Pith. Sign in

RECORD

The Evolution of Galaxy Mergers and Morphology at z<1.2 in the Extended Groth Strip

Astrophysics · Submitted 3 Feb 2006

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim We conclude (1) the galaxy merger rate does not evolve strongly between 0.2 < z < 1.2; (2) the decrease in the volume-averaged star-formation rate density since z ~ 1 is a result of declining star-formation in disk galaxies rather than a disappearing population of major mergers; (3) the build-up of the red sequence at z < 1 can be explained by a doubling in the number of spheroidal galaxies since z ~ 1.2.

how it is stated · asserted 0.87 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv IDastro-ph/0602088 (version 2)
Pith ID7K74XXJZ, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationA. Coil, A. Metevier, A. M. Hopkins, B. J. Weiner, C. J. Conselice, C. N. A. Willmer, C. Papovich, D. C. Koo, E. Le Floc'h, G. Rieke, J. Huang, J. M. Lotz, J. Newman, J. Primack, K. Noeske, L. Lin, M. Cooper, M. Davis, P. Guhathakurta, S. Gwyn, S. M. Faber. "The Evolution of Galaxy Mergers and Morphology at z<1.2 in the Extended Groth Strip." arXiv:astro-ph/0602088 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/7K74XXJZ
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 6,814 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.28 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.12 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.15 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

We present the quantitative rest-frame B morphological evolution and galaxy merger fractions at 0.2 < z < 1.2 as observed by the All-wavelength Extended Groth Strip International Survey (AEGIS). We use the Gini coefficent and M_20 to identify major mergers and classify galaxy morphology for a volume-limited sample of 3009 galaxies brighter than 0.4 L_B^*, assuming pure luminosity evolution of 1.3 M_B per unit redshift. We find that the merger fraction remains roughly constant at 10 +/- 2% for 0.2 < z < 1.2. The fraction of E/S0/Sa increases from 21+/- 3% at z ~ 1.1 to 44 +/- 9% at z ~ 0.3, while the fraction of Sb-Ir decreases from 64 +/- 6% at z ~ 1.1 to 47 +/- 9% at z ~ 0.3. The majority of z < 1.2 Spitzer MIPS 24 micron sources with L(IR) > 10^11 L_sun are disk galaxies, and only ~ 15% are classified as major merger candidates. Edge-on and dusty disk galaxies (Sb-Ir) are almost a third of the red sequence at z ~ 1.1, while E/S0/Sa makeup over 90% of the red sequence at z ~ 0.3. Approximately 2% of our full sample are red mergers. We conclude (1) the galaxy merger rate does not evolve strongly between 0.2 < z < 1.2; (2) the decrease in the volume-averaged star-formation rate density since z ~ 1 is a result of declining star-formation in disk galaxies rather than a disappearing population of major mergers; (3) the build-up of the red sequence at z < 1 can be explained by a doubling in the number of spheroidal galaxies since z ~ 1.2.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 We present the quantitative rest-frame B morphological evolution and galaxy merger fractions at 0.2 < z < 1.2 as observed by the All-wavelength Extended Groth Strip International Survey (AEGIS). contribution 1.00 0.95 0.03 asserted 0.94
s1 We use the Gini coefficent and M_20 to identify major mergers and classify galaxy morphology for a volume-limited sample of 3009 galaxies brighter than 0.4 L_B^*, assuming pure luminosity evolution of 1.3 M_B per unit redshift. method 1.00 0.95 0.02 asserted 0.99
s2 We find that the merger fraction remains roughly constant at 10 +/- 2% for 0.2 < z < 1.2. result 1.00 0.97 0.28 asserted 1.00
s3 The fraction of E/S0/Sa increases from 21+/- 3% at z ~ 1.1 to 44 +/- 9% at z ~ 0.3, while the fraction of Sb-Ir decreases from 64 +/- 6% at z ~ 1.1 to 47 +/- 9% at z ~ 0.3. result 1.00 0.95 0.09 asserted 1.00
s4 The majority of z < 1.2 Spitzer MIPS 24 micron sources with L(IR) > 10^11 L_sun are disk galaxies, and only ~ 15% are classified as major merger candidates. result 1.00 0.90 0.03 asserted 1.00
s5 Edge-on and dusty disk galaxies (Sb-Ir) are almost a third of the red sequence at z ~ 1.1, while E/S0/Sa makeup over 90% of the red sequence at z ~ 0.3. result 1.00 0.91 0.04 asserted 1.00
s6 Approximately 2% of our full sample are red mergers. result 1.00 0.94 0.03 asserted 1.00
s7 We conclude (1) the galaxy merger rate does not evolve strongly between 0.2 < z < 1.2; (2) the decrease in the volume-averaged star-formation rate density since z ~ 1 is a result of declining star-formation in disk galaxies rather than a disappearing population of major mergers; (3) the build-up of the red sequence at z < 1 can be explained by a doubling in the number of spheroidal galaxies since z ~ 1.2. interpretation 1.00 0.88 0.96 asserted 0.87

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.75.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v2
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

We present the quantitative rest-frame B morphological evolution and galaxy merger fractions at 0.2 < z < 1.2 as observed by the All-wavelength Extended Groth Strip International Survey (AEGIS). We use the Gini coefficent and M_20 to identify major mergers and classify galaxy morphology for a volume-limited sample of 3009 galaxies brighter than 0.4 L_B^*, assuming pure luminosity evolution of 1.3 M_B per unit redshift. We find that the merger fraction remains roughly constant at 10 +/- 2% for 0.2 < z < 1.2. The fraction of E/S0/Sa increases from 21+/- 3% at z ~ 1.1 to 44 +/- 9% at z ~ 0.3, while the fraction of Sb-Ir decreases from 64 +/- 6% at z ~ 1.1 to 47 +/- 9% at z ~ 0.3. The majority of z < 1.2 Spitzer MIPS 24 micron sources with L(IR) > 10^11 L_sun are disk galaxies, and only ~ 15% are classified as major merger candidates. Edge-on and dusty disk galaxies (Sb-Ir) are almost a third of the red sequence at z ~ 1.1, while E/S0/Sa makeup over 90% of the red sequence at z ~ 0.3. Approximately 2% of our full sample are red mergers. We conclude (1) the galaxy merger rate does not evolve strongly between 0.2 < z < 1.2; (2) the decrease in the volume-averaged star-formation rate density since z ~ 1 is a result of declining star-formation in disk galaxies rather than a disappearing population of major mergers; (3) the build-up of the red sequence at z < 1 can be explained by a doubling in the number of spheroidal galaxies since z ~ 1.2.

Human review
References
How later papers used it

99 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 72 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 22 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 29 of the 177 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

Uses its method or tool 8 of 23 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

By the same authors

Compares with it 2 of 9 papers with this label
How the literature uses it

4 arXiv papers cite this in 6 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers whose main result relates to this one's

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States a conflicting result 1 paper
  • We conclude that (1) the optical galaxy merger fraction does evolve with redshift, (2) the merger fraction depends mildly on stellar mass, with lower mass galaxies having higher merger fractions at z<1, and (3) star formation is triggered at all phases of a merger, with larger enhancements at later stages, consistent with N-body simulations.

    The CFHTLS Deep Catalog of Interacting Galaxies I. Merger Rate Evolution to z=1.2 · 0.96

Papers citing it · 5 sentences without a confident label

Cites it as background 1 paper

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.