Galaxy formation and evolution

Abstract:

Abstract We present morphological classifications of over 41 000 galaxies out to zphot ∼ 2.5 across six square degrees of the Euclid Deep Field North (EDFN) from the Hawaii Twenty Square Degree (H20) survey, a part of the wider Cosmic Dawn survey. Galaxy Zoo citizen scientists play a crucial role in the examination of large astronomical data sets through crowdsourced data mining of extragalactic imaging. This iteration, Galaxy Zoo: Cosmic Dawn (GZCD), saw tens of thousands of volunteers and the deep learning foundation model Zoobot collectively classify objects in ultra-deep multiband Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) imaging down to a depth of mHSC − i = 21.5. Here, we present the details and general analysis of this iteration, including the use of Zoobot in an active learning cycle to improve both model performance and volunteer experience, as well as the discovery of 51 new gravitational lenses in the EDFN. We also announce the public data release of the classifications for over 45 000 subjects, including more than 41 000 galaxies (median zphot of 0.42 ± 0.23), along with their associated image cutouts. This data set provides a valuable opportunity for follow-up imaging of objects in the EDFN as well as acting as a truth set for training deep learning models for application to ground-based surveys like that of the Ultraviolet Near-Infrared Optical Northern Survey (UNIONS) collaboration and the newly operational Vera C. Rubin Observatory.

Abstract:

Stellar bars are elongated structures in disk galaxies that can torque and funnel gas inward, influencing galaxy evolution. While strong bars are known to induce rapid inflow, the impact of weaker bars remains less certain. We collected spectroscopic data using the Isaac Newton Telescope to analyze 18 nearby galaxies (strongly barred, weakly barred, and unbarred) drawn from Galaxy Zoo DESI. We obtained spatial profiles of equivalent width (EW) and ionized gas velocity dispersion by fitting Gaussian profiles to the Hα emission line. Strongly barred galaxies exhibit a distinctive three-peaked EW[Hα] structure, consistent with inward funneling of gas. Weakly barred systems lack this pattern, which suggests limited inflow. Velocity dispersion distributions further distinguish the bar types, with strongly barred galaxies showing significantly higher values than weakly barred and unbarred systems. These results suggest that strong bars drive gas inflow, while weak bars exert a limited dynamical influence.

Abstract:

ABSTRACT The peculiar velocity field of the local Universe provides direct insights into its matter distribution and the underlying theory of gravity, and is essential in cosmological analyses for modelling deviations from the Hubble flow. Numerous methods have been developed to reconstruct the density and velocity fields at $z \lesssim 0.05$, typically constrained by redshift-space galaxy positions or by direct distance tracers such as the Tully–Fisher relation, the Fundamental Plane, or Type Ia supernovae. We introduce a validation framework to evaluate the accuracy of these reconstructions against catalogues of direct distance tracers. Our framework assesses the goodness-of-fit of each reconstruction using Bayesian evidence, residual redshift discrepancies, velocity scaling, and the need for external bulk flows. Applying this framework to a suite of reconstructions – including those derived from the Bayesian Origin Reconstruction from Galaxies (BORG) algorithm and from linear theory – we find that the non-linear BORG reconstruction consistently outperforms others. We highlight the utility of such a comparative approach for supernova or gravitational wave cosmological studies, where selecting an optimal peculiar velocity model is essential. Additionally, we present calibrated bulk flow curves predicted by the reconstructions and perform a density–velocity cross-correlation using a linear theory reconstruction to constrain the growth factor, yielding $S_8 = 0.793 \pm 0.035$. The result is in good agreement with both weak lensing and Planck, but is in strong disagreement with some peculiar velocity studies.