Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 105 references

Jetted Seyfert Galaxies at z = 0: Simulating Feedback Effects on Galactic Morphology and Beyond

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows, in controlled cosmological simulations of Milky Way-mass halos, that stronger Seyfert jets push star formation to larger radii, shrink the bulge, and nearly quench the galaxy at the highest accretion efficiency.

desk verdict A competent single-halo simulation study of Seyfert jet feedback showing a plausible efficiency-driven radial shift of star formation, but the claimed controlled experiment is partly muddied by a jet-orientation covariate and unresolved hot-spot physics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09679 v1 pith:7PHHTYZD submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.GA

Julianne Goddard (1) , Isaac Shlosman (1 , 2) , Emilio Romano-Diaz (3) ((1) Department of Physics , Astronomy , University of Kentucky , KY , USA
show 7 more authors
(2) Theoretical Astrophysics School of Sciences Osaka University Japan (3) Argelander-Institut für Astronomie Bonn Germany)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords SeyfertgalaxiesAGNjetfeedbackcosmologicalzoom-insimulationsstarformationquenchinggalacticmorphologybulge-to-totalratiocircumgalacticmediumcocoons
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

The paper asks whether the weak, collimated jets of Seyfert galaxies can shape their host galaxies as much as the powerful jets of quasars. Using cosmological zoom-in simulations of identical dark matter halos, the authors vary only the efficiency of gas accretion onto a seeded ~$10^{6}$ solar-mass black hole, producing an 'epsilon sequence' from no AGN to 50% efficiency. They find that stronger jets heat and push the interstellar gas outward, moving the peak of star formation from ~1 kpc to tens of kpc, lowering the bulge-to-total ratio from ~0.55 to ~0.28, and cutting the star formation rate by three orders of magnitude. At the highest efficiency the galaxy is essentially quenched after z ~ 1, with a central gas cavity and an extended outer gaseous ring. If correct, this means low-luminosity jetted AGN are not passive bystanders: they can determine morphology, gas content, and quiescence of Milky Way-class disk galaxies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the collimated bipolar jet built from hyper-refined gas particles spawned along the SMBH spin axis at 3e4 km/s and 1e10 K, with mechanical luminosity L_jet = 1/2 eta Mdot $v^{2}$. Their energy is released when they decelerate and merge with interstellar gas; this drives an overpressured cocoon that expands perpendicular to the jet and sweeps up ambient gas. The only varied parameter is the accretion efficiency epsilon, which scales down the gravitational-torque accretion rate and hence the jet power. The radial shift of star formation is traced through Sersic decomposition of the face-on stellar surface density into a bulge plus double-exponential disk.

What would settle it

Run the same halo and epsilon sequence with the jet head resolved at sub-100 pc scales or with a different subgrid decollimation prescription; if the outward migration of the star formation peak and the central cavity disappear, the claim is an injection artifact. Observationally, a matched sample of nearby disk Seyferts with radio-detected jets, compared to non-jetted Seyferts of equal stellar mass, should show the predicted central star formation suppression and gas cavities scaling with jet power.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a monotonic response of a galaxy to the mechanical power of its Seyfert jet in a controlled simulation. With all initial conditions, feedback recipes, and halo properties fixed, raising the accretion efficiency epsilon from 0 to 0.5 moves the star formation peak from roughly 1 kpc to 5, 10, and finally 20-25 kpc, reduces the stellar mass by a factor of ~2.5, lowers B/T from ~0.55 to ~0.28, and decreases the SFR from 2 solar masses per year to 2e-3 solar masses per year. The jets deposit most of their energy into the ISM when the injected particles merge with ambient gas, and the resulting overpressured cocoons expand to ~750 kpc, ~2 Mpc, and ~2.4 Mpc, respectively, enriching and heating the CGM. The paper presents the z=0 endpoint of these simulations and argues that the same physics explains observed central cavities, displaced gas rings, and suppressed central star formation in nearby Seyferts.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation does not resolve the jet's working surface (the hot spot) where the jet decollimates, so the entire cocoon-driven feedback picture assumes that injecting $10^{10}$ K, 3e4 km/s hydrodynamic particles faithfully represents real Seyfert jets; if the unresolved hot-spot physics dissipates energy differently, the predicted outward shift of star formation and the quenching trend could be artifacts of the injection scheme.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stronger jets reduce the stellar mass within the halo and move the modeled galaxies closer to the observed $M_\star$–$M_{\mathrm{halo}}$ relation, indicating that jet feedback can counteract the over-cooling problem in Milky Way-mass halos.
  • The peak of star formation moves from $\sim 1$ kpc to $\sim 5$, $\sim 10$, and $\sim 20$–$25$ kpc as $\epsilon$ increases, so the outer stellar disk grows in mass and the face-on profile is best described as a double-exponential disk.
  • At $\epsilon = 0.5$ the central gas is evacuated into an outer ring and the star formation rate falls to $\sim 2\times 10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, making the galaxy essentially quiescent after $z \sim 1$ while still retaining a stellar disk.
  • Jet cocoons expand to $\sim 0.75$–$2.4$ Mpc, heating and enriching the circumgalactic medium, and the baryon fraction within the virial radius falls from $17\%$ to $10\%$ along the $\epsilon$ sequence.
  • The simulated galaxies sit close to the observed $M_\star$–$M_{\mathrm{halo}}$, star-forming main sequence, and $M_{\mathrm{bulge}}$–$\sigma$ relations, so the jet models behave like real Seyfert hosts at $z=0$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the radial shift of star formation is real, nearby disk Seyferts with more powerful radio jets should show systematically suppressed central star formation and central gas cavities in spatially resolved maps, and the suppression should track jet power rather than bulge mass.
  • The near-quenching at $\epsilon=0.5$ suggests a jet-driven path into the green valley for Milky Way-mass disks, one that does not require a major merger or a starburst.
  • Because the black holes are seeded only at $z\sim3.7$ and half the stars form before that, earlier seeding would likely move the quenching epoch earlier; the authors flag this for Paper II, but it is a testable prediction of the same mechanism.
  • Megaparsec-scale cocoons imply that Seyfert jets can pre-heat gas in the cosmic web and suppress gas accretion onto neighboring halos, an environmental effect the paper does not quantify.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents cosmological zoom-in simulations of a single MW-mass dark matter halo (log M_vir/M_sun ~ 11.8) at z=0, comparing four models: a baseline with supernova feedback only (epsilon0) and three models with Seyfert-type jet feedback at increasing SMBH accretion efficiency (epsilon = 4.5%, 15%, 50%). The central claim is that higher accretion efficiency, and hence higher jet power, pushes star formation to larger radii, depletes central gas, reduces the bulge-to-total stellar mass ratio, lowers the SFR by up to three orders of magnitude, and eventually quenches star formation in the highest-efficiency model. The paper also tracks jet cocoons expanding into the CGM/IGM, examines baryon fractions, and compares the galaxies to observed Seyferts and scaling relations, explicitly noting the lack of a statistical observational sample.

Significance. If the claimed trend holds, the paper is a useful contribution because coordinated cosmological simulations of low-luminosity Seyfert jets in MW-mass halos are rare, and the identical-initial-conditions setup is a genuine strength. The authors are also transparent about key limitations: they state that the jet head is unresolved, that only one halo is used, and that the observational comparison lacks statistical analysis. The qualitative trends, particularly the outward shift of star formation with jet strength, are interesting and likely to motivate follow-up work. However, the controlled-experiment interpretation is presently weakened by a systematic covariance between the jet orientation and epsilon, and the quantitative morphological claims lack uncertainty estimates.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4, Table 4; Section 4] The claim that the models constitute a controlled experiment varying only the accretion efficiency is compromised by the systematic variation of the jet angle with respect to the inner stellar disk. Table 4 reports the jet angle increasing monotonically with epsilon: 20.7, 37.0, and 51.5 degrees for epsilon5, epsilon15, and epsilon50. The introduction itself cites Mukherjee et al. (2018) and Talbot et al. (2022) for the strong dependence of jet feedback on jet angle, noting that disk-directed jets launch slower/colder outflows and can trigger star formation while out-of-plane jets couple differently. Since the high-epsilon runs are also the most out-of-plane, the observed radial SFR peak shift (Fig. 5), central cavity (Figs. 6 and 9), and B/T decline (Table 3) may be caused in part by the orientation sequence rather than solely by the intended epsilon/energy sequence. The manuscript reports the angle but does not analyze it as a covariate, fix the jet direction across runs, or run constant-angle controls. This should be addressed before the controlled-experiment interpretation is accepted.
  2. [Section 3.7; Section 2.3] The unresolved jet head is load-bearing for the feedback mechanism. The authors write: 'Our numerical simulations do not resolve the jet's head (the hot spot), where the jet energy is decollimated.' The injection prescription launches perfectly collimated, zero-opening-angle particles at 3e4 km/s and 1e10 K, and the cocoon-driven feedback and the energy deposition shown in Figure 14 depend on how these particles decelerate and merge with the ambient gas. If the real decollimation and dissipation at the hot spot differ from this subgrid treatment, the outward shift of star formation and the quenching trend could be artifacts of the injection model. A resolution study or a comparison with an alternative injection geometry (e.g., different injection radius, opening angle, or energy partition) would materially strengthen the robustness of the central claim.
  3. [Section 3.2, Table 3, Figure 15, Appendix A] The Sersic decomposition is reported without any uncertainties or fit-quality metrics. The B/D and B/T values for epsilon0 and epsilon5 are close (1.20 vs 1.12 and 0.55 vs 0.53, respectively), while epsilon15 and epsilon50 differ (0.28 vs 0.38), and the bulge Sersic index is non-monotonic (1.12, 1.28, 0.71, 1.00). Without error bars on the fitted parameters, a statement of the number of free parameters, or residuals/chi-square diagnostics from the fits, the claimed systematic morphological sequence is not quantitatively established. Please add uncertainty estimates or at least a fit-quality table.
  4. [Section 2.1, Table 1; Section 4.1] The paper is based on a single dark matter halo (Table 1: log M_vir/M_sun = 11.8) and explicitly states in Section 2.1 that 'This paper focuses on the results using just one of the halos.' Nevertheless, the title and conclusions generalize to 'Jetted Seyfert Galaxies at z = 0,' and Section 4.1 claims 'close agreement' with observed nearby Seyferts while acknowledging that 'statistical analysis of these properties is currently absent.' A single, noise-free realization cannot support general conclusions about the population. The authors should either add additional halos or reframe the claims as a case study and qualify the observational comparison accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Section 2.3] The abstract says 'in a controlled experiment, we vary only the efficiency of the SMBH accretion,' but the epsilon0 model has no SMBH. Please clarify whether the controlled sequence refers only to the three AGN models or includes the SMBH-free baseline.
  2. [Section 3.3] There is a typo: 'The amount of younger stars decreases with increasing effciency' should read 'efficiency.' Also, the sentence 'The ϵ50 model shows a very low signal and only between 20–25 kpc' is grammatically incomplete and should be revised.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A1)] Equation (A1) defines the Sersic plus double-exponential disk fit but does not define the Sersic b_n parameter, the fitting algorithm, the radial binning, or the number of free parameters. Please provide these details so the fits can be reproduced.
  4. [Section 4, bullet list] The statement 'B/T decreases ∼1/2 along the ϵ sequence' is ambiguous. Since the values go from ~0.55 to ~0.28, it should say 'decreases by a factor of about 2' or 'decreases to about half its initial value.'
  5. [Section 2.2; Section 3.5] Section 2.2 states that metals 'can be transported by mechanical feedback from SN and AGN,' but Section 3.5 says 'metals are distributed to the gas through SN feedback only.' Please reconcile these statements, as the AGN jet particles should carry metals from the accreted gas.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the jet-feedback trends are emergent simulation outputs, not fitted to observational targets.

full rationale

The paper's central claims — that increasing the SMBH accretion efficiency parameter epsilon pushes star formation to larger radii, lowers central gas/SFR, and reduces B/T — are emergent results of a GIZMO cosmological zoom-in simulation. The only deliberately varied input is epsilon in Eq. 6, Mdot = epsilon * Mdot_grav, and the jet luminosity in Eq. 8 is derived from that accretion rate; the SFR profiles, stellar morphologies, and B/T values are measured from the simulated galaxies and are not used to adjust epsilon, alpha, or any other subgrid parameter. The comparison against the Mstar-Mhalo, sSFR, and Mbulge-sigma scaling relations in Figure 2 is a post-hoc check, not a calibration loop. The subgrid prescriptions (Hopkins & Quataert 2011; Angles-Alcazar et al. 2017; Torrey et al. 2020; Su et al. 2021) are adopted from the literature and are not justified by the present results. Self-citations, such as Romano-Diaz et al. (2014) for the HOP galaxy identification, Bi et al. (2022a) for Sersic fitting references, and Shlosman (2013) for the over-cooling discussion, are methodological or contextual and are not load-bearing for the main physical conclusions. The explicit limitation that the simulations do not resolve the jet head, and the observational caveat that statistical analysis of Seyferts is missing, are honest limitations rather than circular steps. The jet-angle trend reported in Table 4 is a possible confounding variable for the controlled-experiment interpretation, but confounding is not circularity: it does not make any predicted quantity equal by construction to an input. No step in the derivation chain reduces to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction or to a self-citation chain. No significant circularity found.

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

The simulation uses existing GIZMO subgrid physics with additional free parameters that control jet injection. The only parameter varied is epsilon, but alpha, eta, v_jet, T_jet, and seed mass are also set by hand. The assumptions listed are the load-bearing external inputs.

free parameters (6)
  • epsilon (accretion efficiency) = 0.0, 0.045, 0.15, 0.5
    Sole parameter varied; scales the gravitational torque accretion rate (Eq. 6), setting jet power via Eq. 8.
  • alpha (accretion normalization) = 5.0
    Normalization in Eq. 4 from Hopkins & Quataert; affects absolute accretion rate and jet luminosity.
  • eta (jet mass loading) = 0.1
    Mass fraction of accreted gas returned as jet particles; sets mechanical luminosity in Eq. 8.
  • jet particle initial velocity = 3e4 km/s
    Velocity of spawned jet particles; dominates kinetic energy injection.
  • jet particle initial temperature = 1e10 K
    Temperature of spawned jet particles; contributes thermal energy.
  • seed SMBH mass = 1e6 M_sun
    Initial SMBH mass at seeding z=3.7; affects growth history and feedback.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Planck 2016 LCDM cosmology with Omega_m=0.308, Omega_b=0.048, sigma8=0.82, ns=0.97, h=0.678
    Used for initial conditions and background expansion (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Subgrid models for star formation, SN feedback, and cooling from Hopkins et al. (2018, 2022) are valid for this mass scale
    These are inherited from GIZMO; the paper does not recalibrate them.
  • domain assumption Gravitational torque accretion model of Hopkins & Quataert (2011) with alpha=5 describes SMBH fuel supply
    Used to compute Mdot_grav in Eq. 4; the central trends depend on this.
  • ad hoc to paper Zero-opening-angle, purely hydrodynamic jet particle injection with unresolved hot-spot physics faithfully represents Seyfert jets
    Authors state the jet head is not resolved (Section 3.7); this modeling choice underpins the cocoon evolution.
  • domain assumption Jet direction is set by the SMBH spin axis, which evolves by inheriting angular momentum from accreted gas
    Determines jet-disk orientation and hence feedback distribution (Section 2.3).
  • ad hoc to paper A single dark matter halo (log Mvir/Msun ~ 11.8) is representative of Seyfert host galaxies
    The paper draws general conclusions from one realization; no halo-to-halo scatter is quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jetted Seyfert Galaxies at z = 0: Simulating Feedback Effects on Galactic Morphology and Beyond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PHHTYZD

@misc{pith2026241209679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jetted Seyfert Galaxies at z = 0: Simulating Feedback Effects on Galactic Morphology and Beyond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PHHTYZD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09679}
}
abstract

We use high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulations to model feedback from Seyfert-type supermassive black hole (SMBH) jets onto galaxies with identical dark matter (DM) halos of log(M/M$_\odot$) ~ 11.8. The low mass, ~10$^6$ M$_\odot$, seed SMBHs, have been introduced when the parent DM halos have reached log(M/M$_\odot$) ~ 11, at z ~ 3.7. In a controlled experiment, we vary only the efficiency of the SMBH accretion and focus on galaxies and their immediate environment properties. Our results show that the AGN jet feedback has a substantial effect on the basic properties of Seyfert-type galaxies, such as morphology, gas fraction and distribution, star formation rate and distribution, bulge-to-disk ratio, DM halo baryon fraction, and properties of circumgalactic medium (CGM) and beyond. These have been compared to a galaxy with supernovae only feedback. We focus on the energy deposition by the jet in the ISM and IGM, and follow the expansion of the multiple jet cocoons to 2 Mpc. We find that the jet-ISM interaction gradually pushes the star formation to larger radii with increasing accretion efficiency, which results in increased mass of the outer stellar disk, which is best fit as a double-exponential disk. Furthermore, we compare our galaxies and their properties with the observed nearby Seyfert galaxies, including the scaling relations, and find a close agreement, although statistical analysis of observed Seyferts is currently missing. In a forthcoming paper, we focus on evolution of these objects at z<10 and study the effect of the SMBH seeding redshift on galaxy evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09679 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Projected surface density of the HOP-selected galaxies at z = 0 rotated based on the angular momentum, J, of the central 3 kpc stellar disk. Orange color represents the gaseous component of a galaxy, while blue color represents the stars. The columns show the ϵ0, ϵ5, ϵ15, and ϵ50 models respectively from left to right. The top row images are the face-on projections, and the bottom two rows are the two perpendicular … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Properties of our HOP-selected galaxies at z = 0, as indicated in the legend. (a) Shows positions of modeled galaxies on the M∗ −Mhalo scaling relation adopted from Behroozi et al. (2019) (solid blue line), Guo et al. (2010) (dotted red line), and Hudson et al. (2014) (dashed yellow line). The filled regions around the medians correspond to a scatter of 0.5 dex. (b) Provides specific SFRs for the HOP-galaxies and ar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gas surface density of the face-on galaxy at z=0 measured in cylindrical shells of 1 kpc width and ±5 kpc height. The black arrow indicates 0.1Rvir. The offset gray line has been added to show an approximate exponential gas distribution with the scale length of 3.8 kpc for comparison only. We have also analyzed the presence of stellar bars. For this purpose, we have produced contour maps of stellar disk surface dens… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 2-D histogram of stellar age vs radius divided into 300 × 300 grid cells with the color representing the stellar mass in each cell at z = 0. The overplotted solid black line represents the evolution of the gas fraction in galaxies. The stars plotted here are those resi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Face-on gas morphology of the HOP-selected galaxies at z = 0. The white circles display the 0.1Rvir radius for comparison. The central cavity for the ϵ5 model is the gas response to the stellar bar. The gas in the ϵ50 model has been pushed away from the stellar disk, w…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial distribution of gas temperature within 0.1Rvir, at z = 0. The temperature and radius are binned into 100 × 100 cells. The color palette shows the mass within bins [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Projected view of the face-on gas disk in ϵ50 galaxy at z = 0. Note the large cavity introduced by the AGN feedback. The gas is pushed out of the HOP galaxy, so only a thin ring remains attached, as shown in Figures 1 and 6. The gas outside this ring belongs to the CGM…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Temperature-density phase diagrams for modeled galaxies within 0.1Rvir at z = 0. The top row is colored by the particle distance to the galaxy center. The bottom row shows the same ISM colored by its metallicity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Gas metallicity in the CGM within 2Rvir. Top row: shows the gaseous component of the CGM with each gas particle colored by its metallicity. Bottom row: 2D histogram of gas metallicity vs radius. The mass-weighted average metallicity calculated in 20 kpc wide spherical…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Radial velocities and temperature of expanding cocoons in AGN and ϵ0 galaxies at z = 0. Top: slice pro￾jections of expanding cocoons into the CGM and IGM, with boundaries delineated by shocks. Each model is shown on a different scale, indicated by the scale bars, to e…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Total (thermal+kinetic) energy deposition rate into the environment by the jet particles averaged over the last ∼ 1 Gyr preceding z = 0. The radius is binned in spherical shells with the bin size of 0.3 kpc. Each jet particle has been followed from the point of emissi…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The Sersic decomposition of the stellar component in modeled galaxies within 0.1Rvir. The total profile fits to the face-on stellar surface density are shown for each model. The top left is the ϵ0 model, ϵ5 the top right, ϵ15 on the bottom left, and ϵ50 on the bottom …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, A&A, 687, A285, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449287 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Dav´ e, R., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A.,¨Ozel, F., & Hopkins, P

    Acharya, N., Bonoli, S., Salvato, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A285, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449287 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Dav´ e, R., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A.,¨Ozel, F., & Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2565

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449287 2024

  2. [2]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 2383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2310

    Smith, B. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2310

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2310 2021

  3. [3]

    1997, in ASP Conf

    Arav, N., Shlosman, I., & Weymann, R. 1997, in ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 128, Mass Ejection from Active Galactic Nuclei

    1997

  4. [4]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 174, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/174

    Bagchi, J., Vivek, M., Vikram, V., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 174, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/174

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/174 2014

  5. [5]

    D., Williams, D

    Baldi, R. D., Williams, D. R. A., McHardy, I. M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3478, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty342

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty342 2018

  6. [6]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Reviews of Modern Physics, 56, 255, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.56.255

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.56.255 1984

  7. [7]

    C., & Cioffi, D

    Begelman, M. C., & Cioffi, D. F. 1989, ApJL, 345, L21, doi: 10.1086/185542

    doi:10.1086/185542 1989

  8. [8]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2012, ApJ, 762, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/109

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    2019, AJ, 157, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf5ca

    Berton, M., Congiu, E., Ciroi, S., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf5ca

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    2020, A&A, 636, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037793

    Berton, M., J¨ arvel¨ a, E., Crepaldi, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037793

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    2022a, MNRAS, 513, 693, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac363 —

    Bi, D., Shlosman, I., & Romano-D ´ ıaz, E. 2022a, MNRAS, 513, 693, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac363 —. 2022b, ApJ, 934, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac779b —. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11095, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3942

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    1982 doi

  6. [14]

    D., & Rees, M

    Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1974, MNRAS, 169, 395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/169.3.395

    1974 doi

  7. [15]

    Towns, J. 2023, ACCESS: Advancing Innovation: NSF’s Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Coordination Ecosystem: Services & Support, PEARC ’23 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 173, doi: 10.1145/3569951.3597559

    2023

  8. [16]

    T., Shlosman, I., & Blandford, R

    Bottorff, M., Korista, K. T., Shlosman, I., & Blandford, R. D. 1997, ApJ, 479, 200, doi: 10.1086/303867

    1997 doi

  9. [17]

    A., & Yang, H.-Y

    Bourne, M. A., & Yang, H.-Y. K. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 73, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11030073

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67ca

    Byrne, L., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Wellons, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67ca

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    J., DePree, C

    Cecil, G., Greenhill, L. J., DePree, C. G., et al. 2000, ApJ, 536, 675, doi: 10.1086/308959

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

    2003, ApJL, 586, L133, doi: 10.1086/374879

    Chabrier, G. 2003, ApJL, 586, L133, doi: 10.1086/374879

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    V., Buck, T., & Cen, R

    Chen, H.-Z., Kang, X., Macci` o, A. V., Buck, T., & Cen, R. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.13069, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.13069

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    1995, ApJ, 450, 616, doi: 10.1086/176170

    Contopoulos, J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 616, doi: 10.1086/176170

    1995 doi

  15. [23]

    2004, MNRAS, 353, 477, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08082.x

    Cunow, B. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 477, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08082.x

    2004

  16. [24]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 30, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/30 de Kool, M., & Begelman, M

    Damas-Segovia, A., Beck, R., Vollmer, B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, 30, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/30 de Kool, M., & Begelman, M. C. 1995, ApJ, 455, 448, doi: 10.1086/176594 De Young, D. S. 1993, ApJL, 405, L13, doi: 10.1086/186754 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2...

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Baum, S

    Duggal, C., O’Dea, C. P., Baum, S. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2513

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    C., & Stone, J

    Dutta, R., Sharma, P., Sarkar, K. C., & Stone, J. M. 2024, ApJ, 973, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d7 22

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    J., & Hut, P

    Eisenstein, D. J., & Hut, P. 1998, ApJ, 498, 137, doi: 10.1086/305535

    1998 doi

  20. [28]

    2006, ApJL, 648, L101, doi: 10.1086/508158

    Elitzur, M., & Shlosman, I. 2006, ApJL, 648, L101, doi: 10.1086/508158

    2006 doi

  21. [29]

    T., Blandford, R

    Emmering, R. T., Blandford, R. D., & Shlosman, I. 1992, ApJ, 385, 460, doi: 10.1086/170955

    1992 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Wilson, A

    Falcke, H., Nagar, N. M., Wilson, A. S., & Ulvestad, J. S. 2000, ApJ, 542, 197, doi: 10.1086/309543 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1614, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa302

    2000 doi

  23. [31]

    M., & Angles-Alcazar, D

    Feliz, J. M., & Angles-Alcazar, D. 2023, Bulletin of the AAS, 55

    2023

  24. [32]

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

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

    2000 doi

  25. [33]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/120

    Fukumura, K., Tombesi, F., Kazanas, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/120

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    2006, AJ, 132, 546, doi: 10.1086/504593 Garc ´ ıa-Burillo, S., Hicks, E

    Pedlar, A. 2006, AJ, 132, 546, doi: 10.1086/504593 Garc ´ ıa-Burillo, S., Hicks, E. K. S., Alonso-Herrero, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A347, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450268

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    2000, ApJL, 539, L13, doi: 10.1086/312840

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

    2000 doi

  28. [37]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/6

    Hada, K., Doi, A., Nagai, H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/6

    2013 doi

  29. [39]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    2014 doi

  30. [40]

    H., & Shlosman, I

    Heller, C. H., & Shlosman, I. 1994, ApJ, 424, 84, doi: 10.1086/173874

    1994 doi

  31. [41]

    C., & Ulvestad, J

    Ho, L. C., & Ulvestad, J. S. 2001, ApJS, 133, 77, doi: 10.1086/319185

    2001 doi

  32. [42]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    2015 doi

  33. [43]

    F., Narayanan, D., & Murray, N

    Hopkins, P. F., Narayanan, D., & Murray, N. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt723

    2013 doi

  34. [44]

    F., & Quataert, E

    Hopkins, P. F., & Quataert, E. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1027, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18542.x

    2011

  35. [45]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    2018 doi

  36. [46]

    F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 519, 3154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3489

    2022 doi

  37. [47]

    K., Ohyama, Y., et al

    Hota, A., Sirothia, S. K., Ohyama, Y., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, L36, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01115.x

    2011

  38. [48]

    J., Harris, G

    Hudson, M. J., Harris, G. L., & Harris, W. E. 2014, ApJL, 787, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/L5

    2014 doi

  39. [49]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1143

    Irodotou, D., Fragkoudi, F., Pakmor, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1143

    2022 doi

  40. [50]

    2000, MNRAS, 311, 576, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03077.x

    Kauffmann, G., & Haehnelt, M. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 576, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03077.x

    2000

  41. [52]

    Ledlow, M. J. 2006, AJ, 132, 2233, doi: 10.1086/508340

    2006 doi

  42. [53]

    2021, NewAR, 92, 101610, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2021.101610

    Komissarov, S., & Porth, O. 2021, NewAR, 92, 101610, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2021.101610

    2021

  43. [54]

    2018, in Revisiting Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies and their Place in the Universe, 15, doi: 10.22323/1.328.0015

    Komossa, S. 2018, in Revisiting Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies and their Place in the Universe, 15, doi: 10.22323/1.328.0015

    2018 doi

  44. [55]

    2006, AJ, 132, 531, doi: 10.1086/505043

    Komossa, S., Voges, W., Xu, D., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 531, doi: 10.1086/505043

    2006 doi

  45. [56]

    Konigl, A., & Kartje, J. F. 1994, ApJ, 434, 446, doi: 10.1086/174746

    1994 doi

  46. [57]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  47. [58]

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

    Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053

    1995

  48. [59]

    Krause, M. G. H. 2023, Galaxies, 11, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11010029

    2023 doi

  49. [60]

    R., & Gnedin, N

    Krumholz, M. R., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2011, ApJ, 729, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/36

    2011 doi

  50. [61]

    S., Stalin, C

    Kurian, K. S., Stalin, C. S., Rakshit, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346246

    2024 doi

  51. [62]

    2008, ApJ, 673, 128, doi: 10.1086/523960

    Laine, S., & Beck, R. 2008, ApJ, 673, 128, doi: 10.1086/523960

    2008 doi

  52. [63]

    G., Ibarra-Medel, H., et al

    Lammers, C., Iyer, K. G., Ibarra-Medel, H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd57

    2023 doi

  53. [64]

    J., Owen, F

    Ledlow, M. J., Owen, F. N., Yun, M. S., & Hill, J. M. 2001, ApJ, 552, 120, doi: 10.1086/320458

    2001 doi

  54. [65]

    1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    1998 doi

  55. [66]

    Y., Owen, F., Duffin, R., et al

    Mao, M. Y., Owen, F., Duffin, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 4176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2302 Mart ´ ı, J.-M. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 24, doi: 10.3390/galaxies7010024

    2015 doi

  56. [67]

    2006, ApJ, 637, 214, doi: 10.1086/498338

    Martinez-Valpuesta, I., Shlosman, I., & Heller, C. 2006, ApJ, 637, 214, doi: 10.1086/498338

    2006 doi

  57. [68]

    2007, A&A, 468, L49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20067039

    Matsushita, S., Muller, S., & Lim, J. 2007, A&A, 468, L49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20067039

    2007 doi

  58. [69]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    2012 doi

  59. [70]

    V., Wagner, A

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V., Wagner, A. Y., Sutherland, R. S., & Silk, J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1776 23

    2018 doi

  60. [71]

    A., & Voit, G

    Murray, N., Chiang, J., Grossman, S. A., & Voit, G. M. 1995, ApJ, 451, 498, doi: 10.1086/176238

    1995 doi

  61. [72]

    Y., et al

    Murthy, S., Morganti, R., Wagner, A. Y., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 488, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01596-6

    2022 doi

  62. [73]

    S., Saikia, D

    Nandi, P., Stalin, C. S., Saikia, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c57

    2023 doi

  63. [74]

    F., Frenk, C

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

    1996 doi

  64. [75]

    Nesvadba, N. P. H., Wagner, A. Y., Mukherjee, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140544

    2021 doi

  65. [77]

    E., & Shuder, J

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Shuder, J. M. 1982, ApJS, 49, 149, doi: 10.1086/190793

    1982 doi

  66. [78]

    2012, ApJL, 759, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L27 Peralta de Arriba, L., Alonso-Herrero, A., Garc ´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al

    Padoan, P., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2012, ApJL, 759, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L27 Peralta de Arriba, L., Alonso-Herrero, A., Garc ´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245408

    2012 doi

  67. [79]

    M., Bluck, A

    Piotrowska, J. M., Bluck, A. F. L., Maiolino, R., & Peng, Y. 2021, MNRAS, 512, 1052, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3673 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2021 doi

  68. [80]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3214

    2023 doi

  69. [81]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.14809, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.14809

    Qutob, N., Emami, R., Su, K.-Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.14809, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.14809

    2023 doi arXiv

  70. [82]

    V., Kharb, P., Rubinur, K., et al

    Rao, V. V., Kharb, P., Rubinur, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1901

    2023 doi

  71. [83]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 4793, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1785 Romano-D ´ ıaz, E., Shlosman, I., Choi, J.-H., & Sadoun, R

    Rennehan, D., Babul, A., Moa, B., & Dav´ e, R. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 4793, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1785 Romano-D ´ ıaz, E., Shlosman, I., Choi, J.-H., & Sadoun, R. 2014, ApJL, 790, L32, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/790/2/L32

    2024 doi

  72. [84]

    J., Whittle, M., Nelson, C

    Rosario, D. J., Whittle, M., Nelson, C. H., & Wilson, A. S. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 565, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17153.x

    2010

  73. [85]

    J., & Jamrozy, M

    Saikia, D. J., & Jamrozy, M. 2009, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 37, 63, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1002.1841

    2009 doi arXiv

  74. [86]

    2014, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 189, 1, doi: 10.2298/SAJ1489001S Scharr´ e, L., Sorini, D., & Dav´ e, R

    Salim, S. 2014, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 189, 1, doi: 10.2298/SAJ1489001S Scharr´ e, L., Sorini, D., & Dav´ e, R. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2098

    2014 doi

  75. [87]

    Schmidt, M., & Green, R. F. 1983, ApJ, 269, 352, doi: 10.1086/161048

    1983 doi

  76. [88]

    Baum, S. A. 2019, MNRAS, 490, L26, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz136

    2019 doi

  77. [89]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Shen, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1381

    2020 doi

  78. [90]

    2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies, ed

    Shlosman, I. 2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies, ed. J. Falc´ on-Barroso & J. H. Knapen, 555, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1212.1463

    2013 doi arXiv

  79. [91]

    Shlosman, I., Frank, J., & Begelman, M. C. 1989, Nature, 338, 45, doi: 10.1038/338045a0

    1989 doi

  80. [92]

    A., & Shaviv, G

    Shlosman, I., Vitello, P. A., & Shaviv, G. 1985, ApJ, 294, 96, doi: 10.1086/163278

    1985 doi

  81. [93]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    2003

  82. [94]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 5237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3313

    Stewart, M., & Federrath, C. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3313

    2022 doi

  83. [95]

    F., Bryan, G

    Su, K.-Y., Hopkins, P. F., Bryan, G. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2021

    2021 doi

  84. [96]

    2014, Nature, 511, 440, doi: 10.1038/nature13520

    Oosterloo, T. 2014, Nature, 511, 440, doi: 10.1038/nature13520

    2014 doi

  85. [97]

    Y., Sijacki, D., & Bourne, M

    Talbot, R. Y., Sijacki, D., & Bourne, M. A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1566

    2022 doi

  86. [98]

    Y., Sijacki, D., & Bourne, M

    Talbot, R. Y., Sijacki, D., & Bourne, M. A. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 5432, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae392

    2024 doi

  87. [99]

    Tanner, R., & Weaver, K. A. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4d23

    2022 doi

  88. [100]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Torrey, P., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 5292, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2222

    2020 doi

  89. [101]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  90. [102]

    2023, A&A, 679, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346131

    Varglund, I., J¨ arvel¨ a, E., Ciroi, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346131

    2023 doi

  91. [103]

    2022, A&A, 668, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244465

    Varglund, I., J¨ arvel¨ a, E., L¨ ahteenm¨ aki, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244465

    2022 doi

  92. [104]

    2021, A&A, 648, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039869

    Venturi, G., Cresci, G., Marconi, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039869

    2021 doi

  93. [105]

    2024, A&A, 689, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449247

    Vietri, A., Berton, M., J¨ arvel¨ a, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449247

    2024 doi

  94. [106]

    2015, A&A, 573, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423993

    Vitale, M., Fuhrmann, L., Garc ´ ıa-Mar ´ ın, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 573, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423993

    2015 doi

  95. [107]

    F., et al

    Wellons, S., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5394, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad511

    2023 doi

  96. [108]

    D., Rosario, D

    Whittle, M., Silverman, J. D., Rosario, D. J., Wilson, A. S., & Nelson, C. H. 2004, in IAU Symp., Vol. 222, The Interplay Among BHs, Stars and ISM in Galactic Nuclei, ed. T. Storchi-Bergmann, L. C. Ho, & H. R. Schmitt, 299, doi: 10.1017/S1743921304002315 24

    2004 doi

  97. [109]

    Wiersma, R. P. C., Schaye, J., & Smith, B. D. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 99, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14191.x 25 APPENDIX A. SERSIC DECOMPOSITION The bulge and disk components of the galaxy have been determined by fitting the 1-D face-on stellar surface density profile of the stel...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.