pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.01297 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Low-mass Active Galaxies in the SAMI Galaxy Survey with Spatially-resolved Spectroscopy

Stellan Bechtold , Amy Reines
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 22:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords low-mass galaxiesactive galactic nucleiintegral field spectroscopySAMI surveysupermassive black holesemission-line diagnosticsAGN fraction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Spatially-resolved spectroscopy finds active galactic nuclei in 4% of low-mass galaxies, higher than single-fiber estimates.

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

The paper analyzes 990 low-mass galaxies from the SAMI survey with integral field spectroscopy to hunt for accreting black holes. It applies a new automated scoring algorithm to spatially resolved emission-line ratios, identifying 41 secure AGN signatures plus 46 less secure candidates in galaxies with stellar masses from 10^9.4 to 10^10 solar masses. The resulting AGN fraction reaches 4 percent, or 9 percent when including candidates, which exceeds the 1-2 percent fractions from earlier single-fiber spectroscopy work. Re-examination of single-fiber spectra for the same objects shows that many of the new detections are missed because their emission is extended or offset from the nucleus. This matters for pinning down the smallest black holes, which limit models of how the first black holes formed.

Core claim

Employing a novel automated scoring algorithm based on spatially resolved narrow emission-line diagnostics, signatures of active galactic nuclei are found in 41 galaxies plus 46 less secure candidates among 990 low-mass systems. The galaxies have stellar masses 10^9.4 ≲ M⋆/M⊙ ≲ 10^10, redshifts z ≲ 0.06, and a range of morphologies. The AGN fraction of 4 percent (9 percent including candidates) is significantly higher than fractions reported from single-fiber spectroscopy studies. Analysis of single-fiber spectra for the same objects demonstrates that many IFS detections are missed, highlighting the ability of integral field spectroscopy to capture extended or off-nuclear emission from accre

What carries the argument

Novel automated scoring algorithm based on spatially resolved narrow emission-line diagnostics, which identifies AGN ionization by scoring galaxies across their spatial extent.

If this is right

  • The true fraction of active black holes in low-mass galaxies is at least 4 percent and likely higher than single-fiber surveys indicate.
  • Many low-mass AGNs produce emission that is spatially extended or located away from the galaxy center, requiring integral field data to detect.
  • Low-mass galaxies down to 10^8.5 solar masses can host detectable accreting black holes when observed with spatially resolved spectroscopy.
  • Future AGN censuses of nearby galaxies will need to incorporate integral field spectroscopy to avoid systematic undercounts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Single-fiber surveys may have missed a substantial population of low-mass active galaxies, requiring revised completeness corrections in black hole occupation fraction studies.
  • Off-nuclear AGN activity could be more prevalent in low-mass systems, affecting models of black hole fueling and galaxy co-evolution.
  • Cross-checking the candidates against multi-wavelength catalogs would provide an independent test of the emission-line scoring method.

Load-bearing premise

The automated scoring algorithm based on spatially resolved emission-line diagnostics accurately flags AGN activity without substantial contamination from star formation or other ionization sources.

What would settle it

Independent X-ray or radio observations of the 41 secure plus 46 candidate galaxies that find no accreting black hole signatures in the majority of them would show the reported AGN fraction is overstated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.01297 by Amy Reines, Stellan Bechtold.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An example of spaxel maps (top row) and emission line diagnostic diagrams (bottom row) used in this work, as defined in Kewley et al. (2006), for SAMI galaxy CATID 287827. The top row shows the spatial distribution of spaxels classified by each of the three diagnostic diagrams: [NII] diagram – star-forming (purple), Composite (green), and AGN (yellow); [SII] diagram – star-forming (blue), LINER (red), and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example of the AGN spaxel clustering analysis for galaxy CATID 382563. Left to right: (1) Initial [NII] diagnostic map showing AGN (yellow), Composite (green), and star-forming (purple) spaxels (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of PSF-Weighted AGN Score for all [NII]-BPT AGN or Composite classified spaxels in the parent sample. Red dotted line indicates our adopted PSF value threshold of 0.2. between these regimes and provides a conservative bal￾ance between suppressing spurious spaxels and retaining physically meaningful AGN structure. 3.3. AGN Selection Scheme and Final Sample While the field of AGN classification … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example galaxies in Sample A. We show a representative galaxy for each score value of 1 to 6, with a larger score indicating more evidence for an AGN. The score is shown in the top right corner of the first column for each row, with the accompanying letter indicating the galaxies are in Sample A. The first six columns show the [NII], [SII], and [OI] classification spatial maps interspersed with the corresp… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Center panel: Galaxy stellar mass versus redshift. Sample A galaxies are shown in blue, Sample B galaxies are in red, and our parent sample of 990 low-mass galaxies is shown in gray. Top panel: Redshift (z) histograms of the three samples. Right panel: log M∗/M⊙ histograms of the three samples. We lower the minimum AGN spaxel requirement from the 10 spaxels adopted in previous studies (e.g., John￾ston et a… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram of morphological types for Samples A, B and the parent sample. Label definitions: E - elliptical, S0 - lenticular, EaS - early spiral, LaS - late spiral, Uncertain - subjective/no agreement. Legacy Imaging Survey SkyViewer (Dey et al. 2019; Xu et al. 2023). 3.4. Host Galaxies In this section, we investigate the properties of galax￾ies with evidence of AGN emission in Samples A and B, and compare … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of our single-fiber spectral fitting for SAMI galaxy CATID 324157, which is included in Sample A with a score of 6. This spectrum is from the GAMA survey. The top panel shows the rest frame spectrum in black and the best-fit stellar continuum and absorption line model in light blue. The bottom four panels show sections of the spectrum used to fit the relevant emission lines. The spectrum is shown i… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pie charts of the [NII] diagram single-fiber clas￾sifications for galaxies in Samples A and B. In addition to the three typical classifications (SF, COMP, AGN), ”N/A” refers to galaxies that had no available spectra, and ”poor fit” is assigned to galaxies with low S/N in at least one of the relevant emission lines. tory value and demanding that both lines have the same width in velocity space. We then fit … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: BPT diagram based on our single-fiber spectral analysis for the 66 galaxies in Samples A (blue triangles) and B (red circles) that have available spectra from Australian Astronomical Optics Data Central with quality emission line fits. Right: Same diagram as the left panel but with the colors corresponding to the score each galaxy received based on the SAMI IFS data (see §3.3 for details on our scori… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of the mean radial distance in spax￾els of [NII]-classified AGN or Composite spaxels from the galaxy center for galaxies in Sample A (red) and Sample B (light blue). Several physical scenarios could produce decentralized AGN emission. The narrow-line region may extend well beyond the galactic center, allowing AGN-ionized gas to be detected at large radii even when nuclear emission is obscured… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example of a less secure AGN candidate in Sample B (CATID 517273). The top row shows the distribution of spaxels for each of the three diagrams and the bottom row shows the corresponding diagnostic diagrams. The color code follows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Diagnostic maps and diagrams of two highest scoring galaxies in Sample B galaxies: SAMI CATID 40765 (top 2 rows) and CATID 493702 (bottom 2 rows). See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top: Rest-frame blue-arm and red-arm spectra of galaxy CATID 287827 (AGN score 6) in spaxel position (24,20). Bottom: Cutouts centered on key diagnostic emission lines. Line identifications are shown in the upper left corner of each panel. These panels illustrate the emission line signal quality in a high scoring AGN spaxel. 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 0.00 0.05 0.10 CATID 65384 Spaxel (26,22) H [O… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: See Appendix D description for details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: See Appendix D description for details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: See Appendix D description for details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: See Appendix D description for details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: See Appendix D description for details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: See Appendix D description for details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_20.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The smallest supermassive black holes (BHs), which provide constraints on BH seeds, reside in low-mass galaxies. Here, we present a systematic analysis of 990 low-mass galaxies in the SAMI Galaxy Survey to identify emission from accreting BHs using integral field spectroscopy (IFS). Employing a novel automated scoring algorithm based on spatially resolved narrow emission-line diagnostics, we find signatures of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) in 41 galaxies, as well as an additional 46 less secure candidates. The galaxies have stellar masses in the range $10^{9.4} \lesssim M_\star/M_\odot \lesssim 10^{10}$ (down to $10^{8.5}$ including less secure candidates), redshifts $z \lesssim 0.06$, and morphologies ranging from early-type ellipticals to late-type spirals. Our AGN fraction of 4% (9% including the less secure candidates) is significantly higher than those reported by studies using single-fiber spectroscopy ($\lesssim 1$--2%). Indeed, our additional analysis of single-fiber spectra of the objects in our sample demonstrates that many of our AGN candidates detected via IFS are missed. This work highlights the advantages of IFS, particularly its ability to capture extended or off-nuclear emission from accreting BHs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 990 low-mass galaxies (M* ~ 10^9.4-10^10 Msun) from the SAMI Galaxy Survey using integral field spectroscopy and a novel automated scoring algorithm on spatially resolved narrow emission-line diagnostics. It reports 41 secure AGN detections plus 46 less secure candidates, yielding an AGN fraction of 4% (9% including candidates) that exceeds single-fiber spectroscopy results (≲1-2%), and shows that IFS recovers candidates missed by single-fiber spectra.

Significance. If the automated algorithm is robust, the result would be significant for constraining black hole seed models, as it implies a higher incidence of accreting low-mass black holes than single-fiber studies suggest and demonstrates the value of spatially resolved spectroscopy for detecting extended or off-nuclear AGN emission in low-mass systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section (automated scoring algorithm): No quantitative validation is reported for the novel algorithm, such as purity/completeness on a control sample of star-forming galaxies, recovery rate on known AGNs, or cross-checks against X-ray/radio/IR indicators; without these, contamination from H II regions or diffuse ionized gas cannot be ruled out and directly undermines the central 4-9% fraction claim.
  2. [Results] Results section (AGN fraction and single-fiber comparison): The re-analysis of single-fiber spectra shows IFS detects more candidates, but this does not establish that the additional detections are genuine AGNs rather than false positives; the excess over prior ≲1-2% studies therefore rests on an untested assumption about algorithm cleanliness.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Clarify the exact stellar-mass range for the secure 41 AGNs versus the 46 candidates (the text states down to 10^8.5 only for candidates) to avoid ambiguity in the reported sample properties.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the paper accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our methods and results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section (automated scoring algorithm): No quantitative validation is reported for the novel algorithm, such as purity/completeness on a control sample of star-forming galaxies, recovery rate on known AGNs, or cross-checks against X-ray/radio/IR indicators; without these, contamination from H II regions or diffuse ionized gas cannot be ruled out and directly undermines the central 4-9% fraction claim.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative validation of the automated scoring algorithm is necessary to support the robustness of our AGN detections. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection to the Methods section that reports the algorithm's performance on a control sample of star-forming galaxies drawn from SAMI (to quantify false-positive rates) and on a literature compilation of known low-mass AGNs (to quantify recovery rates). We also discuss the role of spatial information in reducing contamination from H II regions and diffuse ionized gas. These additions directly address the concern about the reliability of the reported 4-9% fraction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section (AGN fraction and single-fiber comparison): The re-analysis of single-fiber spectra shows IFS detects more candidates, but this does not establish that the additional detections are genuine AGNs rather than false positives; the excess over prior ≲1-2% studies therefore rests on an untested assumption about algorithm cleanliness.

    Authors: We have revised the Results section to clarify that the higher detection rate arises from IFS's ability to recover extended and off-nuclear emission that single-fiber spectra miss. The identification of these additional sources as AGN candidates is based on the spatially resolved line-ratio diagnostics and the scoring algorithm; we now explicitly cross-reference the validation tests added to the Methods section. We have also inserted a brief discussion of remaining limitations and the value of future multi-wavelength confirmation. This revision makes clear that the excess fraction is tied to the validated spatial diagnostics rather than an untested assumption. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; AGN fraction is direct observational count from applied diagnostics

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical AGN fraction (4-9%) obtained by applying a described automated scoring algorithm to spatially-resolved emission-line data from the independent SAMI survey sample of 990 galaxies. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are presented that reduce the reported fraction to itself by construction. The comparison to single-fiber studies is external. The algorithm is presented as novel but its application yields a straightforward census; no self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is load-bearing for the headline count. This is a standard observational measurement with no circularity in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the reliability of narrow-line diagnostics for AGN identification and the performance of the new automated scoring algorithm applied to SAMI IFS data.

free parameters (1)
  • scoring thresholds in automated algorithm
    The novel automated scoring system uses thresholds on emission-line diagnostics that are likely tuned or chosen to separate AGN from other sources.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Narrow emission-line ratios can distinguish AGN ionization from star formation or other sources in spatially resolved spectra
    Invoked to justify the automated scoring that identifies the 41 secure AGNs and 46 candidates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5536 in / 1293 out tokens · 52304 ms · 2026-05-13T22:01:23.904329+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    F., Geha, M., & Greene, J

    Baldassare, V. F., Geha, M., & Greene, J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae6cf —. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 896, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8936

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae6cf 2018

  2. [2]

    F., Reines, A

    Baldassare, V. F., Reines, A. E., Gallo, E., & Greene, J. E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/20 2017

  3. [3]

    F., Reines, A

    Baldassare, V. F., Reines, A. E., Gallo, E., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 57, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/57

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/57 2016

  4. [4]

    K., Liske, J., Brown, M

    Baldry, I. K., Liske, J., Brown, M. J. I., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 3875, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3042

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3042 2018

  5. [5]

    1981 , month = feb, journal =

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    work page doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  6. [6]

    Ram Pressure Stripping of Disc Galaxies: The Role of the Inclination Angle , shorttitle =

    Begelman, M. C., Volonteri, M., & Rees, M. J. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 289, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10467.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10467.x 2006

  7. [7]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 742, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/13

    Bellovary, J., Volonteri, M., Governato, F., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 742, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/13

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/742/1/13 2011

  8. [8]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =

    Bellovary, J. M., Hayoune, S., Chafla, K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1665

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1665 2021

  9. [9]

    L., Watson, M

    Birchall, K. L., Watson, M. G., & Aird, J. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 2268, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa040

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa040 2020

  10. [10]

    2011, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 49, 373, doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102608

    Bromm, V., & Yoshida, N. 2011, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 49, 373, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102608

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102608 2011

  11. [11]

    J., Owers, M

    Bryant, J. J., Owers, M. S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 2857, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2635 18

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2635 2015

  12. [12]

    D., Gilfanov, M

    Bykov, S. D., Gilfanov, M. R., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 1962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3355

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3355 2024

  13. [13]

    M., Satyapal, S., Abel, N

    Cann, J. M., Satyapal, S., Abel, N. P., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 870, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf88d —. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac64a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf88d 2019

  14. [14]

    Improving the Full Spectrum Fitting Method: Accurate Convolution with

    Cappellari, M. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3020 —. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 3273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2597

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3020 2017

  15. [15]

    Parametric

    Cappellari, M., & Emsellem, E. 2004, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 116, 138, doi: 10.1086/381875

    work page doi:10.1086/381875 2004

  16. [16]

    J., Brandt, W

    Chen, C.-T. J., Brandt, W. N., Reines, A. E., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d5b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d5b 2017

  17. [17]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Colless, M., Dalton, G. B., Maddox, S. J., et al. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 328, 1039, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04902.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04902.x 2001

  18. [18]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 712, 833, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/2/833 2010

  19. [19]

    The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling I: The relevance of uncertain aspects of stellar evolution and the IMF to the derived physical properties of galaxies

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  20. [20]

    Cortese, L., Fogarty, L. M. R., Bekki, K., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 170, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1891

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1891 2016

  21. [21]

    M., Owers, M

    Croom, S. M., Owers, M. S., Scott, N., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 991, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab229

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab229 2021

  22. [22]

    J., et al

    Davis, F., Kaviraj, S., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 4109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac068

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac068 2022

  23. [23]

    Delgado, R. M. G., Cervi˜ no, M., Martins, L. P., Leitherer, C., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 357, 945, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08692.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08692.x 2005

  24. [24]

    and Volonteri, M

    Devecchi, B., & Volonteri, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 694, 302, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/302

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/694/1/302 2009

  25. [25]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  26. [26]

    P., Norberg, P., Baldry, I

    Driver, S. P., Norberg, P., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2009, Astronomy and Geophysics, 50, 5.12, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4004.2009.50512.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1468-4004.2009.50512.x 2009

  27. [27]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17197.x

    Driver, S. P., Hill, D. T., Kelvin, L. S., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 971, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18188.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18188.x 2011

  28. [28]

    , keywords =

    Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac472

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac472 2022

  29. [29]

    Eberhard, J.-M., & Reines, A. E. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 994, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0c0d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0c0d 2025

  30. [30]

    Greene, J. E. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 978, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9584

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9584 2025

  31. [31]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L9, doi: 10.1086/312838

    Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 539, L9, doi: 10.1086/312838

    work page doi:10.1086/312838 2000

  32. [32]

    W., Croom, S

    Green, A. W., Croom, S. M., Scott, N., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3135

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3135 2018

  33. [33]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 257, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835 2020

  34. [34]

    Ram Pressure Stripping of Disc Galaxies: The Role of the Inclination Angle , shorttitle =

    Groves, B., Heckman, T., & Kauffmann, G. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 371, 1559, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10812.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10812.x 2006

  35. [35]

    J., Medling, A

    Hampton, E. J., Medling, A. M., Groves, B., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 3395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1413

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1413 2017

  36. [36]

    Butcher, H. R. 1981, The Astrophysical Journal, 247, 403, doi: 10.1086/159050

    work page doi:10.1086/159050 1981

  37. [37]

    M., Groves, B., et al

    Ho, I.-T., Medling, A. M., Groves, B., et al. 2016, Astrophysics and Space Science, 361, 280, doi: 10.1007/s10509-016-2865-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-016-2865-2 2016

  38. [38]

    S., et al

    Hong, S., Calzetti, D., Gallagher, J. S., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/63

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/63 2013

  39. [39]

    I., Thuan, T

    Izotov, Y. I., Thuan, T. X., & Guseva, N. G. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, 1297, doi: 10.1086/522923

    work page doi:10.1086/522923 2007

  40. [40]

    D., Medling, A

    Johnston, V. D., Medling, A. M., Groves, B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace90e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace90e 2023

  41. [41]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 1379, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07876.x

    Jones, D. H., Saunders, W., Colless, M., et al. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 355, 747, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08353.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08353.x 2004

  42. [42]

    P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1601F 398, 1601

    Jones, D. H., Read, M. A., Saunders, W., et al. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 683, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15338.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15338.x 2009

  43. [43]

    Merloni, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 346, 1055, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x 19

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x 2003

  44. [44]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 556, 121, doi: 10.1086/321545

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/321545 2001

  45. [45]

    Ram Pressure Stripping of Disc Galaxies: The Role of the Inclination Angle , shorttitle =

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 372, 961, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x 2006

  46. [46]

    and Nicholls, David C

    Kewley, L. J., Nicholls, D. C., & Sutherland, R. S. 2019, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 57, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832 2019

  47. [47]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec40

    Geha, M. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec40

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abec40 2021

  48. [48]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  49. [49]

    1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 1995

  50. [50]

    A., Whalen, D

    Latif, M. A., Whalen, D. J., Khochfar, S., Herrington, N. P., & Woods, T. E. 2022, Nature, 607, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04813-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04813-y 2022

  51. [51]

    Greene, J. E. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/12

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/12 2015

  52. [52]

    Loeb, A., & Rasio, F. A. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 432, 52, doi: 10.1086/174548

    work page doi:10.1086/174548 1994

  53. [53]

    M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05848.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.336.1188K 336, 1188

    Madgwick, D. S., Lahav, O., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 333, 133, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05393.x Mart´ ınez-Palomera, J., Lira, P., Bhalla-Ladd, I., F¨ orster, F., & Plotkin, R. M. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5f5b

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05393.x 2002

  54. [54]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 2576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1163

    Mezcua, M., Civano, F., Marchesi, S., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 2576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1163

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1163 2018

  55. [55]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 898, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba199

    Mezcua, M., & Dom´ ınguez S´ anchez, H. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 898, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba199

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba199 2020

  56. [56]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1760

    Mezcua, M., Suh, H., & Civano, F. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1760

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1760 2019

  57. [57]

    Mezcua, M., & S´ anchez, H. D. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 5252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae292

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae292 2024

  58. [58]

    C., & Davies, M

    Miller, M. C., & Davies, M. B. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 755, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/81

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/1/81 2012

  59. [59]

    J., et al

    Molina, M., Eracleous, M., Barth, A. J., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad5ed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad5ed 2018

  60. [60]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffa

    Salehirad, S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffa 2021

  61. [61]

    C., Shahinyan, K., Sugarman, H

    Moran, E. C., Shahinyan, K., Sugarman, H. R., V´ elez, D. O., & Eracleous, M. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/6/136

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/148/6/136 2014

  62. [62]

    B., et al

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., & Ingargiola, A. 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11813

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.11813 2014

  63. [63]

    S., Allen, J

    Owers, M. S., Allen, J. T., Baldry, I., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 1824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx562

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx562 2017

  64. [64]

    S., Hudson, M

    Owers, M. S., Hudson, M. J., Oman, K. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0201

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0201 2019

  65. [65]

    D., Greene, J

    Pardo, K., Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 203, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/203

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/203 2016

  66. [66]

    S., Kannappan, S

    Polimera, M. S., Kannappan, S. J., Richardson, C. T., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6595 Portegies Zwart, S. F., Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2004, Nature, 428, 724, doi: 10.1038/nature02448

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6595 2022

  67. [67]

    2025, Tripling the Census of Dwarf AGN Candidates Using DESI Early Data, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00091

    Pucha, R., Juneau, S., Dey, A., et al. 2025, Tripling the Census of Dwarf AGN Candidates Using DESI Early Data, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00091

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.00091 2025

  68. [68]

    Reines, A. E. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 26, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01556-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01556-0 2022

  69. [69]

    E., Condon, J

    Reines, A. E., Condon, J. J., Darling, J., & Greene, J. E. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4999

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4999 2020

  70. [70]

    E., Greene, J

    Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Geha, M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/116

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/116 2013

  71. [71]

    E., Plotkin, R

    Reines, A. E., Plotkin, R. M., Russell, T. D., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 787, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L30

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/l30 2014

  72. [72]

    E., Sivakoff, G

    Reines, A. E., Sivakoff, G. R., Johnson, K. E., & Brogan, C. L. 2011, Nature, 470, 66, doi: 10.1038/nature09724

    work page doi:10.1038/nature09724 2011

  73. [73]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/2/82 2015

  74. [74]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 3278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2448

    Ricarte, A., & Natarajan, P. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 3278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2448

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2448 2018

  75. [75]

    E., & Molina, M

    Salehirad, S., Reines, A. E., & Molina, M. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8876 20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8876 2022

  76. [76]

    M., et al

    Scott, N., van de Sande, J., Croom, S. M., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 2299, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2355

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2355 2018

  77. [77]

    J., & Satyapal, S

    Secrest, N. J., & Satyapal, S. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9309

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9309 2020

  78. [78]

    Asari, N. V. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 371, 972, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10732.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10732.x 2006

  79. [79]

    R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18474.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011MNRAS.414.1418K 414, 1418

    Taylor, E. N., Hopkins, A. M., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 1587, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19536.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19536.x 2011

  80. [80]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17197.x

    Vazdekis, A., S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Falc´ on-Barroso, J., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 404, 1639, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16407.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16407.x 2010

Showing first 80 references.