Beyond the Disc--Spheroid Dichotomy at $0.6 < z < 8.0$: Evidence for a Morphological Indeterminacy Regime from JWST

Abstract

Galaxy morphology is a fundamental tracer of galaxy assembly, but its characterization becomes increasingly uncertain in the early Universe. We investigate morphological classifications across different methodologies over the redshift range $0.6 < z < 8.0$, using JWST observations of 15,567 galaxies with 6,099 synthetic galaxies from IllustrisTNG. To quantify morphology without relying on visual labels or prescribed light profiles, we use an unsupervised-supervised hybrid machine-learning approach based on the non-parametric MEGG system, which combines the second moment of the light distribution, Entropy, Gini, and Gradient Pattern Analysis. We find that parametric and non-parametric classifications remain broadly consistent at $z < 2.5$, but diverge systematically at higher redshift. We identify this epoch as the Morphological Indeterminacy Regime (MIR), in which classical disc and spheroidal categories no longer provide a unique description of the galaxy population. The fraction of mixed-interpretation galaxies increases with redshift, reaching $F_{\rm MIR} \sim 0.55$ at $z > 2.5$. Cross-domain and projection-invariance tests show that the classifications are stable and insensitive to data set and viewing angle. In the interval $2.5 < z < 8.0$, MIR galaxies occupy an intermediate stellar-mass regime (median; $\log(M_\star/M_\odot) \sim 9.7$), between low-mass discs (median; $\log(M_\star/M_\odot) \sim 9.5$) and massive spheroids (median; $\log(M_\star/M_\odot) \sim 10.1$), while irregular systems have stellar-mass distributions similar to those of MIR galaxies. We interpret these results as evidence that morphological indeterminacy is a characteristic feature of galaxy assembly in the early Universe, reflecting a population of dynamically young systems that have not yet settled into the classical Hubble sequence.

Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.