Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 84 references

The Internal Kinematics, Stellar Population, and Gas-phase Properties of The Pseudobulge in An Ultra-diffuse Galaxy: AGC721966

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spectroscopy of UDG AGC721966 shows its pseudobulge formed in an early halo-halo merger, not a failed Milky Way-like system.

desk verdict First spectroscopic data on a UDG pseudobulge; the new measurements are valuable but the sigma_c is resolution-limited and the bTFR check needs more transparency. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07457 v1 pith:FHHGGWPL submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.GA

Shihong Liu , Yu Rong , Huiyuan Wang , Hong-Xin Zhang , Tie Li , Yao Yao , Zhicheng He , Teng Liu
show 3 more authors
Enci Wang Cheng Cheng Xu Kong
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ultra-diffusegalaxiespseudobulgestellarpopulationsvelocitydispersionbaryonicTully-Fisherrelationstarformationhistorygalaxydwarf
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 uses a single SDSS spectrum covering the central 1.1 kpc of AGC721966, a nearby ultra-diffuse galaxy with a pseudobulge, to measure the bulge's stellar velocity dispersion, stellar population age, metallicity, alpha-element enhancement, and gas-phase oxygen abundance. It finds that the pseudobulge has a mass-weighted age of about 7.4 Gyr, an alpha enhancement of about 0.36 dex, and a central velocity dispersion of about 58 km/s. These values, combined with dynamical halo modeling and baryonic Tully-Fisher distance checks, are used to argue that the galaxy formed through early, gas-rich halo-halo mergers and that it lacks both a massive dark matter halo and a supermassive black hole. The result matters because it provides the first spectroscopic test of two competing formation scenarios for this newly recognized class of bulged UDGs, favoring the merger scenario over the 'failed L-star' hypothesis.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pseudobulge itself: an extended (r_h ≈ 0.4–0.6 kpc), low-Sersic-index central structure whose light dominates the 3-arcsec SDSS fiber, so the spectrum isolates the bulge from the surrounding disk. The analysis uses PPXF spectral fitting to measure the velocity dispersion, MILES/BaSTI single-stellar-population templates with an interpolated alpha-enhanced grid to derive ages, metallicities, and [alpha/Fe], and emission-line diagnostics (N2S2Hα and O3N2) for the gas-phase oxygen abundance. The load-bearing identity is the combination of an old, alpha-enhanced stellar population and a dwarf-scale halo: rapid early star formation leaves a chemical clock in [alpha/Fe] ≈ 0.36, while the absence of a massive halo and SMBH is established through a Burkert dark-matter profile fit to the HI-based dynamical mass and the M_BH–sigma relation. The baryonic Tully-Fisher relation is the geometric check that distinguishes a pseudobulge from a nuclear star cluster by anchoring the distance and hence the physical size of the central structure.

What would settle it

Measure the distance to AGC721966 directly from resolved stars (e.g., the tip of the red giant branch) or from a primary distance indicator and compare it with the baryonic Tully-Fisher distance; a significantly smaller distance would shrink the effective radius below 200 pc, making the central structure a nuclear star cluster rather than a pseudobulge. Alternatively, a deep HI rotation curve extending well beyond the optical disk that reveals a rising rotation speed inconsistent with a Burkert profile would overturn the dwarf-scale halo conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the pseudobulge in AGC721966 is an ancient, $\alpha$-enhanced stellar system: a mass-weighted age of 7.4 ± 2.5 Gyr, [$\alpha$/Fe] ≈ 0.36 ± 0.09, and [M/H] ≈ -0.62 ± 0.26, with a recent, low-mass rejuvenation episode inferred from a much younger light-weighted age of 2.9 ± 1.5 Gyr. The central stellar velocity dispersion is measured to be 57.9 ± 15.7 km/s, higher than typical field UDGs but consistent with a dwarf-scale gravitational potential. Using the M_BH–$\sigma$ relation, the paper argues that any central black hole is near or below the supermassive threshold (~9 × $10^{5}$ M_sun), and a Burkert-profile dynamical model yields a halo mass of log M200 ≈ 11.14 ± 0.15, excluding a ~$10^{12}$ M_sun halo. Together with baryonic Tully-Fisher distance validation that places the central structure's effective radius at >200 pc (far larger than nuclear star clusters), these constraints are interpreted as robust evidence for an early halo-halo (gas-rich) merger formation pathway and against the failed L* model for this galaxy.

Load-bearing premise

The baryonic Tully-Fisher calibrations, especially the one tuned to gas-rich ultra-diffuse galaxies, are assumed to hold for AGC721966; if they are biased for low-surface-brightness, gas-rich dwarfs, the derived distances, the physical sizes of the central structures, and the pseudobulge classification could all be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If AGC721966 is representative, pseudobulge-hosting UDGs formed through early gas-rich halo-halo mergers, not as failed massive galaxies, and their central bulges should be old and alpha-enhanced wherever they are observed.
  • The absence of a massive dark matter halo and a supermassive black hole means these galaxies do not require the extreme dark-matter or feedback explanations invoked for 'failed L*' galaxies.
  • The baryonic Tully-Fisher distance checks imply that the central structures in all five pseudobulge-hosting UDGs are genuinely extended (r_h > 200 pc), establishing them as a distinct class from nuclear star cluster-bearing dwarfs.
  • The recent rejuvenation episode seen in the light-weighted age indicates that late gas accretion onto the merger remnant can trigger localized star formation, a prediction testable with spatially resolved spectroscopy.
  • The measured velocity dispersion, metallicity, and alpha-enhancement place the pseudobulge on the same scaling relations as ordinary dwarf galaxies, suggesting that UDG pseudobulges are not chemically distinct from other low-mass stellar systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same diagnostic chain—aging plus [alpha/Fe] plus kinematics plus distance validation—applied to the other four pseudobulge-hosting UDGs would test whether the halo-halo merger scenario is universal or specific to AGC721966.
  • If an independent distance anchor, such as the tip of the red giant branch, becomes available for these systems, it would harden the size-based distinction between pseudobulges and nuclear star clusters without relying on the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation.
  • The inferred intermediate-mass black hole at roughly 10^6 M_sun sits near the detection threshold; high-resolution integral-field spectroscopy targeting the black hole's sphere of influence could directly confirm or reject its presence, turning a claimed absence into a measurable constraint.
  • The combination of an old, alpha-enhanced bulge and a young disk suggests that UDGs with bulges assemble their extended disks late, connecting to broader questions of inside-out growth in low-mass galaxies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a single-object spectroscopic analysis of the pseudobulge in the ultra-diffuse galaxy AGC721966 using SDSS DR12 data. The authors measure a central stellar velocity dispersion of 57.9 ± 15.7 km/s, derive mass- and light-weighted stellar population ages, metallicities, and α-element enhancements from MILES SSP templates, measure the gas-phase oxygen abundance from emission-line diagnostics, and combine these with a baryonic Tully-Fisher distance check and dynamical halo-mass estimates. They argue that the old, α-enhanced stellar population, the inferred low halo mass, and the probable absence of a supermassive black hole support the early gas-rich halo-halo merger scenario of Rong et al. (2025) and rule out the 'failed L*' formation model, at least for this galaxy.

Significance. If the measurements hold, the paper provides one of the first spectroscopic views of a pseudobulge in a UDG and usefully connects stellar-population diagnostics to formation scenarios. The analysis uses public SDSS data and standard tools (pPXF, MILES), and the checks on polynomial order and stellar-population regularization are a positive feature. The gas-phase abundances from two independent diagnostics are consistent with each other and with dwarf-galaxy scaling relations. The main significance, however, is tied to two fragile supports: the velocity dispersion sits near the SDSS spectral resolution limit, and the distance validation that converts the central structure from a nuclear star cluster to a kpc-scale pseudobulge relies on unverified baryonic Tully-Fisher calibrations for this population. The paper's strong conclusory language ('robust evidence', 'unequivocally ruling out') is not matched by the measurement margin.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Fig. 2f] The bTFR validation is presented as decisive for the pseudobulge-versus-NSC classification, but the section reports no bTFR-derived distances or uncertainties and does not compare them with the Hubble-flow distance of 78.9 Mpc used in Sec. 2. The three adopted calibrations are not independent tests for low-surface-brightness, gas-rich UDGs, and the Rong et al. (2024a) relation is itself calibrated for this same population, so it cannot serve as an external check. The authors should report the three distances, propagate their uncertainties into the effective radii, and show how the r_h > 200 pc conclusion changes under plausible distance errors.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] The reported σ_c = 57.9 ± 15.7 km/s is comparable to the SDSS instrumental resolution of about 64 km/s (FWHM). The robustness tests only vary polynomial order and do not demonstrate unbiased recovery of the velocity dispersion at this resolution and signal-to-noise. I request mock-spectrum tests with unresolved and low-dispersion inputs, and an explicit statement of the observed (pre-correction) line-of-sight broadening, because the SMBH and halo interpretations in Secs. 3.1 and 3.2 depend on this measurement.
  3. [Secs. 3.3 and 4] The data are consistent with an early, rapid star-formation episode, but the claims of 'robust evidence' for the halo-halo merger scenario and of 'unequivocally ruling out' the failed L* model are not justified by the presented analysis. The evidence against an SMBH is an inferred IMBH mass from the M_BH–σ relation, which the authors themselves note is less constrained for pseudobulges, and the stellar-population expectations of the two formation scenarios are never quantitatively compared. A model comparison with explicit predictions for stellar age, [α/Fe], halo mass, and BH occupation, or a more cautious conclusion, is needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] The text contains a duplicated word: 'disable additive polynomials and and regularization' should read 'disable additive polynomials and regularization'.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The phrase 'dose not mean' is a typo for 'does not mean'.
  3. [Sec. 2.3 / Fig. 2] The panel references in the text are inconsistent with the figure caption: the BPT diagram is panel e, while the 12+log(O/H)-M* relation is panel d; the text swaps these two.
  4. [Sec. 3.4] The statement that 'all three relations robustly confirm' r_h > 200 pc would be easier to verify if the bTFR distances were listed in a small table or stated in the text, rather than only shown graphically in Fig. 2f.
  5. [References] Several citations are to arXiv e-prints (e.g., Rong et al. 2024a, Zhang et al. 2025); the authors should update these to the published versions if they are now in press or accepted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central quantities are measured from SDSS spectroscopy or external calibrations, and self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central results—central velocity dispersion, mass- and light-weighted ages, [M/H], [alpha/Fe], and gas-phase oxygen abundance—are derived from fitting the SDSS spectrum with pPXF and MILES SSP templates, with explicit robustness checks. None of these quantities is defined in terms of the Rong et al. (2025) formation scenario with which they are later compared; the scenario is invoked as an external interpretive framework after the measurements are made. The halo-mass estimate in Sec. 3.2 uses an HI-kinematics approach (V_c, r_HI, Burkert profile) independent of the stellar-population conclusions, and the no-SMBH inference follows from the externally calibrated Tremaine et al. (2002) M_BH–sigma relation; neither step constructs its conclusion from its inputs. The bTFR distance validation in Sec. 3.4 applies three calibrations, two external (Stark et al. 2009; Lelli et al. 2016) and one from Rong et al. (2024a); even if the latter were in-sample, the r_h > 200 pc conclusion would still be supported by the two independent calibrations, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The paper contains frequent self-citations, but no equation or reduction is exhibited in which a predicted quantity equals a fitted input by construction. The comparison to the Rong et al. (2025) scenario is an interpretation of independently measured properties, not a derivation from that scenario. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary standard, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions about the SDSS fiber aperture, stellar template fitting, and external scaling relations. No new free parameters are fitted in this paper; the quoted values are measurements, not model fits. The main uncertainties come from published empirical relations (r_HI-M_HI, Burkert r0-M200, bTFR) and from the instrumental resolution.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The SDSS 3 arcsec fiber captures predominantly pseudobulge light; the disk contributes less than 0.1% of the central flux.
    Section 2, opening paragraph, is the basis for interpreting the spectrum as the pseudobulge.
  • domain assumption The measured sigma_c is robustly extracted despite being comparable to the SDSS instrumental resolution.
    Section 2.1; if the stellar broadening is smaller than the LSF, the fitted sigma may be dominated by template mismatch.
  • domain assumption The MILES SSP models, with the assumed bimodal IMF and alpha/Fe interpolation, recover unbiased stellar population parameters.
    Section 2.2, where the SSP grid and interpolation are described.
  • domain assumption The HI rotation velocity from Rong et al. 2025 and the empirical r_HI-M_HI relation trace the circular velocity at r_HI.
    Section 3.2, Eq. (1) and surrounding text, used to derive the dynamical mass and halo mass.
  • domain assumption The Burkert dark matter profile with the Salucci r0-M200 relation describes the halo of AGC721966.
    Section 3.2, Eqs. (2) and (3), used to estimate log M200 = 11.14 +/- 0.15.
  • domain assumption The three published bTFR calibrations are valid distance indicators for these ultra-diffuse galaxies.
    Section 3.4, used to conclude that the central structures are pseudobulges rather than nuclear star clusters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Internal Kinematics, Stellar Population, and Gas-phase Properties of The Pseudobulge in An Ultra-diffuse Galaxy: AGC721966." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FHHGGWPL

@misc{pith2026250607457,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Internal Kinematics, Stellar Population, and Gas-phase Properties of The Pseudobulge in An Ultra-diffuse Galaxy: AGC721966},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FHHGGWPL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07457}
}
abstract

Leveraging spectroscopic data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of the central stellar velocity dispersion, stellar population properties, star formation history, and gas-phase chemical abundances in AGC721966, a unique ultra-diffuse galaxy (UDG) harboring a pseudobulge. Our findings reveal that the pseudobulge formed in the early universe but underwent a recent episode of rejuvenated star formation. The system exhibits a mass-weighted (light-weighted) stellar population age of $\tau_{\star}\sim 7.4\pm2.5$ ($2.9\pm1.5$)~Gyr, a stellar metallicity of [M/H]$\sim -0.62\pm0.26$ ($-0.55\pm0.20$), an $\alpha$-element enhancement of [$\alpha$/Fe]$\sim 0.36\pm0.09$ ($0.37\pm0.07$), and a gas-phase oxygen abundance of \Oabund$\sim 8.15\pm0.03$. The central stellar velocity dispersion is measured as $\sigma_{\rm c}\sim 57.9\pm15.7$~km/s. These results provide robust evidence supporting the early halo-halo merging formation scenario proposed by \cite{Rong25}, while unequivocally ruling out the ``failed'' $L^{\star}$ formation model, at least for AGC721966. Furthermore, through systematic application of the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation, we establish that these pseudobulge-hosting UDGs are neither misidentified nuclear star cluster-bearing dwarf galaxies nor bulge-dominated massive galaxies, thereby affirming their distinct evolutionary pathway.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07457 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stellar population analysis of the pseudobulge in AGC721966. Panel a presents the SDSS spectrum of the pseudobulge after rebinning (blue), best-fit stellar population model (orange), and residuals (green). The inset displays the image of AGC721966, highlighting the SDSS 3 arcsec spectroscopic fiber positioned on the pseudobulge of the galaxy. Panels b, c, and d show the mass-weighted stellar age-metallicity distribu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparative analysis of the pseudobulge in AGC721966 and other UDGs. Symbols denote UDGs in different environments: dots for galaxy clusters, squares for groups, and inverted triangles for field galaxies. The pseudobulge in AGC721966 is highlighted as a red star. Panel a: the mass-weighted stellar metallicity [Fe/H] as a function of stellar mass M⋆. The universal [Fe/H]-M⋆ relation for nearby dwarf galaxies (Kirby e… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 219, 12

    2015

  2. [2]

    C., Loeb, A

    Amorisco, N. C., Loeb, A. 2016, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 459L, 51

    2016

  3. [3]

    C., Monachesi, A., Agnello, A., White, S

    Amorisco, N. C., Monachesi, A., Agnello, A., White, S. D. M. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 475, 4235

    2018

  4. [4]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

    1981

  5. [5]

    2011, A&A, 531A, 109

    Beifiori, A., Maraston, C., Thomas, D., Johansson, J. 2011, A&A, 531A, 109

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    2008, Mon

    Bekki, K. 2008, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.: Lett., 388, L10

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    F., McIntosh, D

    Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., Weinberg, M. D. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 149, 289

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 3751

    Beccari, G., Marchetti, A., Carini, R. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3751

    work page 2017

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    V ., Abadi, M

    Benavides, J., Sales, L. V ., Abadi, M. G., Marinacci, F., V ogelsberger, M., Hernquist, L. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 1033

    2023

  2. [10]

    Gallagher, J., III, Gadotti, D. A. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1904

    2020

  3. [11]

    1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 447, 25

    Burkert, A. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 447, 25

    1995

  4. [12]

    2017, Mon

    Cappellari, M. 2017, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 466, 798

    2017

  5. [13]

    2023, Mon

    Cappellari, M. 2023, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 526, 3273

    2023

  6. [14]

    A., Falc´on-Barroso, J., Macc‘o, A

    Beasley, M. A., Falc´on-Barroso, J., Macc‘o, A. V . 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 4282

    2020

  7. [15]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 382

    Guo, Y . 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 382

    2019

  8. [16]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 906 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 906 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C. B., Dutton, A. A., Macc`o, A. V ., Obreja, A., Dekel, A. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 466, L1

    2018

  9. [17]

    A., Kewley, L

    Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., Sutherland, R. S., Nicholls, D. C. 2016, Astrophysics and Space Science, 361, 61

    2016

  10. [18]

    J., Jones, J

    Drinkwater, M. J., Jones, J. B., Gregg, M. D., Phillipps, S. 2000, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 17, 227

    2000

  11. [19]

    W., de Zeeuw, P

    Kuntschner, H., Miller, B. W., de Zeeuw, P. T. 2004, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 352, 721

    2004

  12. [20]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 628, 92

    Sarzi, M., de Zeeuw, T. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 628, 92

    2019

  13. [21]

    2025, eprint arXiv:2503.03404 Ferr´e-Mateu, A., Alabi, A., Forbes, D

    Jerabkova, T., Fensch, J., Emsellem, E. 2025, eprint arXiv:2503.03404 Ferr´e-Mateu, A., Alabi, A., Forbes, D. A., Romanowsky, A. J.,

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    B., Okabe, N

    Wasserman, A., Stone, M. B., Okabe, N. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 479, 4891 Ferr´e-Mateu, A., Gannon, J. S., Forbes, D. A., Buzzo, M. L.,

    2018

  15. [23]

    J., Brodie, J

    Romanowsky, A. J., Brodie, J. P. 2023, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 526, 4735

    2023

  16. [24]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63

    1999

  17. [25]

    J., Brodie, J

    Couch, W. J., Brodie, J. P., Huang, S., Janssens, S. R., Okabe, N. 2022, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 510, 946

    2022

  18. [26]

    J., Singer, Q

    Salzer, J. J., Singer, Q. 2021, ApJ, 909, 19

    2021

  19. [27]

    Y ., B¨oker, T., Leigh, N., L¨utzgendorf, N., Neumayer, N

    Georgiev, I. Y ., B¨oker, T., Leigh, N., L¨utzgendorf, N., Neumayer, N. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457(2), 2122

    2016

  20. [28]

    2020, A&A, 634A, 135

    Baldi, M. 2020, A&A, 634A, 135

    2020

  21. [29]

    A., Henkel, C., Condon, J., Lo, K

    Braatz, J. A., Henkel, C., Condon, J., Lo, K. Y ., Zhao, W. 2016, ApJL, 826, 32

    2016

  22. [30]

    Y ., Moran, S., Yagi, M

    Katkov, I. Y ., Moran, S., Yagi, M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1308 8 RONG ET AL

    2021

  23. [31]

    M., Zhang, K

    Bizyaev, D., Brinkmann, J., Drory, N., Grabowski, K., Masters, K., Pan, K., Parejko, J., Weijmans, A. M., Zhang, K. 2018, ApJ, 859, 37 Gu´erou, A., Krajnovi´c, D., Epinat, B., Contini, T., Emsellem, E., Bouch´e, N., Bacon, R., Michel-Dansac, L., Richard, J.,

    2018

  24. [32]

    2017, A&A, 608A, 5 H¨aring, N., Rix, H.-W

    Erroz-Ferrer, S. 2017, A&A, 608A, 5 H¨aring, N., Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJL, 604, 89

    2017

  25. [33]

    2025, A&A, 695A, 71

    Rejkuba, M., Spavone, M., Spiniello, C. 2025, A&A, 695A, 71

    2025

  26. [34]

    M., Hoffman, G

    Hallenbeck, G., Hess, K. M., Hoffman, G. L., Huang, S., Jones, M. G., Koopmann, R. A., K. A. M., Neira, D. B., Rhode, K. L., R. A. S. et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 861, 49

    2018

  27. [35]

    1999, Astron

    Hilker, M., Infante, L., Vieira, G., Kissler-Patig, M., Richtler, T. 1999, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser., 134, 75

    1999

  28. [36]

    A., Baum, W

    Hunter, D. A., Baum, W. A., Ewald, S. P., Hester, J. J., Light, R. M., Lynds, C. R., O ´Neil, E. J., Jr., Westphal, J. A. 1992, AJ, 103, 691

    1992

  29. [37]

    2008, Mon

    Hu, J. 2008, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 386, 2242

    2008

  30. [38]

    G., Storey, P

    Hummer, D. G., Storey, P. J. 1987, MNRAS, 224, 801

    1987

  31. [39]

    I., Stasi´nska, G., Meynet, G., Guseva, N

    Izotov, Y . I., Stasi´nska, G., Meynet, G., Guseva, N. G., Thuan, T. X. 2006, A&A, 448, 955

    2006

  32. [40]

    J., Dutton, A

    Jiang, F., Dekel, A., Freundlich, J., Romanowsky, A. J., Dutton, A. A., Macci‘o, A. V ., Di Cintio, A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5272

    2019

  33. [41]

    J., Puzia, T

    Johnston, E. J., Puzia, T. H., D´Ago, G., Eigenthaler, P., Galaz, G., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 495, 2247

    2020

  34. [42]

    McDermid, R., Walcher, C. J. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 480, 1973

    2018

  35. [43]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 556, 121

    Trevena, J. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 556, 121

    2001

  36. [44]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. 2006, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 372, 961

    2006

  37. [45]

    N., Cohen, J

    Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Guhathakurta, P., Cheng, L., Bullock, J. S., Gallazzi, A. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 779, 102

    2013

  38. [46]

    2025, eprint arXiv:2502.19465

    Donnerstein, R. 2025, eprint arXiv:2502.19465

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 198, 2

    Kormendy, J., Bender, R. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 198, 2

    2012

  40. [48]

    Kormendy, J., Drory, N., Bender, R., Cornell, M. E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 723, 54

    2010

  41. [49]

    Kormendy, J., Ho, L. C. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 511 Kov´acs, O. E., Bogd´an, A., Canning, R. E. A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 879, 12

    2013

  42. [50]

    Y ., Pustilnik, S

    Kniazev, A. Y ., Pustilnik, S. A., Grebel, E. K., Lee, H., Pramskij, A. G. 2004, The Astrophysical Journals, 153, 429

    2004

  43. [51]

    D., Cannon, J

    Lee, H., Skillman, E. D., Cannon, J. M., Jackson, D. C., Gehrz, R. D., Polomski, E. F., Woodward, C. E. 2006, ApJL, 647L, 970

    2006

  44. [52]

    S., Schombert, J

    Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 816, L14

    2016

  45. [53]

    S., Grand, R

    Liao, S., Gao, L., Frenk, C. S., Grand, R. J. J., Guo, Q., G´omez, F. A., Marinacci, F., Pakmor, R¨udiger, Shao, S., Springel, V . 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 5182

    2019

  46. [54]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 899, 69

    Cuillandre, J.-C., Liu, C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 899, 69

    2020

  47. [55]

    R., S´anchez-Janssen, R., Paudel, S

    Durrell, P. R., S´anchez-Janssen, R., Paudel, S. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, 339 Mart´ın-Navarro, I., Romanowsky, A. J., Brodie, J. P., Ferr´e-Mateu, A., Alabi, A., Forbes, D. A., Sharina, M., Villaume, A., Pandya, V ., Martinez-Delgado, D. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3425

    2024

  48. [56]

    2020, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 28, 4

    Neumayer, N., Seth, A., B”oker, T. 2020, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 28, 4

    2020

  49. [57]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 237 O ´Connell, R

    Binder, B. 2017, ApJ, 836, 237 O ´Connell, R. W., Gallagher, J. S., Hunter, D. A., Colley, W. N. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 446L, 1

    2017

  50. [58]

    Pettini, M., Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 348, L59

    2004

  51. [59]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 642, 797

    Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., Castelli, F. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 642, 797

    2006

  52. [60]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 4231

    Pan, J. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 4231

    2017

  53. [61]

    J., Zhang, H.-X., Cao, T., Puzia, T

    Rong, Y ., Zhu, K., Johnston, E. J., Zhang, H.-X., Cao, T., Puzia, T. H., Galaz, G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 899, 12

    2020

  54. [62]

    E., Tempel, E., Puzia, T

    Rong, Y ., Mancera Pi na, P. E., Tempel, E., Puzia, T. H., De Rijcke, S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 498, L72

    2020

  55. [63]

    2024, arXiv e-prints:2404.00555

    Hong-Xin, Z. 2024, arXiv e-prints:2404.00555

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 978, 44

    Rong, Y ., Zhang, H., Cheng, C., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 978, 44

    2025

  57. [65]

    2007, Mon

    Salucci, P., Lapi, A., Tonini, C., Gentile, G., Yegorova, I., Klein, U. 2007, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 378, 41

    2007

  58. [66]

    E., Greene, J

    Schutte, Z., Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 245 SPECTROSCOPY FOR AUDGWITH BULGE9

    2019

  59. [67]

    C., Blum, R

    Seth, A. C., Blum, R. D., Bastian, N., Caldwell, N., Debattista, V . P. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 687, 997 Sif´on, C., van der Burg, R. F. J., Hoekstra, H., Muzzin, A.,

    2008

  60. [68]

    2018, Mon

    Herbonnet, R. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 473, 3747

    2018

  61. [69]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 849(1), 55

    Spengler, C., Cˆot´e, P., Roediger, J., Ferrarese, L., S´anchez-Janssen, R., Toloba, E., Liu, Y ., Guhathakurta, P., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 849(1), 55

    2017

  62. [70]

    2021, A&A, 654A, 136

    Spavone, M., Zibetti, S. 2021, A&A, 654A, 136

    2021

  63. [71]

    V ., McGaugh, S

    Stark, D. V ., McGaugh, S. S., Swaters, R. A. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 138, 392

    2009

  64. [72]

    M., Filippenko, A

    Faber, S. M., Filippenko, A. V ., Green, R., Grillmair, C., Ho, L. C., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 574, 740

    2002

  65. [73]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 191

    Trujillo, I., Roman, J., Filho, M., S´anchez Almeida, J. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 191

    2017

  66. [74]

    A., Singh, H

    Valdes, F., Gupta, R., Rose, J. A., Singh, H. P., Bell, D. J. 2004, ApJS, 152, 251 van Dokkum, P., Abraham, R., Merritt, A., Zhang, J., Geha, M. 2015, Astrophys. J. Letters, 798, L45 van Dokkum, P., Abraham, R., Brodie, J., Conroy, C., Danieli, S.,

    2004

  67. [75]

    J., Zhang, J

    Merritt, A., Mowla, L., Romanowsky, A. J., Zhang, J. 2016, Astrophys. J. Letters, 828, 6 van Dokkum, P. 2018, Nature, 555, 629 van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., Abraham, R., Conroy, C.,

    2016

  68. [76]

    Romanowsky, A. J. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 874, L5

    2019

  69. [77]

    A., Pietrinferni, A

    Beasley, M. A., Pietrinferni, A. 2015, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 449, 1177

    2015

  70. [78]

    J., B¨oker, T., Charlot, S., Ho, L

    Walcher, C. J., B¨oker, T., Charlot, S., Ho, L. C., Rix, H.-W., Rossa, J., Shields, J. C., van der Marel, R. P. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 649, 692

    2006

  71. [79]

    Roychowdhury, S., Kamphuis, P., Chengalur, J. N. 2016, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 460, 2143

    2016

  72. [80]

    White, S. D. M. 2020, Nature, 585, 39

    2020

  73. [81]

    C., Zhang, Q., Leitherer, C., Fall, S

    Whitmore, B. C., Zhang, Q., Leitherer, C., Fall, S. M., Schweizer, F., Miller, B. W. 1999, AJ, 118, 1551

    1999

  74. [82]

    2021, Mon

    Wright, Anna C., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 502, 5370

    2021

  75. [83]

    2015, Mon

    Yozin, C., Bekki, K. 2015, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 452, 937

    2015

  76. [84]

    2025, Nature accepted, arXiv e-prints:2406.10329

    Zhang, Z., Chen, Y ., Rong, Y ., Wang, H., Mo, H., Luo, X., Li, H. 2025, Nature accepted, arXiv e-prints:2406.10329

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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