Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

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

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST stellar dynamics find a 360-million-solar-mass black hole in NGC 4486B, overmassive for its galaxy and consistent with a tidally stripped remnant core.

desk verdict A careful JWST measurement where the overmassive BH conclusion is robust, but the quoted BH mass error is understated because the axisymmetric models ignore the double nucleus. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14676 v2 pith:GN3T7O5O submitted 2025-05-20 astro-ph.GA

Behzad Tahmasebzadeh , Matthew A. Taylor , Monica Valluri , Haruka Yoshino , Eugene Vasiliev , Michael J. Drinkwater , Solveig Thompson , Kristen Dage
show 14 more authors
Patrick Côté Laura Ferrarese Tatsuya Akiba Vivienne Baldassare Misty C. Bentz John P. Blakeslee Holger Baumgardt Youkyung Ko Chengze Liu Ann-Marie Madigan Eric W. Peng Joel Roediger Kaixiang Wang Tyrone E. Woods
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords StellardynamicsSupermassiveblackholesCompactellipticalgalaxiesNGC4486BJWST/NIRSpecIFUOrbit-superpositionmodelingJeansAnisotropicTidalstripping
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

NGC 4486B is a compact elliptical galaxy near M87 in the Virgo cluster, with a resolved double nucleus and a velocity-dispersion peak offset from its photometric center. Using JWST/NIRSpec integral-field spectra and two independent dynamical techniques, the paper aims to pin down the mass of the galaxy's central supermassive black hole. The orbit-superposition models give $M_{\rm BH}=3.6^{+0.7}_{-0.7}\times10^8\,M_\odot$, and across all tested models the black hole is 4\u201313% of the galaxy's stellar mass, far above ordinary $M_{\rm BH}$\u2013$M_*$ scaling relations. The paper interprets this as the expected signature of a galaxy that was tidally stripped down to its dense remnant core, leaving the central black hole nearly intact. Because the symmetric models do not capture the non-equilibrium double nucleus, the authors caution that the quoted value may be a lower limit on the true mass.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is Schwarzschild orbit-superposition modeling: thousands of orbits are integrated in a trial axisymmetric potential built from an MGE deprojection of HST imaging plus a central black hole, and the orbit weights are adjusted to reproduce the observed density and the full line-of-sight velocity distribution, including the Gauss\u2013Hermite moments of the kinematics, while the black hole mass, mass-to-light ratio, inclination, and dark-matter peak velocity are varied. The Jeans Anisotropic Modeling solver provides a faster, more constrained cross-check. The other essential ingredient is the double nucleus itself: the offset velocity-dispersion peak and asymmetric kinematics are the observable signatures that the equilibrium assumption fails on, and the masking and shifting experiments bracket how much that failure moves the mass estimate.

What would settle it

A non-equilibrium model of the eccentric nuclear disk that reproduces the observed double nucleus and the offset $\sigma$ peak would falsify the quoted value if it forces the black hole mass outside the $2.8\times10^8$\u2013$5.3\times10^8\,M_\odot$ range spanned by the paper's symmetric models; direct kinematic evidence that the black hole is not at the brightness peak would do the same.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that NGC 4486B contains a supermassive black hole of $M_{\rm BH}=3.6^{+0.7}_{-0.7}\times10^8\,M_\odot$, measured by fitting the full line-of-sight velocity distribution with axisymmetric Schwarzschild orbit-superposition models; the independent Jeans Anisotropic Models give $5.0^{+0.2}_{-0.1}\times10^8\,M_\odot$. The inferred black-hole-to-stellar-mass ratio lies between roughly 4% and 13% across all modeling choices, so the black hole is overmassive relative to standard scaling relations even in the most conservative model. Masking the off-center dispersion peak lowers the mass to $2.8^{+0.6}_{-0.4}\times10^8\,M_\odot$, while shifting the peak to the photometric center raises it to $5.3^{+0.9}_{-0.9}\times10^8\,M_\odot$; the paper treats this spread as systematic uncertainty introduced by assuming symmetry. Adding or removing a dark matter halo leaves the black hole mass essentially unchanged, and the dark matter fraction within 1 kpc is only bounded as $M_{\rm DM}/M_* < 0.5$. The paper therefore claims that the overmassive black hole is secure, and that the quoted mass may understate the true value because the double nucleus is not an equilibrium, axisymmetric configuration.

Load-bearing premise

The models assume NGC 4486B is an axisymmetric galaxy in steady-state equilibrium with the black hole at the brightest light peak, even though the galaxy has a resolved double nucleus and an off-center velocity-dispersion peak; if the system is not in equilibrium, the symmetric-model mass is a lower limit rather than the true value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the measured mass is correct, NGC 4486B joins a small set of compact stellar systems whose black holes are overmassive relative to their stellar masses, implying that tidal stripping can remove most of a galaxy while leaving its central black hole nearly intact.
  • The 4\u201313% range means the black hole mass is a significant fraction of the galaxy's stellar mass, so scaling relations for stripped remnants must account for a population with such overmassive black holes.
  • The insensitivity of the black hole mass to the presence or absence of a dark matter halo means the black hole detection stands even though the outer dark matter content is poorly constrained.
  • If the lower-limit interpretation is right, the true black hole mass is at least $3.6\times10^8\,M_\odot$ and possibly higher, strengthening the case that NGC 4486B is the stripped core of a much more massive progenitor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the M31 analogy holds and a proper treatment of the eccentric nuclear disk raises the black hole mass by a factor of 1.5\u20132, NGC 4486B's black hole would reach roughly $5$\u2013$7\times10^8\,M_\odot$ and the mass-to-stellar ratio would approach the extreme end seen in compact stellar systems.
  • The same combination of JWST/NIRSpec IFU data and orbit-superposition modeling could be applied to other double-nucleus compact ellipticals; if offset dispersion peaks systematically bias symmetric models low, the apparent overmassive fraction in stripped galaxies is currently underestimated.
  • A testable extension would be to forward-model the eccentric nuclear disk in N-body simulations and generate synthetic JWST kinematics; matching the observed offset dispersion peak while fitting the black hole mass would directly measure the bias and turn the lower limit into a proper estimate.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents new JWST/NIRSpec IFU stellar kinematics for the compact elliptical galaxy NGC 4486B, revealing a resolved double nucleus and a velocity dispersion peak offset from the photometric center. The authors fit axisymmetric Schwarzschild orbit-superposition and Jeans Anisotropic Models to these data together with archival long-slit kinematics, obtaining a best-fit black hole mass of MBH = 3.6+0.7-0.7 x 10^8 Msun from the Schwarzschild models. Across all tested dynamical models the inferred MBH/M* ratio ranges from roughly 4% to 13%, which the authors interpret as robust evidence for an overmassive black hole. They acknowledge that the axisymmetric, steady-state assumption is violated by the double nucleus and that the quoted value may represent a lower limit, and they test two ad hoc modifications (masking and shifting the sigma peak) that shift the inferred mass to 2.8 and 5.3 x 10^8 Msun, respectively.

Significance. The result is significant because NGC 4486B is a nearby, tidally stripped compact elliptical, and a secure black hole mass in such a galaxy directly tests the stripped-nucleus formation scenario. The paper is unusually transparent about the limitations of its modeling assumptions: it explicitly discusses the non-equilibrium nature of the double nucleus, provides bracketing tests, and qualifies the headline mass as a possible lower limit. The overmassive conclusion (MBH/M* ~ 4-13%) is robust to the modeling variations, since even the most conservative combination (lowest BH mass, highest stellar mass) yields a ratio near 4%, well above standard scaling relations. The work also demonstrates the effectiveness of JWST/NIRSpec IFU data for measuring central black holes in compact stellar systems, and the authors make their data and modeling choices clear, including the use of public codes (FORSTAND, jampy) and a description of the mock-validation heritage.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Table 2] The quoted uncertainty of ±0.7 x 10^8 Msun for the Schwarzschild model is a statistical/grid uncertainty under the axisymmetric assumption. The masking and shifting tests in the same section produce 2.8 and 5.3 x 10^8 Msun, respectively, showing a systematic spread of roughly a factor 1.9 that is not reflected in the headline error bar. The paper should either report the mass as a range (e.g., 2.8-5.3 x 10^8 Msun) with the symmetry assumption stated as a condition, or add an explicit systematic error term to the 3.6 x 10^8 Msun value. As written, the abstract and Figure 5 present 3.6 ± 0.7 x 10^8 Msun as the measurement, which understates the model dependence demonstrated by the paper's own tests.
  2. [Section 5, penultimate paragraph; Abstract] The statement that the derived mass 'may represent a lower limit' is based on an analogy to M31 (Brown & Magorrian 2013) rather than on a physical model of the eccentric nuclear disk in NGC 4486B. The masking and shifting tests bracket possible masses but do not test the physically motivated scenario in which the black hole is offset from the brightest light peak and the potential is non-axisymmetric and time-dependent. Therefore the direction and magnitude of the bias are not established by the presented tests. The authors should either add a test with an offset black hole (e.g., a simple toy-model or an eccentric-disk simulation) or soften the 'lower limit' claim to a statement that the axisymmetric value could be biased in either direction.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Section 5] The JAM result (MBH = 5.0+0.2-0.1 x 10^8 Msun) and the Schwarzschild result (MBH = 3.6+0.7-0.7 x 10^8 Msun) differ by about 40%, yet both share the same axisymmetric, steady-state assumption that is known to be violated. The paper explains the difference in terms of the flexibility of the Schwarzschild orbital library, but the divergence itself is a further indication that the systematic modeling uncertainty exceeds the statistical error bars quoted for either method. This should be highlighted in the discussion of the final mass, because readers may otherwise take the agreement between two 'independent' methods as evidence of robustness when both methods are subject to the same broken assumption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, paragraph after Figure 4] There is a typo in the sentence reporting the DM-free model: 'The model incorporating DM yields a BH mass of MBH= 3.6+0.7−0.7 109 M⊙' should read 10^8 M⊙, and 'the model without DM in' should read 'the model without DM yields'.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5] The phrase 'significantly more precise' in the abstract could be qualified as 'formally more precise given the model assumptions,' since the precision is conditional on the axisymmetric equilibrium framework.
  3. [Figure 5] The caption of Figure 5 lists the seven measurements, but the plotted symbols do not carry labels or values. Adding the numerical values directly to the figure would improve readability, especially because the shaded error bars overlap.
  4. [Section 4.1.4] The definition of the regularization term Freg uses w_i and the mean weight w-bar; it would be clearer to state explicitly that w-bar is computed from the stellar mass and Norb, as done in the text, because the notation is introduced only in passing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the BH mass is fitted to independent JWST kinematics and benchmarked against external scaling relations; self-citations are code/mock validations, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim, MBH = 3.6+0.7-0.7 x 10^8 Msun, is obtained by fitting Schwarzschild orbit-superposition and JAM models to observed JWST/NIRSpec and CFHT/SIS kinematics. The fitted quantity is not defined in terms of the claimed result: the BH mass is a free parameter varied on grids, and the kinematic data (v, sigma, h3, h4) are external inputs. The 'overmassive' conclusion is benchmarked against external MBH-M* scaling relations and expressed as a range (4-13%) across models, so it is not a renamed input. Self-citations to FORSTAND, Vasiliev & Valluri (2020), and Tahmasebzadeh et al. (2024) serve as code/mock validation rather than as premises that entail the target BH mass; the mock recovery is a code-reproduced test with independently specified input masses. The admitted limitation about the non-equilibrium double nucleus is a transparency statement about model assumptions and systematic uncertainty, not a circular reduction: the masking/shifting experiments yield different fitted masses (2.8-5.3 x 10^8 Msun), showing the estimate responds to the data instead of being fixed by construction. No equation or parameter is defined in terms of another parameter in a way that forces the claimed MBH or MBH/M* ratio.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mass measurement rests on a standard set of dynamical modeling assumptions, the most fragile of which is the axisymmetric steady-state approximation for a galaxy that clearly shows a double nucleus. The free parameters are the usual fitting parameters of Schwarzschild and JAM modeling. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (7)
  • MBH (SMBH mass) = 3.6+0.7-0.7 x 10^8 Msun (Schwarzschild); 5.0+0.2-0.1 x 10^8 Msun (JAM)
    Central parameter fitted to the observed LOSVD kinematics.
  • M/L (F850LP mass-to-light ratio) = 3.9+0.5-0.4 (Schwarzschild); 2.4+0.1-0.1 (JAM)
    Stellar mass scaling fitted as a free parameter in both methods.
  • Inclination angle theta = 72+11-14 deg (Schwarzschild); 86+3-5 deg (JAM)
    Viewing angle fitted; only weakly constrained by the Schwarzschild models.
  • DM peak circular velocity vh = 35+35-29 km/s (Schwarzschild)
    NFW halo amplitude fitted, but only an upper limit is constrained; degenerates with fixed scale radius.
  • Velocity anisotropy beta (JAM) = 0.02+0.01-0.01
    JAM-specific parameter assumed constant with radius.
  • NFW scale radius rh = 1 kpc (fixed)
    Fixed by hand to break the vh-rh degeneracy; motivated by tidal stripping expectations.
  • Regularization coefficient lambda = 15 (fixed)
    Chosen to prevent overfitting in the Schwarzschild orbit weight solutions.
assumptions (8)
  • ad hoc to paper The stellar system is in a steady state and is axisymmetric.
    Invoked in Section 4; known to be false for the double nucleus, and the paper treats the result as a possible lower limit.
  • domain assumption The galaxy distance is 16.3 Mpc.
    Adopted from Blakeslee et al. (2009); all physical scales and masses scale with distance.
  • ad hoc to paper The black hole is located at the brightest light peak (the adopted kinematic center).
    Assumed in Sections 3 and 4; if the double nucleus is an eccentric disk, the BH may be offset, and the shift test changes MBH by roughly 50 percent.
  • domain assumption The stellar mass distribution follows the HST F850LP light with a constant M/L.
    Standard MGE deprojection used in Section 4.1.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The BH potential is a Plummer sphere with scale radius 1e-4 kpc.
    Section 4.1.2; numerical softening used to represent a point mass.
  • domain assumption The dark matter halo is a spherical NFW profile with scale radius fixed to 1 kpc.
    Section 4.1.2; scale radius fixed to break degeneracy, motivated by expectations for tidally stripped systems.
  • domain assumption The JWST/NIRSpec PSF is the sum of two Gaussians with sigma 0.07 and 0.24 arcsec and 85/15 weights.
    Section 4, based on stellar observations; PSF uncertainties are not propagated into the final errors.
  • domain assumption The orbit library initial conditions are isotropic (beta0=0), and this does not affect final results.
    Section 4.1.3; supported by the authors' prior mock tests, but still an assumption about the orbital sampling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A JWST View of the Overmassive Black Hole in NGC 4486B." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GN3T7O5O

@misc{pith2026250514676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A JWST View of the Overmassive Black Hole in NGC 4486B},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GN3T7O5O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14676}
}
abstract

We present a new stellar dynamical measurement of the supermassive black hole (SMBH) in the compact elliptical galaxy NGC 4486B, based on integral field spectroscopy with JWST/NIRSpec. The two-dimensional kinematic maps reveal a resolved double nucleus and a velocity dispersion peak offset from the photometric center. Utilizing two independent methods-Schwarzschild orbit-superposition and Jeans Anisotropic Modeling-we tightly constrain the black hole mass by fitting the full line-of-sight velocity distribution. Our axisymmetric Schwarzschild models yield a best-fit black hole mass of $M_{BH} = 3.6^{+0.7}_{-0.7} \times 10^8 \, M_{\odot}$, slightly lower but significantly more precise than previous estimates. However, since our models do not account for the non-equilibrium nature of the double nucleus, this value may represent a lower limit. Across all tested dynamical models, the inferred $M_{BH}/M_*$ ratio ranges from ~ 4-13%, providing robust evidence for an overmassive SMBH in NGC 4486B. Combined with the galaxy's location deep within the Virgo Cluster, our results support the interpretation that NGC 4486B is the tidally stripped remnant core of a formerly massive galaxy. As the JWST/NIRSpec field of view is insufficient to constrain the dark matter halo, we incorporate archival ground-based long-slit kinematics extending to 5 arcsec. While this provides some leverage on the dark matter content, the constraints remain relatively weak. We place only an upper limit on the dark matter fraction, with $M_{DM}/M_{*} < 0.5$ within 1 kpc-well beyond the effective radius. The inferred black hole mass remains unchanged with or without a dark matter halo.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14676 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top row: The left and middle panels show the deconvolved ACS/WFC F850LP and WFPC2 F555W images of NGC 4486B, respectively, with overlaid isophotal contours. The red plus marks the center of the outer isophote. Two distinct nuclei are visible in the WFPC2 F555W image, originally published in Lauer et al. (1996). The right panel shows the Voronoi-binned S/N map per ˚A from the JWST/NIRSpec IFU data, revealing a centra… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Kinematic maps represented by the GH coefficients (v0, σ0, h3, h4) are shown for NGC 4486B. The first row displays the JWST/NIRSpec IFU data, the second row shows the best-fitting Schwarzschild model based on the JWST dataset. The third row presents the best-fitting model for the modified data where the σ peak is masked, and the fourth row shows the best-fitting model for data that the σ peak values shifted to the c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Kinematic profiles of vo and σo along the kinematic major axis. Red points show the JWST/NIRSpec IFU data with their associated uncertainties, while the red line indicates the best-fit axisymmetric model. The blue points represent the CFHT/SIS data and uncertainties from Kormendy et al. (1997), and the blue line indicates the best-fit model. Vertical dashed lines mark the expected BH sphere of influence (Rinfl) and … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior distributions of the model parameters derived from fits to the original data (no masking/shifting). Left: Results from the Schwarzschild orbit-superposition method, with parameters including the BH mass (MBH), stellar mass-to-light ratio (M/L), DM peak circul…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The BH mass measurements and their 1σ un￾certainties for NGC 4486B derived from various dynamical modeling approaches. From top to bottom, the measure￾ments correspond to: (1) the spherical isotropic Jeans mod￾eling from Kormendy et al. (1997), (2) axisymmetric JAM mod…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac30d9

    Akiba, T., & Madigan, A.-M. 2021, ApJL, 921, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac30d9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac30d9 2021

  2. [2]

    2001, A&A, 371, 409, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010317

    Bacon, R., Emsellem, E., Combes, F., et al. 2001, A&A, 371, 409, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010317

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010317 2001

  3. [3]

    J., Drinkwater, M

    Bekki, K., Couch, W. J., Drinkwater, M. J., & Gregg, M. D. 2001, ApJL, 557, L39, doi: 10.1086/323075

    doi:10.1086/323075 2001

  4. [5]

    1996, ApJL, 464, L123, doi: 10.1086/310098

    Bender, R., Kormendy, J., & Dehnen, W. 1996, ApJL, 464, L123, doi: 10.1086/310098

    work page doi:10.1086/310098 1996

  5. [6]

    Bentz, M. C. 2025, Research Notes of the AAS, 9, 128, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adddac

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/adddac 2025

  6. [7]

    P., et al

    Bian, Y., Du, M., Debattista, V. P., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada912

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada912 2025

  7. [8]

    P., Jord´ an, A., Mei, S., et al

    Blakeslee, J. P., Jord´ an, A., Mei, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 556, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/556 B¨ oker, T., Arribas, S., L¨ utzgendorf, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142589

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/694/1/556 2009

  8. [9]

    K., & Magorrian, J

    Brown, C. K., & Magorrian, J. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 80, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt104

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt104 2013

Show all 53 references
  1. [11]

    A., & Barth, A

    Buote, D. A., & Barth, A. J. 2019, ApJ, 877, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1008

    2019 doi

  2. [13]

    2003, MNRAS, 342, 345, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x Schwarzschild Modeling of NGC 4486B 13

    Cappellari, M., & Copin, Y. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 345, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x Schwarzschild Modeling of NGC 4486B 13

    2003

  3. [14]

    2009, Science, 326, 1379, doi: 10.1126/science.1175930 Cˆ ot´ e, P., Blakeslee, J

    Chilingarian, I., Cayatte, V., Revaz, Y., et al. 2009, Science, 326, 1379, doi: 10.1126/science.1175930 Cˆ ot´ e, P., Blakeslee, J. P., Ferrarese, L., et al. 2004, ApJS, 153, 223, doi: 10.1086/421490

    2009 doi

  4. [15]

    A., Nguyen, D

    Davis, T. A., Nguyen, D. D., Seth, A. C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1567

    2020 doi

  5. [16]

    J., Sweet, S

    Deeley, S., Drinkwater, M. J., Sweet, S. M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1192, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2313 den Brok, M., Krajnovi´ c, D., Emsellem, E., Brinchmann, J., & Maseda, M. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4786, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2852

    2023 doi

  6. [17]

    P., Ho, L

    Du, M., Debattista, V. P., Ho, L. C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e0c

    2019 doi

  7. [18]

    C., et al

    Dumont, A., Neumayer, N., Seth, A. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.09697, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.09697

    2025 doi

  8. [19]

    A., & Macci` o, A

    Dutton, A. A., & Macci` o, A. V. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu742

    2014 doi

  9. [20]

    2006, ApJS, 164, 334, doi: 10.1086/501350

    Ferrarese, L., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Jord´ an, A., et al. 2006, ApJS, 164, 334, doi: 10.1086/501350

    2006 doi

  10. [21]

    Gerhard, O. E. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/265.1.213

    1993 doi

  11. [22]

    Gnedin, O. Y. 2003, ApJ, 582, 141, doi: 10.1086/344636 Gu´ erou, A., Emsellem, E., McDermid, R. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/70

    2003 doi

  12. [23]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  13. [24]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    2022 doi

  14. [25]

    A., Forbes, D

    Janz, J., Norris, M. A., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2636

    2016 doi

  15. [26]

    1997, ApJL, 482, L139, doi: 10.1086/310720

    Kormendy, J., Bender, R., Magorrian, J., et al. 1997, ApJL, 482, L139, doi: 10.1086/310720

    1997 doi

  16. [27]

    E., Hook, R

    Krist, J. E., Hook, R. N., & Stoehr, F. 2011, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8127, Optical Modeling and Performance Predictions V, ed. M. A. Kahan, 81270J, doi: 10.1117/12.892762

    2011 doi

  17. [28]

    R., Faber, S

    Lauer, T. R., Faber, S. M., Groth, E. J., et al. 1993, AJ, 106, 1436, doi: 10.1086/116737

    1993 doi

  18. [29]

    R., Tremaine, S., Ajhar, E

    Lauer, T. R., Tremaine, S., Ajhar, E. A., et al. 1996, ApJL, 471, L79, doi: 10.1086/310344

    1996 doi

  19. [30]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.06198, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.06198

    Lujan, N., Gebhardt, K., Anantua, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.06198, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.06198

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [31]

    D., Beckman, R

    McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., & Conover, W. J. 1979, Technometrics, 21, 239, doi: 1https://doi.org/10.2307/1268522

    1979 doi

  21. [32]

    Onken, C. A. 2023, ApJ, 949, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4bc

    2023 doi

  22. [33]

    F., Frenk, C

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

    1996 doi

  23. [34]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    2019 doi

  24. [35]

    D., Seth, A

    Nguyen, D. D., Seth, A. C., Neumayer, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafe7a

    2019 doi

  25. [36]

    V., & Tremaine, S

    Peiris, H. V., & Tremaine, S. 2003, ApJ, 599, 237, doi: 10.1086/378638

    2003 doi

  26. [37]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 1997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt867

    Pfeffer, J., & Baumgardt, H. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt867

    2013 doi

  27. [38]

    E., Liepold, E

    Quenneville, M. E., Liepold, E. R., & Ma, C.-P. 2022, ApJ, 926, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e68

    2022 doi

  28. [39]

    1990, ApJ, 353, 118, doi: 10.1086/168596

    Richstone, D., Bower, G., & Dressler, A. 1990, ApJ, 353, 118, doi: 10.1086/168596

    1990 doi

  29. [40]

    Onken, C. A. 2021, ApJ, 916, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac05b6

    2021 doi

  30. [41]

    2002, A&A, 388, 766, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020298

    Sambhus, N., & Sridhar, S. 2002, A&A, 388, 766, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020298

    2002 doi

  31. [42]

    1979, ApJ, 232, 236, doi: 10.1086/157282

    Schwarzschild, M. 1979, ApJ, 232, 236, doi: 10.1086/157282

    1979 doi

  32. [43]

    C., Cappellari, M., Neumayer, N., et al

    Seth, A. C., Cappellari, M., Neumayer, N., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 713, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/713

    2010 doi

  33. [44]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/109

    Smith, R., Choi, H., Lee, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/109

    2016 doi

  34. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a1b

    Tahmasebzadeh, B., Lapeer, A., Vasiliev, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a1b

    2024 doi

  35. [46]

    A., Tahmasebzadeh, B., Thompson, S., et al

    Taylor, M. A., Tahmasebzadeh, B., Thompson, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.00113, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.00113

    2025 doi

  36. [47]

    2019, A&A, 625, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834808

    Thater, S., Krajnovi´ c, D., Cappellari, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834808

    2019 doi

  37. [48]

    M., et al

    Thater, S., Krajnovi´ c, D., Weilbacher, P. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5416, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3210

    2022 doi

  38. [49]

    1995, AJ, 110, 628, doi: 10.1086/117548

    Tremaine, S. 1995, AJ, 110, 628, doi: 10.1086/117548

    1995 doi

  39. [50]

    1993, ApJ, 408, 57, doi: 10.1086/172569 van der Marel, R

    Valluri, M. 1993, ApJ, 408, 57, doi: 10.1086/172569 van der Marel, R. P., & Franx, M. 1993, ApJ, 407, 525, doi: 10.1086/172534

    1993 doi

  40. [51]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672

    2019 doi

  41. [52]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fe0

    Vasiliev, E., & Valluri, M. 2020, ApJ, 889, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fe0

    2020 doi

  42. [53]

    K., Cappellari, M., Copin, Y., et al

    Verolme, E. K., Cappellari, M., Copin, Y., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 517, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05664.x

    2002

  43. [54]

    T., Seth, A

    Voggel, K. T., Seth, A. C., Baumgardt, H., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140827

    2022 doi

  44. [55]

    N., & Madigan, A.-M

    Wernke, H. N., & Madigan, A.-M. 2021, ApJ, 920, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac19ad 14 B. Tahmasebzadeh et al. Yıldırım, A., van den Bosch, R. C. E., van de Ven, G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4216, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx732

    2021 doi

  45. [56]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 2327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv740

    Zolotov, A., Dekel, A., Mandelker, N., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv740

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.