Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:13:41.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Galaxy morphologies in the era of big-data surveys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

M. Huertas-Company
M. Huertas-Company*
Affiliation:
Observatoire de Paris - Université Paris Diderot
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Galaxy morphology is a first-order descriptor of a galaxy and a useful proxy to identify physical processes. The 100 years old Hubble fork describes the structural diversity of galaxies in the local universe. Unveiling the origins of this galaxy zoology is a key challenge in galaxy evolution. In this review talk, I first summarized some key advances in our understanding of the morphological evolution of galaxies from z ~ 0 to z ~ 3, thank you in particular to the SDSS and HST legacies. In the second part, I focused on the classification techniques. With the emergence in the last years of large surveys the samples of study have increased by several orders of magnitude going from a few tens to several millions of objects. This trend will clearly continue in the next decade with coming surveys/missions such as EUCLID and WFIRST. While galaxy classification is still a required step in any survey, visual inspection of galaxies is becoming prohibitively time-consuming. Under these circumstances, the techniques used to estimate galaxy morphologies need to be updated.

Keywords

galaxy evolutionmorphologiesmachine learning etc.
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 11 , Symposium S319: Galaxies at High Redshift and Their Evolution Over Cosmic Time , August 2015 , pp. 118 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2016 

References

Abraham, R. G., van den Bergh, S., & Nair, P. 2003, ApJ, 588, 218 Google Scholar
Abraham, R. G., van den Bergh, S., Glazebrook, K., et al. 1996, ApJS, 107, 1 Google Scholar
Ball, N. M., Loveday, J., Fukugita, M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1038 Google Scholar
Barro, G., Faber, S. M., Koo, D. C., et al. 2015, arXiv:1509.00469Google Scholar
Bernardi, M., Meert, A., Vikram, V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 874 Google Scholar
Birnboim, Y. & Dekel, A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 349 Google Scholar
Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151 Google Scholar
Carollo, C. M., Cibinel, A., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2014, arXiv:1402.1172Google Scholar
Conselice, C. J., Bershady, M. A., & Jangren, A. 2000, ApJ, 529, 886 Google Scholar
Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., Morrison, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 156 Google Scholar
Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451 Google Scholar
Dieleman, S., Willett, K. W., & Dambre, J. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1441 Google Scholar
Elbaz, D., Cesarsky, C. J., Chanial, P., et al. 2002, A&A, 384, 848 Google Scholar
Gavazzi, G., Consolandi, G., Dotti, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A116 Google Scholar
Genzel, R., Burkert, A., Bouché, N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 59 Google Scholar
Granato, G. L., De Zotti, G., Silva, L., Bressan, A., & Danese, L. 2004, ApJ, 600, 580 Google Scholar
Hammer, F., Flores, H., Elbaz, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 430, 115 Google Scholar
Hubble, E. P. 1926, ApJ, 64, 321 Google Scholar
Huertas-Company, M., Pérez-González, P. G., Mei, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huertas-Company, M., Gravet, R., Cabrera-Vives, G., et al. 2015, ApJS, 221, 8 Google Scholar
Huertas-Company, M., Kaviraj, S., Mei, S., et al. 2014, arXiv:1406.1175Google Scholar
Huertas-Company, M., Aguerri, J. A. L., Bernardi, M., Mei, S., & Sánchez Almeida, J. 2011, A&A, 525, A157 Google Scholar
Huertas-Company, M., Rouan, D., Tasca, L., Soucail, G., & Le Fèvre, O. 2008, A&A, 478, 971 Google Scholar
Kartaltepe, J. S., Mozena, M., Kocevski, D., et al. 2015, ApJS, 221, 11 Google Scholar
Lintott, C., Schawinski, K., Bamford, S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 166 Google Scholar
Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 103 Google Scholar
Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P. 2004, AJ, 128, 163 Google Scholar
Martig, M., Bournaud, F., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A. 2009, ApJ, 707, 250 Google Scholar
Newman, A. B., Ellis, R. S., Bundy, K., & Treu, T. 2012, ApJ, 746, 162 Google Scholar
Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovač, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193 Google Scholar
Scarlata, C., Carollo, C. M., Lilly, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 406 Google Scholar
Toomre, A. & Toomre, J. 1972, ApJ, 178, 623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trujillo, I., Feulner, G., Goranova, Y., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, L36 Google Scholar
Wisnioski, E., Förster Schreiber, N. M., Wuyts, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 209 Google Scholar
Wuyts, S., Förster Schreiber, N. M., van der Wel, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 96 Google Scholar