Cited by 18Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations

Galaxy and mass assembly (GAMA): comparing visually and spectroscopically identified galaxy merger samples

Open access
Desmons, Alice, Brough, Sarah, Martínez-Lombilla, Cristina, De Propris, Roberto, Holwerda, Benne, López-Sánchez, Ángel R·2023·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We conduct a comparison of the merging galaxy populations detected by a sample of visual identification of tidal features around galaxies as well as spectroscopically detected close pairs of galaxies to determine whether our method of selecting merging galaxies biases our understanding of galaxy interactions. Our volume-limited parent sample consists of 852 galaxies from the Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey in the redshift range 0.04 ≤ z ≤ 0.20 and stellar mass range 9.50 ≤ log $_{10}(M_{\star }/\rm {M}_{\odot })\le ~11.0$. We conduct our comparison using images from the Ultradeep layer of the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program (HSC-SSP) to visually classify galaxies with tidal features and compare these to the galaxies in the GAMA spectroscopic close-pair sample. We identify 198 galaxies possessing tidal features, resulting in a tidal feature fraction ftidal = 0.23 ± 0.02. We also identify 80 galaxies involved in close pairs, resulting in a close pair fraction fpair = 0.09 ± 0.01. Upon comparison of our tidal feature and close pair samples we identify 42 galaxies that are present in both samples, yielding a fraction fboth = 0.05 ± 0.01. We find evidence to suggest that the sample of close pairs of galaxies is more likely to detect early stage mergers, where two separate galaxies are still visible, and the tidal feature sample detects later-stage mergers, where only one galaxy nucleus remains visible. The overlap of the close pair and tidal feature samples likely detect intermediate-stage mergers. Our results are in good agreement with the predictions of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations regarding the populations of merging galaxies detected by close pair and tidal feature samples.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stad1639

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The visually-classified dataset (from Desmons et al. 2023) is drawn from the GAMA survey, which is apparent-magnitude limited (r ≤ 19.8 mag) and has median redshift z ∼ 0.2, so galaxies from this dataset tend to be brighter and have lower redshifts as well as slightly larger apparent radii than the broader selection of unlabelled galaxies from the HSC-SSP Ultradeep regions.

    “The galaxies in the visually-classified dataset (taken from Desmons et al. 2023) are drawn from the GAMA survey which is apparentmagnitude limited ( 𝑟 ≤ 19 . 8 mag) and has median redshift 𝑧 ∼ 0 . 2 so galaxies from this dataset tend to be brighter and have lower redshifts as well as slightly larger apparent radii than the broader selection of unlabelled galaxies from the HSC-SSP Ultradeep regions”

    From Detecting galaxy tidal features using self-supervised representation learning (2024) · cites this paper as Desmons et al. 2023

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Desmons, A., Brough, S., Martínez-Lombilla, C., De Propris, R., Holwerda, B., & López-Sánchez, Á. R.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Finnish Centre for Astronomy with ESO, University of Turku , Vesilinnantie 5, 20014 Turku,
  • University of Louisville (US)
  • ASTRO-3D (AU)
Corresponding author
Desmons, Alice
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2023-06-05
Volume
523
Issue
3
Pages
4381-4393
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W4379790451
Cited by
18
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository (University of Louisville) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • STFC
  • MEXT
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  • Japan Science and Technology Agency
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Keywords
galaxy mergers, galaxy interactions, tidal features, close galaxy pairs, merger stage, sample selection bias, Galaxy And Mass Assembly survey, HSC-SSP

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review