Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The "Dark-Matter Dominated" Galaxy Segue 1 Modeled with a Black Hole and no Dark Halo

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Segue 1, long called the most dark-matter-dominated galaxy, is better explained by a central black hole with no dark halo required.

desk verdict A plausible but under-supported claim that Segue 1's kinematics are better fit by a central 4e5 solar-mass black hole than by a dark halo; the evidence is too thin and the model comparison too informal to accept as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06198 v2 pith:4PSFG6FH submitted 2025-05-09 astro-ph.GA

Nathaniel Lujan , Karl Gebhardt , Richard Anantua , Owen Chase , Maya H. Debski , Claire Finley , Loraine V. Gomez , Om Gupta
show 6 more authors
Alex J. Lawson Izabella Marron Zorayda Martinez Connor A. Painter Yonatan Sklansky Hayley West
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Segue1dwarfspheroidalgalaxyintermediate-massblackholedarkmatterhaloorbit-baseddynamicalmodelsstellarkinematicstidalstrippingLittleRedDots
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that Segue 1, long cited as the most dark-matter-dominated galaxy known, is better described by a central black hole of about $4 \times 10^5$ solar masses and no dark-matter halo. Using orbit-based dynamical models, the authors show that a two-parameter model with stars and a black hole fits the stellar kinematics better than three-parameter models with a dark halo. If correct, the galaxy's enormous mass-to-light ratio is produced by a compact central mass rather than an extended dark component, and Segue 1 may be the stripped remnant nucleus of a larger galaxy. The result matters because it offers a nearby, kinematically accessible counterpart to the overmassive black holes seen in early-universe Little Red Dots.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the Schwarzschild orbit-superposition method: a star-count profile and line-of-sight velocity dispersions are used to choose non-negative weights for a library of orbits in a trial gravitational potential, and the potential is varied over four parameters (stellar mass-to-light ratio, black hole mass, dark-matter circular velocity, and dark-matter scale radius) to find the best chi-squared fit. Against these models, the paper isolates two-parameter (stars plus black hole) versus three-parameter (stars plus dark halo) fits and compares the resulting internal dispersion anisotropy. The central rotation measurement is made by fitting a sinusoid to individual velocities in radial annuli of 15 to 21 stars.

What would settle it

Measure the line-of-sight velocity dispersion of at least a dozen individual stars within a few parsecs of Segue 1's center with high-resolution spectroscopy: a rise toward a point-mass Keplerian profile would support the black hole, whereas a flat or declining central dispersion would favor an extended compact halo. A complementary check is a deep X-ray or radio search for accretion onto a $4 \times 10^5$ solar-mass black hole; no detection would weaken but not rule out the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that orbit-based dynamical models of Segue 1 require a central black hole mass of $4 \pm 1.5 \times 10^5\ M_\odot$, and that this value is unchanged whether or not a dark halo is included. The best fits are the two-parameter models containing only stars and a black hole; they outperform the three-parameter models with stars plus a cored dark-matter halo. Models without a black hole can fit only by adopting an unusually small dark-halo scale radius (around 70 to 100 parsecs) and a strongly radial stellar orbital distribution, which the authors argue is implausible compared with other systems. The black-hole models instead produce nearly isotropic orbits, and the detection of a central rotation amplitude of $9.0 \pm 2.4\ \mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$ adds independent support for a central compact mass. The paper concludes that Segue 1 is likely the tidally stripped nucleus of a more massive system, alternatively analogous to Little Red Dots.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on five binned velocity dispersions, assumed Gaussian line-of-sight distributions, and a rotation signal from annuli of 15 to 21 stars being sufficient to distinguish a central point mass from a very compact dark halo, since the no-black-hole halo fit with scale radius near 100 parsecs is not excluded by the data on its own.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Segue 1 would no longer be the benchmark for extreme dark-matter domination; its kinematics would instead indicate an intermediate-mass black hole of roughly $4 \times 10^5$ solar masses.
  • The absence of a dark halo in the preferred fit suggests that some ultra-faint dwarf satellites may be stripped, bare nuclei rather than dark-matter-dominated systems.
  • The detected central rotation, with amplitude $9.0 \pm 2.4\ \mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$, makes the inner region rotationally dominated and favors a compact central mass over an extended halo.
  • If Segue 1 is the stripped nucleus of a more massive galaxy, it becomes a local analogue of Little Red Dots, whose overmassive black holes are seen at high redshift.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: high-resolution spectroscopy of individual stars within a few parsecs of the center could measure whether the velocity dispersion profile rises like a point-mass Keplerian profile or stays flat, directly separating the black-hole and compact-halo interpretations.
  • If the black-hole interpretation holds for Segue 1, other ultra-faint dwarfs with extreme mass-to-light ratios should be re-examined for central black holes, and some claimed dark-matter detections in tiny galaxies may need revision.
  • The same orbit-based machinery could be applied to other tidally stripped satellites to search for naked nuclei, connecting local dwarf remnants with the high-redshift overmassive black hole population.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies orbit-based (Schwarzschild) dynamical models to the ultra-faint dwarf galaxy Segue 1, using the five binned velocity dispersions of Simon et al. (2011) and a projected number-density profile from Niederste-Ostholt et al. (2009). The model potential has four parameters: stellar mass-to-light ratio, central black hole mass, dark-matter circular velocity, and dark-matter scale radius. The authors report that the best fit requires a black hole mass of 4 ± 1.5 × 10^5 M_sun, that this value is unchanged when a dark halo is included or not, and that a two-parameter model (stars plus black hole) fits better than a three-parameter model (stars plus dark halo). They also report a central rotation amplitude of 9.0 ± 2.4 km/s and interpret Segue 1 as a tidally stripped remnant nucleus or a local analog of Little Red Dots, with the dark matter replaced by a central black hole.

Significance. If the central black hole claim is correct, the result would be astrophysically important: it would identify an intermediate-mass black hole in one of the most dark-matter-dominated galaxies known, challenge the standard dark-halo interpretation of Segue 1, and lend support to scenarios connecting ultra-faint dwarfs to high-redshift over-massive black holes or Little Red Dots. The paper is honest about its limitations: Section 3.6 explicitly acknowledges that the small kinematic dataset creates a risk of over-interpretation. The use of fully general orbit-based models, the transparent presentation of the χ2 scans in Figure 3, and the separate analysis of the central rotation are constructive strengths. However, the central model-comparison claim is not supported by the analysis as presented: the models are non-nested and compared with raw χ2, the no-black-hole halo model is rejected on a prior about anisotropy rather than on data, and the best-fit stellar mass-to-light ratio drives to zero, so the black hole mass is not constrained against the stellar potential. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's headline conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 3.2–3.3 and Figure 3] The paper's central claim that the two-parameter stars-plus-black-hole model is 'better' than the three-parameter stars-plus-dark-halo model is not established by the presented comparison. The two model families are non-nested, the evidence is a raw comparison of χ2 minima in Figure 3, and no formal model-selection criterion (AIC, BIC, or likelihood-ratio with appropriate treatment of non-nested models) is applied. This matters because Section 3.2 reports that the no-black-hole halo model is an adequate fit with a scale radius around 70 pc and a circular velocity larger than 5 km/s, so the data alone do not exclude it. Please provide a quantitative model-selection statistic that accounts for the different numbers of parameters and the non-nested structure, or soften the claim accordingly.
  2. [Section 3.3, top-left panel of Figure 3] The best-fit stellar mass-to-light ratio is minimized at zero, yet the authors state that they do not explore such models further because 'stars have mass.' This is a load-bearing issue: if M/L is unconstrained and drives to zero, the black hole mass is absorbing the entire non-stellar potential, and the reported 4 ± 1.5 × 10^5 M_sun value depends on the unmodeled stellar contribution. The analysis should be repeated with a physically motivated prior or fixed plausible stellar M/L values, and the resulting change in the black hole mass and in the model comparison should be shown.
  3. [Section 2 and Section 2.1] The dynamical models use only five binned velocity dispersions with an assumed Gaussian line-of-sight velocity distribution, while the rotation signal that is invoked as 'additional support for a central black hole' is measured separately from annuli containing 15–21 stars and is not fed into the dynamical models. As presented, the rotation measurement cannot support the model comparison or the black hole mass estimate. Either fit the full individual-velocity likelihood (including the rotation signal) within the orbit-based framework, or clearly state that the rotation is an independent, qualitative clue rather than part of the model-selection evidence.
  4. [Section 3.4 and Figure 4] The rejection of the no-black-hole dark-halo model rests primarily on the claim that the required radial anisotropy is 'likely improbable' based on comparison with other systems. This is a prior, not a data constraint, and the manuscript does not quantify how improbable the inferred anisotropy is or how strongly the conclusion depends on that prior. Please report the actual anisotropy profiles for the best-fitting models, compare them quantitatively with the cited literature, and show the sensitivity of the black-hole-versus-halo conclusion to the assumed anisotropy prior or to a wider allowed range of orbital anisotropies.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.1] The abstract states that a dispersion of 4 km/s makes Segue 1 'rotational dominated' given a rotation amplitude of 9 km/s, but rotation and dispersion are not directly comparable in this way for a pressure-supported system; please clarify the intended meaning and account for projection/inclination effects.
  2. [Figure 3 caption and Section 3.1] The text says that 'a contour along the bottom in χ2' determines the best-fit value and uncertainty, but the reader is not told how the contour or uncertainty is constructed from the sparse grid of attempted models. Please describe the interpolation and uncertainty procedure.
  3. [Section 3.5] The comparison of cored and NFW dark-matter profiles reports χ2 values of 20 and 24 with no degrees of freedom or Δχ2 uncertainty; please report the number of fitted parameters and the number of kinematic data points used in this comparison.
  4. [General] There are several typographical errors, including 'Schwarszchild' in the introduction, 'rotaton' in the abstract, 'least-squared minimazation' in Section 2.1, and 'Milkey Way' in Section 3.5; these should be corrected.
  5. [Section 2] The treatment of tidal subtraction assumes a uniform tidal stream density over the full radial range; please justify this assumption more explicitly, since the paper later argues that tidal stripping may extend to the center, and explain how the extrapolated central number-density profile is validated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the black hole mass is a fitted parameter, the rotation is an independent diagnostic, and the halo and anisotropy priors are external or internally tested.

full rationale

The paper's central result, a best-fit black hole mass of 4 +/- 1.5 x 10^5 M_sun, is explicitly a free parameter of a chi-squared fit to the binned velocity dispersions, not a quantity derived from the conclusion. No equation defines the black hole mass in terms of the rotation signal or vice versa; the rotation measurement in Section 2.1 is independent of the dynamical models and is not fed into the fits, so it cannot be a fitted input renamed as support. The comparison between two-parameter stars-plus-black-hole and three-parameter stars-plus-dark-halo models is a goodness-of-fit comparison within the same modeling code, and any statistical weakness in that comparison (raw chi-squared, non-nested models, small kinematic sample) is a limitation rather than circularity. The cored logarithmic dark matter profile is motivated partly by Bustamante-Rosell et al. (2021), a citation that includes a present author, but the paper also directly compares cored and NFW profiles in Section 3.5 and finds the cored profile fits better, so the choice is not simply imported. The rejection of the no-black-hole model on the basis of high radial anisotropy cites Gebhardt et al. (2003) for the empirical statement that such anisotropy is uncommon in other systems; this is an external, falsifiable prior rather than a restatement of the present conclusion. The paper's own Section 3.6 acknowledges the risk of over-interpretation given the small kinematic dataset, but explicitly identifies this as a concern about fitting, not as a circular derivation. I find no step in which an input is defined in terms of an output, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing conclusion rests solely on a self-citation chain. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim adds one fitted parameter (black hole mass) to a model that otherwise has a stellar M/L pushed to zero. The modeling relies on assumptions of axisymmetric equilibrium, a Gaussian LOSVD, and a uniform tidal background subtraction. The full set of free parameters and assumptions must be stated before the no-dark-halo conclusion can be accepted.

free parameters (4)
  • stellar mass-to-light ratio (M/L) = best fit approaches 0
    A free parameter in the orbit-based models; the preferred value is effectively zero, meaning the stars contribute no significant gravity, which the authors treat as unphysical and do not explore.
  • black hole mass (M_BH) = 4 ± 1.5 x 10^5 M_sun
    Primary fitted parameter; same value with or without a dark halo in the model grid.
  • dark matter circular velocity (V_c) = > 5 km/s, no upper limit imposed
    Free parameter in the three-parameter dark halo models; poorly constrained.
  • dark matter scale radius (r_s) = about 70 to 100 pc in no-BH fits
    Free parameter in halo models; the no-BH best fit requires very small scale radii to mimic a central mass.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The system is in dynamical equilibrium and axisymmetric (Schwarzschild orbit-based model assumption).
    Required for the modeling method; the paper acknowledges tidal stripping may violate equilibrium at large radii but argues the central region is unaffected.
  • domain assumption The stellar number counts trace the stellar mass distribution with a constant mass-to-light ratio.
    The deprojected number density from Niederste-Ostholt et al. (2009) is used as the tracer population; M/L is fitted but the shape is fixed by the counts.
  • ad hoc to paper The line-of-sight velocity distribution is Gaussian within each radial bin.
    The paper constructs a LOSVD from the binned dispersions because only dispersions, not individual velocities, are used for the dynamical models. This is an approximation stated in Section 2.
  • ad hoc to paper The tidal stream contributes a uniform density that can be subtracted over the full radial range.
    Section 2: they subtract the outer radial density as a constant. If the tidal background is not uniform, the inferred central profile changes.
  • domain assumption The cored logarithmic dark matter profile is an appropriate representation for the dark halo.
    Used for the halo models, motivated by Bustamante-Rosell et al. (2021) for Leo 1; an NFW profile gives a worse fit (chi2=24 vs 20).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The "Dark-Matter Dominated" Galaxy Segue 1 Modeled with a Black Hole and no Dark Halo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PSFG6FH

@misc{pith2026250506198,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The "Dark-Matter Dominated" Galaxy Segue 1 Modeled with a Black Hole and no Dark Halo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PSFG6FH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06198}
}
abstract

The dwarf spheroidal galaxy, Segue 1, is thought to have one of the largest ratios of dark matter to stellar mass. Using orbit-based dynamical models, we model Segue 1, including a dark halo and a central black hole. The best-fit model requires a black hole mass of $4 \pm 1.5 \times 10^5\ M_\odot$. The value of the black hole mass is the same with or without a dark halo. The mass-to-light ratio of the stars is poorly constrained by the dynamical modeling, reflecting that Segue 1 is dominated by mass other than stars. Dynamical models that exclude a black hole provide a worse fit and require a dark halo with very small scale radii of around 100 parsecs. Additionally, the zero black hole models require a stellar orbital distribution that is highly radially biased. The model with a black hole provides an orbital structure that is close to isotropic, more similar to other well-studied systems. We argue that the two-parameter models of stars and black hole provide a better description of Segue 1 than the three-parameter models of stars and two dark halo components. Additional support for a central black hole comes from a significant increase in the central rotation. Using individual velocities, we measure a rotation amplitude of $9.0 \pm 2.4\ \mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$. Segue 1 is likely being tidally stripped at large radii, and we might be witnessing the remnant nucleus of a more massive system. Alternatively, given the high black hole mass relative to the stellar mass, Segue 1 is analogous to Little Red Dots seen in the early Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06198 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The projected number count profile for Segue 1. The open circles are the data from Niederste-Ostholt et al. (2009). The solid red circles are after subtraction of the tidal effects. The blue line is the smoothing spline that we use for the deprojection. light contributed by the stars. Being the most dark￾component dominated galaxy, Segue 1 becomes an es￾sential object to understand the properties of dark mat￾ter hal… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Amplitude of the rotation as a function of radial bin. We use radial bins of 21 stars for most of Segue 1, and going to a minimum of 15 stars at center and outer bins. In each radial bin, we fit a sinusoid as a function of position angle, and plot the amplitude of the fit. The thick solid line represents that amplitude, and the dotted line represent the 68% confidence bands. There is a large rise in the rotation in … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. χ 2 versus each of the four parameters. The top left is stellar mass-to-light ratio, the top right is black hole mass in solar masses, the bottom left is dark matter circular velocity, and bottom right is dark matter scale radius. In each panel, we plot all models and a contour along the bottom in χ 2 determines the best fit value and the uncertainty. The red points highlight those models that have no dark halo, and… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ratio of internal dispersions σr/σt for three different models. The blue and black lines represent mod￾els that include a black hole with a mass of approximately 4 ± 1.5 × 105 M⊙. These models show close to isotropic dis￾persions in the central regions of Segue 1. In c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The dark fate of ultra-faint dwarfs: Gravothermal collapse in action

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using high-resolution SIDM N-body simulations with tidal stripping, the authors find that the diverse dark-matter densities of Milky Way ultra-faint dwarfs can be explained if most are in the gravothermal collapse pha...

  2. A JWST View of the Overmassive Black Hole in NGC 4486B

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    JWST stellar dynamical modeling of the compact elliptical NGC 4486B yields MBH = 3.6+0.7-0.7 x 10^8 solar masses, and MBH/M* of roughly 4-13%, confirming an overmassive black hole.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B ppIxI #*

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  2. [2]

    A., Alves , D

    Alcock , C., Allsman , R. A., Alves , D. R., et al. 2000, , 542, 281, 10.1086/309512

    doi:10.1086/309512 2000

  3. [3]

    Anantua , R., & Baker , O. K. 2010, Physics Letters B, 690, 25, 10.1016/j.physletb.2010.04.064

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.04.064 2010

  4. [4]

    B., Evans , N

    Belokurov , V., Zucker , D. B., Evans , N. W., et al. 2007, , 654, 897, 10.1086/509718

    doi:10.1086/509718 2007

  5. [5]

    2023, , 520, 1832, 10.1093/mnras/stad094

    Binney , J., & Vasiliev , E. 2023, , 520, 1832, 10.1093/mnras/stad094

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad094 2023

  6. [6]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin , M

    Bullock , J. S., & Boylan-Kolchin , M. 2017, , 55, 343, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 2017

  7. [7]

    J., Noyola , E., Gebhardt , K., et al

    Bustamante-Rosell , M. J., Noyola , E., Gebhardt , K., et al. 2021, , 921, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c79

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c79 2021

  8. [8]

    2008, , 390, 71, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13754.x

    Cappellari , M. 2008, , 390, 71, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13754.x

    arXiv 2008

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Curd , B., Anantua , R., & Fowler , T. K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.04227, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.04227

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2000, , 539, L9, 10.1086/312838

    Ferrarese , L., & Merritt , D. 2000, , 539, L9, 10.1086/312838

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    D., & Kirby, E

    Frebel, A., Simon, J. D., & Kirby, E. N. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 786, 74, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/74

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    2011, , 729, 119, 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/119

    Gebhardt , K., Adams , J., Richstone , D., et al. 2011, , 729, 119, 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/119

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    B., & Hesser , J

    Gebhardt , K., Pryor , C., Williams , T. B., & Hesser , J. E. 1994, , 107, 2067, 10.1086/117017

    1994 doi

  6. [14]

    1995, , 110, 1699, 10.1086/117642

    ---. 1995, , 110, 1699, 10.1086/117642

    1995 doi

  7. [15]

    M., & Ho , L

    Gebhardt , K., Rich , R. M., & Ho , L. C. 2002, , 578, L41, 10.1086/342980

    2002 doi

  8. [16]

    A., et al

    Gebhardt , K., Richstone , D., Ajhar , E. A., et al. 1996, , 112, 105, 10.1086/117992

    1996 doi

  9. [17]

    2000 a , , 539, L13, 10.1086/312840

    Gebhardt , K., Bender , R., Bower , G., et al. 2000 a , , 539, L13, 10.1086/312840

    2000 doi

  10. [18]

    2000 b , , 119, 1157, 10.1086/301240

    Gebhardt , K., Richstone , D., Kormendy , J., et al. 2000 b , , 119, 1157, 10.1086/301240

    2000 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Kormendy , J., et al

    Gebhardt , K., Lauer , T. R., Kormendy , J., et al. 2001, , 122, 2469, 10.1086/323481

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    2003, , 583, 92, 10.1086/345081

    Gebhardt , K., Richstone , D., Tremaine , S., et al. 2003, , 583, 92, 10.1086/345081

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 351, 903, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07836.x

    Gentile, G., Salucci, P., Klein, U., Vergani, D., & Kalberla, P. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 351, 903, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07836.x

    2004

  14. [22]

    M., Salim , S., Weinberg , N

    Ghez , A. M., Salim , S., Weinberg , N. N., et al. 2008, , 689, 1044, 10.1086/592738

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    2009, , 692, 1075, 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1075

    Gillessen , S., Eisenhauer , F., Trippe , S., et al. 2009, , 692, 1075, 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1075

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, , 657, L12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142465

    GRAVITY Collaboration , Abuter , R., Aimar , N., et al. 2022, , 657, L12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142465

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, , 953, 185, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace33e

    Hayashi , K., Hirai , Y., Chiba , M., & Ishiyama , T. 2023, , 953, 185, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace33e

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    N., Cohen, J

    Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 779, 102, 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/102

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    2013, , 552, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220307

    L \"u tzgendorf , N., Kissler-Patig , M., Gebhardt , K., et al. 2013, , 552, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220307

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Mashchenko, S., Couchman, H. M. P., & Sills, A. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 624, 726, 10.1086/429264

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Kotiwale, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Kotiwale, G., et al. 2024, Environmental Evidence for Overly Massive Black Holes in Low Mass Galaxies and a Black Hole - Halo Mass Relation at z 5 . 2412.02846

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2001, , 563, 34, 10.1086/323830

    Milosavljevi \'c , M., & Merritt , D. 2001, , 563, 34, 10.1086/323830

    2001 doi

  23. [31]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1996, , 462, 563, 10.1086/177173

    1996 doi

  24. [32]

    1997, , 490, 493, 10.1086/304888

    ---. 1997, , 490, 493, 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  25. [33]

    J., & Sloan Digital Sky Survey Collaboration

    Newberg , H. J., & Sloan Digital Sky Survey Collaboration . 2003, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 203, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 112.11

    2003

  26. [34]

    W., et al

    Niederste-Ostholt , M., Belokurov , V., Evans , N. W., et al. 2009, , 398, 1771, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15287.x

    2009

  27. [35]

    Peccei, R. D. 2008, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 741, Axions: Theory, Cosmology, and Experimental Searches, ed. M. Kuster, G. Raffelt, & B. Beltr \'a n (Springer), 3--17, 10.1007/978-3-540-73518-2_1

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Walker, M

    Peñarrubia, J., Benson, A. J., Walker, M. G., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 406, 1290–1305, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16762.x

    2010

  29. [37]

    H., & Schechter , P

    Press , W. H., & Schechter , P. 1974, , 187, 425, 10.1086/152650

    1974 doi

  30. [38]

    1979, , 232, 236, 10.1086/157282

    Schwarzschild , M. 1979, , 232, 236, 10.1086/157282

    1979 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Geha , M., Minor , Q

    Simon , J. D., Geha , M., Minor , Q. E., et al. 2011, , 733, 46, 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/46

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    R., et al

    Siopis , C., Gebhardt , K., Lauer , T. R., et al. 2009, , 693, 946, 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/946

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    N., & Steinhardt , P

    Spergel , D. N., & Steinhardt , P. J. 2000, , 84, 3760, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.3760

    2000 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Kokorev, V., Kocevski, D

    Taylor, A. J., Kokorev, V., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2025, CAPERS-LRD-z9: A Gas Enshrouded Little Red Dot Hosting a Broad-line AGN at z=9.288. 2505.04609

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    P., Bender , R., Erwin , P., & Fabricius , M

    Thomas , J., Saglia , R. P., Bender , R., Erwin , P., & Fabricius , M. 2014, , 782, 39, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/39

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    van den Bosch , R. C. E., Gebhardt , K., G \"u ltekin , K., et al. 2012, , 491, 729, 10.1038/nature11592

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    2016, , 818, 80, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/80

    Webster , D., Frebel , A., & Bland-Hawthorn , J. 2016, , 818, 80, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/80

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.