Archive | Site News RSS for this section

A Retrospective on the Evolution of Galaxy Zoo and a New Era in Galaxy Classification

So as to not bury the lede, we’re testing a new method for classifying galaxies with Galaxy Zoo Tags! If you want to skip my musings about the evolution of Galaxy Zoo, you can jump directly to the section introducing this new method here.

First, as a quick introduction, my name is Hayley Roberts and I’m a postdoctoral astrophysicist and data scientist for Zooniverse based at the University of Minnesota. I finished my PhD last year at the University of Colorado Boulder, studying a rare phenomenon found in extreme galaxy mergers called OH megamasers. As a postdoc, my work has broadened to studying galaxy evolution through major mergers and starburst galaxies. This has included evaluating how well our galaxy classification schemes work for high redshift, or more distant, galaxies. 

Our Evolving View of Galaxies

When Galaxy Zoo (GZ) launched in 2007, the first campaign utilized data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), a pioneering survey enabled by innovative instrumentation and data handling techniques. It cannot be overstated how much SDSS data revolutionized our understanding of many aspects of astronomy, but particularly galaxy evolution and morphology, through new insights such as the color-magnitude relation and galaxy environment. However, the galaxies in this SDSS sample have a median redshift of z~0.1 (~1.3 billion light-years away), meaning this first GZ campaign was limited to only our nearest neighboring galaxies. This is reflected in the earliest iteration of the GZ classification workflow, which only asked volunteers to determine if a galaxy was a spiral (edge-on, clockwise, or anti-clockwise), an elliptical, or a merger. Clearly, we had a long way to go before the myriad of potential other options reflected in the current GZ workflow were conceived. 

What drove the expansion of the classification choices in Galaxy Zoo workflow?

Two things: you and the data. Before the launch of the first iteration of GZ, the hope was to get 20,000–30,000 volunteers to participate in the first few months — the actual number ended up surpassing 100,000. This fundamentally altered the outlook on what GZ was expected to be able to do. The first GZ data release included classifications for nearly a million galaxies, an order of magnitude more than previous comparable studies. This data enabled numerous studies on unprecedented scales (such as studying the properties of dust in spiral galaxies, compiling the largest sample of mergers at the time, and exploring the co-evolution of host galaxies and their AGN), and led to new discoveries (including green peas and voorwerpjes). These first couple years demonstrated that your classifications were enabling GZ to achieve extraordinary scientific results. 

Since GZ’s launch, our view of the galaxies in our universe has expanded in number, diversity, and distance. Surveys, such as DESI, have allowed GZ volunteers (you!) to classify millions of galaxy images. The diversity of galaxies classified have inspired aspects of GZ classification tree iterations over the years or entire spinoff projects. However, over the years, the biggest change to the galaxies being classified on GZ has been evident through new technology and telescopes.

Images from four different telescopes/surveys of a triple galaxy merger (CANDELS J141937.3+525050.3) illustrating how our view of galaxies has evolved

Above shows images of a galaxy obtained by four different telescopes or surveys that have starred in different GZ campaigns: SDSS, DECaLS, HST, and JWST. This galaxy, CANDELS J141937.3+525050.3, has a redshift of z=0.73 (~6.5 billion light-years away) and is a spectacular demonstration of just how our view of the universe has evolved. The SDSS and DECaLS images, the first and second panels, show a distant, unremarkable smudge of a galaxy. However, the images taken by HST and JWST, the third and fourth panels, unveil a spectacular merger between three galaxies. The higher sensitivity and resolution achieved over the years has given us unparalleled views of the galaxies in our neighborhood. Additionally, the number of high redshift galaxies in GZ has vastly increased, as well as the maximum redshift of these galaxies, particularly for JWST.

High redshift galaxies, those that are very distant and therefore seen as they were in the early universe, often defy traditional categories like spiral and elliptical galaxies. The universe was much younger and more dynamic when these galaxies formed, leading to a greater variety of shapes and structures. Unlike their more mature counterparts, high redshift galaxies frequently exhibit irregular and clumpy morphologies, complicating morphological measurements and making them harder to classify using traditional frameworks. Understanding high redshift galaxy morphology may require new classification schemes with less rigidity that account for their unique properties and the evolving state of the early universe. 

Introducing Galaxy Zoo Tags: An Experimental New Way to Classify Galaxies

As we push the boundaries of our observations, the classification of high redshift galaxies presents new challenges, as discussed above. To address these challenges, we’re testing an alternative way to classify galaxies called Galaxy Zoo Tags! This workflow allows you to assign multiple “tags” (morphological features) to each galaxy without the restriction of working within the classification tree. This should allow for substantially more flexibility in classifications and feature combinations that might not be fully captured in the traditional classification tree. 

You can start classifying using this new workflow right now on a sample of galaxy images from DECaLS and CEERS data from JWST. All images in this test period have been previously classified using the traditional classification tree. The goals of testing this method are to:

  1. Compare the results of the two different classification methods (tagging vs. traditional GZ tree), and 
  2. Collect your thoughts and feedback on this new approach.

To help with the second goal, we’ve set up this Google form for you to provide feedback on this new classifying method. It’s also linked in the banner on the GZ Tags page. We would greatly appreciate your time testing this new method out and any thoughts or opinions you may have about it. If you have any questions, you can come chat with us on this Talk board.

We don’t have any plans to remove or replace the current GZ classification system at the moment. The future of this workflow style will be determined both by how helpful/informative the data is and your response. This is just one new approach, but there are likely many others we could pursue. As always, your input, feedback, and ideas are imperative to designing any potentially updated classification schemes, so please do consider testing out this new method and providing feedback via the Google form.  

Thank you all again for your efforts and making this all possible.

Slow strong bars affect their hosts the most

Hi everyone, my name is Tobias. I finished my PhD at the University of Oxford almost a year ago now, and I am currently a postdoc at the University of Toronto. I work a lot with Galaxy Zoo classifications, specifically to study bars in galaxies. We’ve just submitted a new paper (which can be found here), but I thought it would be fun to go over some of the main results in this blogpost. I heavily relied on classifications from Galaxy Zoo in order to identify the bars, so this work would not have been possible without your help!

Introduction

There are different ways to classify a bar in a galaxy. One you are all doubtlessly very familiar with, is a classification based on morphology: bars can be classified as either weak or strong. This is what Galaxy Zoo has been asking volunteers to do since GZ DECaLS.

However, another useful approach to classify bars is based on how they move (i.e. the kinematics). Bars will rotate around the centre of their host galaxy with a specific speed, often called the bar pattern speed (\Omega_{bar}). However, and this is crucial, this rotation rate is disconnected from the rotation rate of the disc of the galaxy. This means that we can classify bars depending on whether they rotate ‘slow’ or ‘fast’ relative to the stars in the disc. Slow bars typically rotate much slower than stars in the disc, whereas fast bars rotate with a velocity similar to the disc (well, technically, the bar-end of a fast bar will rotate with a velocity similar to stars in the disc at the same radius, but that’s a detail). These definitions can feel a bit convoluted at first, but I made an interactive tool to help you get a grasp on what this actually means. If you’re interested, this tool can be found here.

In a previous paper, we tried to measure the kinematics of bars in a bunch of galaxies (this paper can be found here). Bar strength has been reasonably well studied over the last few years, but the kinematics of bars hasn’t been studied observationally to the same degree. Even more, the interplay between bar strength and kinematics (i.e. does a strong slow bar behave the same way as a strong fast bar?) has not really been looked at yet in much detail. This is exactly the topic of our new paper. I have been working on this problem for a while now, and I have recently finished! I’ll go over some of the main findings below, but if you want to learn more, please feel free to check out the actual paper itself: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.05960

Intermezzo: different regions of a barred galaxy

Before we continue, I want to spend a little time to clarify different regions of a bar. The names are relatively intuitive. The picture below shows a famous barred galaxy called NGC 1300. All credits of the original picture go to NASA, ESA and the Hubble Heritage Team. Overlaid on this image are the different regions of the bar that I will talk about. The bar itself is bounded by the dashed box. The centre of the bar typically coincides with the centre of the galaxy. The bar then has two arms that stretch out either side. The bar-end region is where, as the name implies, the bar ends. The bar-end region where the bar sometimes transitions into spiral arms (as is the case here) or a large ring structure, but this is not always necessarily the case.

How do we study bar kinematics?

We want to study how bar strength and bar kinematics affect their host. Specifically, we will look at how bar strength and kinematics affect the distribution of star formation. I won’t go into too much detail on this now, but the amount of star formation is related to a quantity called the equivalent width of H\alpha, also written down as EW[H\alpha]. So whenever you see EW[H\alpha] in the plots and text below, you can simply replace it with “star formation”.

In order to measure how the star formation changes in different locations within the bar, we will create so-called radial plots, which is explained using the Figure below. Panel (1) shows the image of a galaxy. Panel (2) shows the amount of EW[H\alpha] (read: star formation) that happens in every pixel. You can already see that there is more star formation along the bar and in the centre of the galaxy. There is also a significant amount of star formation happening in the spiral arm in the top of the plot, but we’ll ignore that for now. Also note the black rectangle drawn over this plot. This is drawn over the bar region, and we will look at the pixels within that box in more detail in Panel (3). Here, we plot the EW[H\alpha] against radius from the centre. Every blue dot here is a pixel within the rectangle from the previous panel. To make comparison between different barred galaxies easier later, we normalise this distance to the length of the bar. This means that, in these units, at R = 1, we are at the end of the bar. At R = 0.5, we are in the middle of the bar. Note that, while there is some scatter, there is a pattern here. There is a lot of star formation in the centre of the galaxy and just beyond the ends of the bar. The black line shows the median value at different radius intervals. This line is shown again in Panel (4) in black. All the grey lines in the background are other profiles of other strongly barred galaxies. We can take an average of all these lines (effectively taking an average of averages) to create an overall profile of EW[H\alpha] of strongly barred galaxies. This is the so-called radial profile.

Effect of bar strength

We can then compare different radial profiles of different groups of galaxies. For example, below, we compare the radial profiles of unbarred (grey), weakly (blue) and strongly barred galaxies (orange). There is a lot going on in these plots, but I’ll walk you through the most important parts. Firstly, the full line is the median radial profile of a group of galaxies (e.g. all strongly barred galaxies), constructed as discussed above. The contours around it show the 33th and 66th percentiles, which can be interpreted as the uncertainty around the median of the radial profile. The bottom part of the figure shows the difference between two radial profiles. Additionally, the size of the dot shows how significant the difference is. A large dot implies that the difference is very significant, while a small dot implies that it is not significantly different.

There are multiple things that we notice. Firstly, the shape of the strongly barred radial profile, when you only look at R < 1.5, is shaped like a “V”: there is a peak in the centre of the galaxy, a minimum in the arms of the bar (at R = 0.5), and a second peak just beyond the bar-end region. This distinct shape is only seen for strongly barred galaxies. The shape of weakly barred and unbarred galaxies are similar to each other: it simply increases slowly with radius. These observations are consistent with the picture that strongly barred galaxies collect gas from the galaxy, and funnel them through the arms of the bar to the centre of the galaxy. This gas is then used in the centre (and to a smaller extent, just beyond the bar-end) to form stars. We can only conclude this for strong bars, not for weak bars.

Effect of bar kinematics

Now that we’re familiar with radial profiles and how to use them, we’ll move to the main point of the paper: what happens when we look into bar kinematics as well? This is done in the Figure below, where we look at the radial profiles of EW[H\alpha] for strongly barred galaxies in the left panel and weakly barred galaxies in the right panel. In each panel, we also divide the sample into slow (green) and fast bars (purple). In the left panel, you can see that the radial profile of slow strong bars has higher values of EW[H\alpha] across the board than fast strong bars. However, we also see that the uncertainty is quite large and that the observed differences are not significant. One thing to note is that the sample sizes are relatively small. This is because measuring bar kinematics is not straight forward. This is one potential reason for why the differences we see are not significant. I’m currently working on measuring it for more galaxies to hopefully mitigate this problem. On the other hand, the left panel shows that the radial profile of slow weak bars is similar to that of fast weak bars.

So, we see some effect of bar kinematics on the radial profile of strongly barred galaxies, but it is not significantly different, presumably due to low sample sizes. Perhaps we can tease out any potential differences in another way. Remember that the radial profiles were constructed by looking at the area around the barred region, by choosing the pixels that were contained within a box placed parallel on the bar (the red box in the example below). We can compare that to a box placed perpendicular to the bar (the blue box in the example below). By comparing these “on bar” and “off bar” radial profiles with each other we can directly assess the effect the bar has on its host, and perhaps learn more about the importance of bar kinematics.

This is exactly what we did in the Figure below. Here, we show radial profiles for on-bar regions (the red lines) and off bar regions (blue lines). We have done this for four subsets of barred galaxies: slow strong bars (top-right panel), fast strong bars (top-left panel), slow weak bars (bottom-left panel) and fast weak bars (bottom-right panel). There are a lot of different things to look at in this plot, but the main take-away is that the largest differences observed in EW[H\alpha] (and thus, star formation), and the only ones that are actually significantly different, are found in slow strong bars. It seems that, a slow bar will affect the star formation in its host significantly, but only if it is also a strong bar. There are some slight differences in some of the other panels (e.g. fast weak bars), but those differences are not significant.

Why would kinematics even matter?

We have shown that slow bars effectively increase the star formation along the bar. But why? To help see why this might be the case, it is helpful to go back to the definitions. As I mentioned above, a slow bar typically moves much slower than the stars in the disc at the bar-end. This means that the difference in velocity between the bar and the stars and gas in the disc is relatively large, as visualised in the left panel of the figure below. The stars and gas in the disc will continuously overtake the bar. This also implies that the bar will come into contact with much more of the gas in the disc. We hypothesise that, because of this difference in velocity, the bar is much more efficient at collecting, funnelling and concentrating gas from the disc into the bar region. This would, in turn, concentrate the resultant star formation along the bar as well and increase the overall values of EW[H\alpha] along the bar.

In contrast, fast bars move with similar velocities to the stars and gas in the disc. They are always “in sync” with the disc at the bar-end region. This implies that fast bars do not come into contact with as much gas as their slower counterparts, and therefore will have lower amounts of gas and star formation along their barred regions.

Conclusion

We have talked about a lot of different things in this post. The two main points are summarised below:

1) Bar strength has a clear effect on the star formation distribution. Strong bars have higher amounts of star formation in their centre and beyond the bar-end regions, while they have lower amounts of star formation in the arms of the bar. Meanwhile, a weak bar does not seem to influence the star formation distribution of their host at all.

2) Bar kinematics matter as well. Slow bars increase the amount of star formation along the bar, likely because they come into contact with more of the gas of the galaxy and are more efficient at funnelling and concentrating gas. However, we only see this happen if the bar is also strong.

If you’re interested in learning more about this, please feel free to check out this newly released paper, found here. Of course, none of this work would have been possible without the efforts of citizen scientists, such as yourself. The bar strength classifications used in this work are directly based on your classifications, and we are all very thankful for that!

Cheers,
Tobias Géron

‘Astronomers Library’ Book Giveaway

Galaxy Zoo has meant a lot to me over the more than a decade I’ve been involved with the science team. I’ve been proud to work with many wonderful colleagues and students in the Galaxy Zoo science team and work on many investigations into the properties of galaxies enabled by your classifications. 

 So to celebrate the publication* of my latest popular science book “The Astronomers Library”, a beautiful pictorial walk through the history of books about astronomy, I am happy to be able to offer a giveaway to Galaxy Zoo volunteers. If you would like to have a chance to win a free signed copy of the book please sign up via this form. One volunteer will be randomly selected at the end of May 2024, and I’ll be in touch to arrange delivery. 

As astronomers, our job involves many tasks, from data collection, analysis and interpretation, to presenting our work at conferences through talks and scientific posters. But there’s also a lot of writing. It’s often said that professional scientists are also professional writers. Lucky for me I happen to have come to really enjoy writing. I teach a class on writing in the sciences at Haverford College, and in recent years I’ve been delighted to find the opportunity to get involved in writing books intended for a popular audience. This book was particularly fun to work on for how it combines two of my favourite things – astronomy and books, and I’m delighted with the end result.  

Karen (PI of Galaxy Zoo). 

*For full transparency, while I was paid to write this book, I do not receive a commission per sale.

Planning for the Future of Galaxy Zoo – Science Team Meeting at ISSI

A large fraction of the Galaxy Zoo Science Team will be gathering at the International Space Science Institute (or ISSI) later this month to discuss the future of Galaxy Zoo, and in particular to work on the next phase of Galaxy Zoo now that there are large numbers of distant galaxies with publicly available JWST images. 

This is part of a series of two funded meeting at ISSI that the Galaxy Zoo team was awarded with the goal of working on the next phases of Galaxy Zoo: JWST

As the saying goes, if it isn’t broken don’t fix it. But also Galaxy Zoo has a tradition at being at the forefront of galaxy morphology techniques. So we want to use this meeting as an opportunity to spend some time reassessing the entire method that Galaxy Zoo pioneered back in 2007, when it was still a new idea to invite volunteers to participate in online image analysis.  Our understanding of how to analyze your votes has evolved a lot over the last 17 years and across the more than 70 peer-reviewed publications the team has worked on. The status of machine learning methods for galaxy image analysis has also changed significantly, so it makes sense to reassess the most effective approach for humans and machines to collaborate on understanding the shapes and structures of galaxies. 

The Galaxy Zoo science team has always been really international and distributed, with astronomers based all over the world. We are all really excited that ISSI has provided funding for us to have this rare gathering in person. We hope that by spending a week working together in person we can have some really productive discussions around the future of the project. We also have specific plans to work on getting the JWST images ready for your classifications as well as analyzing the results from the JWST:CEERS images you have already classified using our standard method.

As always we welcome volunteer input, not just via your classifications, but if you have opinions on what you would like to see in future versions of Galaxy Zoo, we invite you to share them on the Talk Forum.

Return of Galaxy Zoo Mobile

Galaxy Zoo Mobile is back! 

This time, we have two challenges for you; understanding rings and finding gravitational lenses. Both can be accessed through the Galaxy Zoo Mobile project on the Zooniverse app. Dive in and start swiping! 

Get the Zooniverse app on Android iOS and find Galaxy Zoo under ‘All Projects’ or ‘Space’. You can also use your browser if you prefer.

Understanding Rings

You already helped us find ringed galaxies; galaxies with a ring of stars around them. But there are many ways to “have a ring”; detached rings, pseudo rings and winding rings to name a few! Help us divide the ringed galaxies you found into all these different types. 

We’re also on the lookout for anything truly weird, as we know there are bound to be some crazy never-before-seen ring structures out there. The images you will see are the most likely to have rings from a suite of 9 million galaxies – so you’re going to see some truly spectacular shapes and sizes. 

We don’t know how rings work. Help us find out.

Ringed galaxies on Galaxy Zoo Mobile.

Finding Gravitational Lenses

Following on from the success of one of Galaxy Zoo’s latest iterations, Galaxy Zoo: Cosmic Dawn, we want to double-down on identifying all images containing a very rare type of object: gravitational lenses. These are galaxies surrounded by the light of a second galaxy directly behind them, with gravity distorting this light into beautiful arcs and rings. These objects can be used to help shed a light on dark matter and the early Universe, if we can find them!

For some of Galaxy Zoo: Cosmic Dawn, we used AI to help speed up the classification process and let you focus on the most interesting images. But our AI doesn’t understand rare objects like gravitational lenses, many of which may have been missed as a result. So, we ask you to take part in identifying these elusive objects hidden in over 20,000 Hyper-Suprime Cam (HSC) images from the Hawaii Two-0 (H20) Cosmic Dawn survey. Start searching on the Zooniverse app.

Thank you, as always, for your time and support.

James P, (also) James D, and Mike, on behalf of the Galaxy Zoo team

Galaxy Zoo DESI Published

I’m thrilled to announce the release of Galaxy Zoo DESI; detailed morphology classifications for all 8.7 million well-resolved galaxies in the DESI Legacy Surveys. This is the largest detailed catalogue ever made (by an order of magnitude). 

Today is the end of a long road. GZ DESI is being released eight years to the day after the first DESI images went live on Galaxy Zoo. It took four ‘generations’ of astronomers – Kyle Willett, Coleman Krawcyzk, myself, and Tobias Geron – to keep the project running. And of course, it took all of you. At least 105,459 people* contributed their time to making GZ DESI happen. Thank you all.

Releasing GZ DESI is also the start of a new journey. Space telescope Euclid is in the sky and taking pictures. The Vera C. Rubin observatory should see first light within a year. Both will find tens of millions more galaxies – even more than DESI. But we’re ready. GZ DESI let us build and test the AI tools that now work alongside you. Those tools mean that every classification you make helps us classify every other galaxy as well. And we’re starting to imagine what new tasks – beyond classification – we might be able to do. But that’s for another blog 😉

On to the next telescope!

Mike, and the Galaxy Zoo team

*(unique logged-in Zooniverse accounts)

Take a Peek at Some JWST Images

Many different teams of scientists are using NASA’s latest space telescope, JWST, to image galaxies so far away that they are back at the earliest time galaxies appear in the Universe. Because these galaxies are quite a bit more distant than any we’ve classified before in Galaxy Zoo, we want to make sure we know how to ask the right questions about the shapes and types of galaxies present, and also make sure we get the image processing as good as possible before asking for your help classifying lots of them. 

To get Galaxy Zoo started on classifying (we hope eventually) all of the distant galaxies in JWST imaging, we are running a pilot with just 8000 galaxy images from the Cosmic Evolution Early Research Science (CEERS) survey. 

CEERS is using JWST to take extremely deep images of 100 sq. arcmin of the sky (which is about 1/8th the size of the Full Moon!). It is making use of JWST instruments called NIRCam, MIRI, and NIRSpec to obtain both images and spectra in this patch of sky. CEERS’ main goal is to demonstrate, test, and validate efficient extragalactic surveys with coordinated, overlapping parallel observations in a patch of sky which already has a lot of other multi-wavelength data (e.g. from the Hubble Space Telescope). 

An overview image of the entire CEERS “Epoch 1” field, with some interesting galaxies highlighted. Visit the CEERS website to read what they find notable about each subpanel image. 

Even though the pilot sample is being put into Galaxy Zoo mainly as a test survey for future projects, we still expect that your classifications of these images will help us find out a lot about the type and number of galaxies at very high redshifts (z~9-13), look for early star formation, black hole growth and the assembly of bulges and discs in galaxies at z>3, and look for dust observed star formation and black hole growth at z~1-3. We also plan to see how well machine classifiers like Zoobot do at classifying these galaxies, so we can get them to help with the classification of future, larger collections of JWST galaxies. 

These images are from the first CEERS public data release. We have coordinated with the CEERS team to make sure the images you see are optimized to bring out as much detail as possible, and that the questions we are asking will enable the best possible science. We hope you’ll enjoy seeing some of the most distant galaxies ever observed in the project. And, as always, thanks for all your hard work classifying. We appreciate every click you provide. 

Click here to start classifying now.

Introducing Your New AI Assistant

Of all the galaxies in the sky, which should you look at first?

You might have noticed that our most recent galaxies, taken by Hyper Suprime-Cam in Hawaii, have often been less detailed than our previous galaxies. This happened because we were very generous when selecting which galaxies to include. We had never classified galaxies from this instrument before and we were curious to see what you would find.

Reviewing the classifications so far, the clear majority of galaxies – as many as 90% – were voted as either “smooth” or “problem”. That suggests we’re showing you too many “blobs” and too few interesting featured galaxies.

To fix this, I’m happy to announce a new Galaxy Zoo feature that will prioritise showing you detailed and unusual galaxies.

We’re doing this with an AI algorithm we affectionately call Zoobot. Zoobot tries to classify galaxies based on what volunteers have said before for similar galaxies. If you’d like to test out Zoobot on some DECaLS galaxies, you can play with it here.

Zoobot is very good at simple classification tasks like recognising a smooth galaxy as smooth. We can therefore avoid showing you galaxies that Zoobot already considers to be very smooth. Specifically, we will now avoid showing galaxies where Zoobot is 90% confident that fewer than 2 out of 10 volunteers would click “featured”.

How will the galaxies you see change? You will see fewer totally smooth galaxies and more of everything else. Below are random examples of galaxies on Galaxy Zoo before (left) and after (right) switching on Zoobot.

Galaxies shown on Galaxy Zoo before activating Zoobot (left) and after (right). There will be fewer totally smooth and “bad zoom” images, and more featured and unusual galaxies.

Zoobot will continue to learn from you as you classify galaxies. It should get better and better at removing extremely smooth galaxies over time. If Zoobot learns that a galaxy might not be smooth after all – that is, if Zoobot changes it’s mind – the galaxy will be shown.

You might remember Zoobot from the “Enhanced” workflow we ran during GZ DECaLS. There, Zoobot tried to prioritise galaxies which, if labelled by you, would most help it learn. This worked well and helped us train the improved version of Zoobot that we’re using now. This new system is similar; we’re showing you the galaxies where volunteer labels are most useful for Zoobot and for science. We’re just using a much more straightforward rule to pick these.

Your time is precious. Galaxy Zoo volunteers can recognise and classify the detailed features of galaxies in ways that Zoobot can’t – and nor can any other algorithm. More than that, humans have a unique ability to spot things that look just a little bit weird. Volunteers talking about strange objects has led to some of our favourite discoveries, including the Voorwerpen. Using Zoobot means you will be much more likely to see more diverse galaxies and come across more weird and wonderful objects. We also have another surprise planned around these – stay tuned…

Cheers,

Mike, on behalf of the Galaxy Zoo team

The dawn of Galaxy Zoo’s new incarnation – Galaxy Zoo: Cosmic Dawn!

This week, Galaxy Zoo begins its latest incarnation, Galaxy Zoo: Cosmic Dawn, with tens of thousands of new galaxy images now available for you to help classify! These were taken by the Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) on board the 8.2m Subaru telescope on the summit of Mauna Kea in Hawaii, as part of the Hawaii Two-0 (H20) survey, a key component to the more ambitious Cosmic Dawn survey.

The Cosmic Dawn Survey is a multi-wavelength survey aiming to understand the co-evolution of galaxies, the dark matter haloes that host them, and their central black holes over cosmic time, all the way from when galaxies first formed in the early Universe. A major part of this is the H20 survey which has obtained ultra-deep Subaru HSC imaging over large and particularly dark areas of the sky. The H20 survey targets two areas of the sky which, as part of the Cosmic Dawn Survey, were observed by the Spitzer Space Telescope in the largest allocation of observing time ever awarded on the spacecraft. When combined with these infrared data, H20 aims to push the boundaries of extragalactic astronomy by studying galaxy evolution out to around 800 million years after the Big Bang. This incarnation of Galaxy Zoo features images from a portion of the sky called the Euclid Deep Field North (EDF-N), from one of the two areas targeted by the H20 survey.

This effort from Galaxy Zoo will therefore also help prepare for the upcoming launch of the Euclid space telescope by the European Space Agency (ESA) in 2023, with the classifications you make now helping to guide what Euclid will observe in more detail with its even higher resolution imaging in visible light and the infrared.

Compared to previous incarnations of Galaxy Zoo such as those using SDSS and DeCALS images, H20 enables us to see fainter and more distant galaxies from earlier in the Universe’s history, thanks to higher angular resolution of HSC and greater depth of the survey. However, deeper imaging also means we can observe many more distant galaxies in the same patch of sky, so the images you will see may often appear redder and blurrier than you might expect.

The Galaxy Zoo decision tree of questions has been modified so that your classifications can help refine the software used by the H20 team, and perhaps that of future Galaxy Zoo incarnations as well. For example, the “Star or Artifact” question now includes a “Bad Image Zoom” option, while selecting “Non-star Artifact” will allow you to classify the type of any image artifact you come across, such as satellite trails. In the future, Galaxy Zoo will also be running a simplified decision tree of questions for some of the fainter distant galaxies, as their lower resolution prevents many features from being identified.

Also, look out for any galaxies containing bright clumps! We’ve added a question about these, as they can help us understand the period of intense star formation that took place in the early Universe.

Finally, we are also asking volunteers to tag any extremely red objects, or those with a lens or arc features, in the Talk board, using the “Done & Talk” option. These are rare objects that we don’t want to miss, especially for such distant galaxies!

We are excited about the new images and looking forward to seeing what you’ll discover. Join the classification now!

James Pearson, Galaxy Zoo and H2O teams

Our last night at the telescope

The story so far: on the first night we were able to observe until 02:00 before the weather forced us to close. The following three nights we were confined to the Residencia, the place where they keep all the astronomers when they are not observing. Much to our surprise, this morning we awoke to a sky only sparsely covered by clouds, instead of being in the middle of one. Maybe we have a chance of observing something tonight?

== 19:30 ==

As the weather has cleared somewhat on Roque de Los Muchachos, La Palma, we have received permission to go to the telescope tonight. We’ve just arrived and started taking the first couple of calibration images with much enthusiasm. 

A bit about the telescope itself: we’re using a telescope called the Isaac Newton Telescope (INT). It is a Cassegrain reflector telescope with a ~2.5m primary mirror that weighs ~4000kg! 

We’re not great at selfies

It takes a while for the telescope to take all the calibration images (biases, arcs and flats), so we were able to enjoy the sunset right before -hopefully- a very busy night. 

== 22:00 ==

Unfortunately the weather has taken a turn for the worse. We cannot open the dome of the telescope as the humidity is too high. We’ve had our first cups of coffee and are settling in for the night, while keeping an eye on the humidity sensor.

As tonight will be our last night at the telescope and we’ve had bad luck with the weather the last couple of days, we are very hopeful to observe some galaxies tonight. So far we were able to observe only one galaxy before we had to close on the first night. At this point we will be grateful for any data that comes in, even one more galaxy would double our current sample size!

== 00:45 ==

We’re still not able to open, humidity is at 100% and we cannot see any stars. The highlight of the last couple of hours was exploring the library in the INT and listening to an old cassette tape of Joseph and the technicolour dream coat. None of the other tapes work.

== 04:00 ==

We’ve had a popcorn and pizza break, drank multiple cups of coffee and explored most of the telescope building. However, unfortunately we’ve not been able to use the telescope today – the weather gods seem determined to prevent us from getting any data. With any luck we’ll be back next year to try again.