1012

    2006

  117. [125]

    S., Chorney , N

    Seigar , M. S., Chorney , N. E., & James , P. A. 2003, , 342, 1

    2003

  118. [126]

    S., Davis , B

    Seigar , M. S., Davis , B. L., Berrier , J., & Kennefick , D. 2014, , 795, 90

    2014

  119. [127]

    Seigar , M. S. & James , P. A. 1998 a , , 299, 672

    1998

  120. [128]

    Seigar , M. S. & James , P. A. 1998 b , , 299, 685

    1998

  121. [129]

    S., Kennefick , D., Kennefick , J., & Lacy , C

    Seigar , M. S., Kennefick , D., Kennefick , J., & Lacy , C. H. S. 2008, , 678, L93

    2008

  122. [130]

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

    2011

  123. [131]

    Sellwood , J. A. & Kahn , F. D. 1991, , 250, 278

    1991

  124. [132]

    Sellwood , J. A. & Sparke , L. S. 1988, , 231, 25P

    1988

  125. [133]

    & Sellwood , J

    Shen , J. & Sellwood , J. A. 2004, , 604, 614

    2004

  126. [134]

    L., et al

    Sheth , K., Regan , M., Hinz , J. L., et al. 2010, , 122, 1397

    2010

  127. [135]

    W., Boe , B., Pfountz , C., et al

    Shields , D. W., Boe , B., Pfountz , C., et al. 2015 a , ArXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1511.06365 ]

    2015 arXiv

  128. [136]

    W., Boe , B., Pfountz , C., et al

    Shields , D. W., Boe , B., Pfountz , C., et al. 2015 b , Spirality: Spiral arm pitch angle measurement , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    2015

  129. [137]

    1981, in Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, ed

    Toomre , A. 1981, in Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, ed. S. M. Fall & D. Lynden-Bell , 111--136

    1981

  130. [138]

    2010, , 719, 1470

    Villa-Vargas , J., Shlosman , I., & Heller , C. 2010, , 719, 1470

    2010

  131. [139]

    2006, , 373, 280

    Voglis , N., Tsoutsis , P., & Efthymiopoulos , C. 2006, , 373, 280

    2006

  132. [140]

    E., Mihos , J

    Watkins , A. E., Mihos , J. C., & Harding , P. 2015, , 800, L3

    2015

  133. [141]

    W., Roellig , T

    Werner , M. W., Roellig , T. L., Low , F. J., et al. 2004, , 154, 1

    2004

  134. [142]

    W., Lintott , C

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

    2013

  135. [143]

    & Wakamatsu , K

    Yoshizawa , M. & Wakamatsu , K. 1975, , 44, 363

    1975

  136. [144]

    & Ho , L

    Yu , S.-Y. & Ho , L. C. 2018, , 869, 29

    2018

  137. [145]

    & Ho , L

    Yu , S.-Y. & Ho , L. C. 2019, , 871, 194

    2019

  138. [146]

    C., Barth , A

    Yu , S.-Y., Ho , L. C., Barth , A. J., & Li , Z.-Y. 2018, , 862, 13

    2018

  139. [147]

    1963, The Advanced Geometry of Plane Curves and Their Applications , ed

    Zwikker , C. 1963, The Advanced Geometry of Plane Curves and Their Applications , ed. Dover Phoenix Editions

    1963

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.