Galaxy Morphology in CANDELS: Addressing Evolutionary Changes Across 0.2 ≤ z ≤ 2.4 with Hybrid Classification Approach

Abstract

Morphological classification of galaxies becomes increasingly challenging with redshift. We apply a hybrid supervised-unsupervised method to classify 14,000 galaxies in the CANDELS fields at 0.2 ≤ z ≤ 2.4 into spheroid, disk, and irregular systems. Unlike previous works, our method is applied to redshift bins of width 0.2. Comparison between models applied to a wide redshift range versus bin-specific models reveals significant differences in galaxy morphology beyond z ≥ 1 and a consistent 25\% disagreement. This suggests that using a single model across wide redshift ranges may introduce biases due to the large time intervals involved compared to galaxy evolution timescales. Using the FERENGI code to assess the impact of cosmological effects, we find that flux dimming and smaller angular scales may lead to the misclassification of up to 18\% of disk galaxies as spheroids or irregulars. Contrary to previous studies, we find an almost constant fraction of disks ( 60\%) and spheroids ( 30\%) across redshifts. We attribute discrepancies with earlier works, which suggest a decreasing fraction of disks beyond z 1, to the biases introduced by visual classification. Our claim is further strengthened by the striking agreement to the results reported by Lee et al. (2024) using an objective, unsupervised method applied to James Webb Space Telescope data. Exploring mass dependence, we observe a 40\% increase in the fraction of massive (M stellar ≥ 1010.5 M) spheroids with decreasing redshift, well balanced with a decrease of 20\% in the fraction of M stellar ≥ 1010.5 M disks, suggesting that merging massive disk galaxies may form spheroidal systems.

0

Turn this paper into a full lesson

ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…