Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Structural and Stellar Population Properties vs. Bulge Types in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Central Galaxies

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single density number — the stellar mass within the central 1 kpc — orders galaxy bulges into the same classes that detailed bulge-disk decomposition does.

desk verdict Solid mapping of bulge classes onto the known ΔΣ1 elbow, but the ΔΣ1 zero-point calibration deserves a skeptical look before trusting exact P/C fractions. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08055 v2 pith:GEMRJ6LJ submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.GA

Yifei Luo , S. M. Faber , Aldo Rodriguez-Puebla , Joanna Woo , Yicheng Guo , David C. Koo , Joel R. Primack , Zhu Chen
show 7 more authors
Hassen M. Yesuf Lin Lin Guillermo Barro Jerome J. Fang Viraj Pandya M. Huertas-Company Shude Mao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxybulgespseudo-bulgesclassicalcentralstellardensitySDSSstarformationquenchingstructuralvalleybulgeclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a single cheaply measured number, the residual central stellar-mass surface density within 1 kpc, $\Delta\Sigma_1$, can stand in for the elaborate bulge-disk decompositions traditionally needed to tell pseudo-bulges from classical bulges in SDSS galaxies. It validates $\Delta\Sigma_1$ against the established indicator $\Delta\langle\mu_e\rangle$ from Gadotti (2009) on a sample of nearly 1000 galaxies, then applies it to about 12,000 central galaxies with stellar masses between $10^{10.0}$ and $10^{10.4}$ solar masses. The payoff is a large, homogeneous map of twenty structural and stellar-population properties onto bulge class. The central finding is that structure and stellar population do not track each other linearly: pseudo-bulges occupy a low-density arm that is universally star-forming, while classical bulges occupy an elbow and a vertical branch with a wide range of star-formation rates. That shape, the authors argue, explains past classification disagreements and signals that central structure and stellar populations evolve at different rates as galaxies quench.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is $\Delta\Sigma_1$, the residual of the log central stellar-mass surface density within 1 kpc after removing the mass trend defined by the structural valley in the $\Sigma_1$–$M_*$ plane. $\Sigma_1$ had been used before as an evolutionary clock; the new step is to test it as a bulge-type classifier and map traditional bulge classes onto it. The comparison line is $\Delta\langle\mu_e\rangle$, the residual from the Kormendy relation used by Gadotti (2009) to separate pseudo-bulges from classical bulges. Because $\Delta\Sigma_1$ requires only aperture photometry and no decomposition, it carries the statistical program: it lets the authors push bulge studies from a few hundred decomposed galaxies to roughly 12,000 SDSS centrals, with a boundary at $\Delta\Sigma_1=0$ dividing the two structural clouds.

What would settle it

Take a sample of SDSS galaxies with both $\Delta\Sigma_1$ and bulge-disk decompositions across a wider mass range and check whether the residual scatter between the two indicators disappears once the mass trend is removed from $\Delta\langle\mu_e\rangle$; if it does not, the $\Delta\Sigma_1=0$ boundary misclassifies a mass- and radius-dependent fraction of bulges, and the claimed universality of star-forming pseudo-bulges would fail in proportion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that $\Delta\Sigma_1$, defined as the residual of $\log\Sigma_1$ after removing a quadratic trend with stellar mass, measures the same underlying quantity as the classical bulge-type parameter $\Delta\langle\mu_e\rangle$ — central stellar density — and can therefore be used as a bulge classifier for SDSS central galaxies out to $z=0.07$ without bulge-disk decomposition. Classifying by $\Delta\Sigma_1$ reproduces the Gadotti (2009) pseudo-bulge/classical-bulge split well enough that the two approaches measure approximately the same thing. Mapped onto twenty properties, the distribution is linear in log-log space for structural parameters but sharply elbow-shaped for star-formation and stellar-age indicators: specific star-formation rate stays roughly flat as central density rises, then falls steeply at the elbow. In the mass-limited sample, galaxies with $\Delta\Sigma_1<0$ (pseudo-bulges) are all star-forming, while galaxies with $\Delta\Sigma_1>0$ (classical bulges) mix quenched and actively star-forming systems — a subclass the authors name star-forming classical bulges (C-SFBs). The paper concludes that structural and stellar-population evolution decouple near quenching, and that bulge type is best seen as a two-dimensional structural and spectral property rather than a single number.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the single measured number, central stellar density within 1 kpc relative to the mass trend, truly separates pseudo-bulges from classical bulges in the same way that the established decomposition-based indicator does, even though the two agree only approximately and the differences track galaxy mass and radius.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Galaxy bulges can be classified in SDSS-quality imaging by a single aperture-density measurement, extending bulge-type studies to $z=0.07$ and to tens of thousands of galaxies instead of the few hundred with careful decompositions.
  • Pseudo-bulges in this mass range form a homogeneous, universally star-forming population, so a low $\Delta\Sigma_1$ value is a reliable sign of an actively star-forming bulge.
  • Classical bulges are heterogeneous: in the mass-limited SDSS sample, 42% of central C-bulges are blue and star-forming (C-SFBs), which explains why classifications based on structure alone and on stellar population alone have disagreed.
  • The elbow shape implies that central density grows before star formation fades, and the elbow marks where quenching begins; galaxies there are candidates for being caught in the act of quenching.
  • If the local mapping is universal, deep surveys at $z\sim3$ should already show the same elbow pattern with star-forming classical bulges on the horizontal branch, which can be checked with existing high-redshift data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's mass-limited sample, a testable prediction is that the fraction of star-forming classical bulges peaks near the knee of the elbow in specific star-formation rate, so bulge demographics in deeper surveys should show C-SFBs as a redshift-dependent population rather than a static class.
  • The residual trends between $\Delta\Sigma_1$ and $\Delta\langle\mu_e\rangle$ with galaxy radius and mass suggest that the $\Delta\Sigma_1=0$ boundary may need recalibration outside $10.0<\log M_*/M_\odot<10.4$, where the low-density population becomes sparse; one could define the boundary as a function of mass and radius.
  • If the elbow is fundamental, bulge classification should be treated as a two-dimensional coordinate in a structure–star-formation plane; then 'pseudo-bulge' and 'classical bulge' become regions, and the elbow population (C-SFBs) is a natural third region, not a contradiction.
  • The paper's reframing of bimodality suggests that the 'structural valley' and the 'green valley' are different divisions made by different objects; testing this with spatially resolved IFU data could reveal whether elbow galaxies have young central stars or just dusty centers.
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 introduces ΔΣ1, a mass-trend-removed central stellar-mass surface density within 1 kpc, as a practical bulge-type indicator for SDSS central galaxies. It calibrates ΔΣ1 by fitting the structural valley in the Σ1–M* plane, validates it against Gadotti (2009) using Δ⟨μe⟩, and then maps the resulting P-bulge/C-bulge classification onto twenty structural and stellar-population properties for a mass-limited sample of about 12,000 galaxies. The central claims are that ΔΣ1 and Δ⟨μe⟩ measure the same central-density quantity, that P-bulges occupy the low-density horizontal arm of a strongly non-linear 'elbow' and are universally star-forming, and that C-bulges occupy the elbow and vertical branch with a wide range of star-formation rates, thereby explaining past classification disagreements. The paper also interprets the elbow as evidence that central structure and stellar populations evolve differently during quenching.

Significance. If the calibration is sound, the paper is significant for three reasons: it provides a bulge-type indicator that avoids bulge-disk decomposition and works to z=0.07 in SDSS, it offers a large homogeneous mapping of bulge classes onto many independent galaxy properties, and it proposes an explanation for historical classification discrepancies in terms of the elbow-shaped structure–star-formation relation. The paper also ships a public Σ1 catalog, which is a useful community resource. The external comparison with Gadotti (2009) is the right kind of validation, and the consistency with earlier Σ1-based results from Fang et al. (2013) and Barro et al. (2017) lends credibility to the elbow pattern. However, the central classification boundary is calibrated on the same sample that is later classified, and the external validation shows mass- and radius-dependent residuals; the robustness of the reported P-bulge/C-bulge fractions therefore remains the main open question.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 (Eq. 2) and Section 7.1]
  2. [Section 3 (Fig. 6)]
  3. [Section 4 (Figs. 7–9)]
  4. [Section 5 (Figs. 10b and 10d)]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 7.1]
  2. [Section 2, Table 1]
  3. [Section 4 (Fig. 9)]
  4. [Section 6, footnote 7]
  5. [Section 7.1]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ΔΣ1 is calibrated from structural bimodality and validated against the external G09 catalog, and the P/C–star-formation elbow is an empirical correlation rather than a reduction to the calibration.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. ΔΣ1 is defined in Eq. (2) from the structural valley (SV) in the Σ1–M* plane, which is located by double-Gaussian fits to the distribution of central stellar-mass surface density (Section 3, Figures 5–6). The SV and the ΔΣ1=0 boundary are determined purely from structure, not from star-formation rates or bulge-type labels, so the later finding that galaxies with ΔΣ1<0 are star-forming is an independent empirical correlation, not a tautology. The P-bulge/C-bulge mapping is explicitly validated against the external Gadotti (2009) sample using the independent bulge indicator Δ⟨μe⟩ (Section 4, Figures 7–9), and the comparison shows approximate agreement. The residual trends with mass and radius in Figure 9 are a validation weakness, but the paper does not redefine ΔΣ1 to force agreement with G09; it asserts, without demonstration, that removing the mass trend from Δ⟨μe⟩ would tighten the relation, which is a missing support rather than a circular step. The elbow-shaped relation between central density and star-formation rate was published earlier by Fang et al. (2013) and Barro et al. (2017), whose author lists overlap with the present paper, but the present paper's contribution is the mapping of bulge classes onto that elbow, and this mapping is checked against the external G09 classifications rather than derived from the self-citations. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation is defined in terms of the quantities it is used to explain. The statements that P-bulges are universally star-forming and that C-bulges span a wide range of star-formation rates are data descriptions from independent spectral indices, not consequences of the ΔΣ1 definition.

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

The main new parameter ΔΣ1 is not a physical constant but a residual constructed by fitting a second-order polynomial to the high-Σ1 ridgeline and shifting it to the midpoint of double-Gaussian fits. The P/C boundary at ΔΣ1=0 is therefore calibrated on the same SDSS sample, although the validation against Gadotti (2009) provides external support. Additional mass-trend fits for σ1 and re enter the comparisons in Figure 11.

free parameters (6)
  • ΔΣ1 mass-trend polynomial coefficients = 0.275, -6.445, 28.059 in Eq. (2)
    Second-order polynomial fitted to the high-Σ1 ridgeline of the same SDSS sample to define ΔΣ1.
  • Structural valley offset from high-Σ1 ridgeline = 0.21 dex (half of 0.42 dex separation of double-Gaussian peaks)
    The zero point of ΔΣ1 is set by shifting the fitted ridgeline down to the halfway point between the two Gaussian components; this boundary defines P-bulge vs C-bulge.
  • Δσ1 mass-trend coefficients = slope 0.338, intercept 1.430
    Used in Figure 11b to remove mass trend from velocity dispersion before comparing to ΔΣ1.
  • Δre mass-trend coefficients = slope 0.535, intercept 5.175
    Used in Figure 11d to remove mass trend from effective radius.
  • P(Ell) elliptical threshold = 0.65
    Hand-chosen threshold to separate ellipticals from C-bulges when studying the SDSS sample.
  • Dn4000 red/blue division = 1.6
    Used in Section 7.1 to compute the fraction of blue C-bulges; the 42 percent fraction depends on this threshold.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gadotti (2009) Δ⟨μe⟩ classifications are a valid reference for bulge type.
    The validation of ΔΣ1 rests on treating G09 bulge-disk decompositions as ground truth (Section 4).
  • domain assumption Σ1 measured from SDSS aperture photometry with M/Li from Fang et al. (2013) traces stellar mass surface density within 1 kpc.
    Mass-to-light ratio assumptions and seeing limits underlie all ΔΣ1 values (Section 2).
  • domain assumption The high-Σ1 ridgeline in the Σ1-M* plane is an approximate evolutionary track.
    The interpretation that galaxies evolve from P-bulges to C-bulges and that ΔΣ1 is a clock relies on this prior picture from Fang et al. and Barro et al. (Section 1, Section 5).
  • ad hoc to paper The structural valley defined by double-Gaussian fits separates two real populations.
    The valley depth is only about 15 percent; the Gaussian decomposition is a modeling choice used to set ΔΣ1=0.
  • domain assumption Cosmology H0=70, Ωm=0.3, ΩΛ=0.7 and standard K-corrections are adopted.
    Used for distance and photometric corrections throughout (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Huertas-Company et al. P(Ell) probabilities correctly identify ellipticals in SDSS.
    Used to separate ellipticals from C-bulges in the large sample (Section 2, Figure 3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structural and Stellar Population Properties vs. Bulge Types in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Central Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GEMRJ6LJ

@misc{pith2026190808055,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structural and Stellar Population Properties vs. Bulge Types in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Central Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GEMRJ6LJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08055}
}
abstract

This paper studies pseudo-bulges (P-bulges) and classical bulges (C-bulges) in Sloan Digital Sky Survey central galaxies using the new bulge indicator $\Delta\Sigma_1$, which measures relative central stellar-mass surface density within 1 kpc. We compare $\Delta\Sigma_1$ to the established bulge-type indicator $\Delta\langle\mu_e\rangle$ from Gadotti (2009) and show that classifying by $\Delta\Sigma_1$ agrees well with $\Delta\langle\mu_e\rangle$. $\Delta\Sigma_1$ requires no bulge-disk decomposition and can be measured on SDSS images out to $z = 0.07$. Bulge types using it are mapped onto twenty different structural and stellar-population properties for 12,000 SDSS central galaxies with masses 10.0 < log $M_*$/$M_{\odot}$ < 10.4. New trends emerge from this large sample. Structural parameters show fairly linear log-log relations vs. $\Delta\Sigma_1$ and $\Delta\langle\mu_e\rangle$ with only moderate scatter, while stellar-population parameters show a highly non-linear "elbow" in which specific star-formation rate remains roughly flat with increasing central density and then falls rapidly at the elbow, where galaxies begin to quench. P-bulges occupy the low-density end of the horizontal arm of the elbow and are universally star-forming, while C-bulges occupy the elbow and the vertical branch and exhibit a wide range of star-formation rates at fixed density. The non-linear relation between central density and star-formation rate has been seen before, but this mapping onto bulge class is new. The wide range of star-formation rates in C-bulges helps to explain why bulge classifications using different parameters have sometimes disagreed in the past. The elbow-shaped relation between density and stellar indices suggests that central structure and stellar-populations evolve at different rates as galaxies begin to quench.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08055 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panels a, b, c and d plot Σ1, concentration, global S´ersic index, and radius vs. stellar mass for face-on, central, non-interacting SDSS galaxies with 0.02 < z < 0.07 as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean bulge effective surface brightness vs. bulge effec￾tive radius (Kormendy relation, Kormendy 1977) using data for SDSS galaxies derived from the catalog of Gadotti (2009, G09). Green, blue, and magenta points indicate P-bulges, C-bulges, and ellipticals as classified by G09. ∆hµe i is the residual value of hµe i relative to the solid line (which is taken from G09). The dashed line above it schematically represen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The histogram of the probability of a galaxy’s being an elliptical, P(Ell), for G09 galaxies. Probabilities are taken from the morphological study of Huertas-Company et al. (2011). Black, green, blue and magenta histograms represent N-bulges, P-bulges, C-bulges, and E’s, respectively, based on the G09 classifications. N-bulges and P-bulges are cleanly distinguished from E’s, but C￾bulges (blue line) are a mixture of… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Panel a: Σ1 vs. stellar mass for all SDSS galaxies, ellipticals included, repeated for reference from Figure 1a. Panel b: Σ1 vs. stellar mass for the final SDSS sample with log M∗/M > 9.5. Panel c: ∆Σ1 vs. stellar mass for the SDSS galaxies as in panel b. Points in all…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms of Σ1 with fitted double Gaussians in four illustrative mass bins of SDSS: 9.7 < log M∗/M < 9.8, 9.9 < log M∗/M < 10.0, 10.1 < log M∗/M < 10.2 and 10.3 < log M∗/M < 10.4. Completeness corrections have been applied, and only bulges are counted (ellipticals ar…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel a: ∆Σ1 vs. M∗ for G09 galaxies. Panel b: ∆hµe i vs. M∗ for G09 galaxies. Points are color-coded according to the bulge classification in G09. Green and blue points represent P￾bulges and C-bulges, and magenta circles are Es. The quenched ridgeline and the structu…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sample SDSS postage stamps for G09 galaxies with redshifts z ∼ 0.04. Panel a shows galaxies with 10.0 < log M∗/M < 10.2, and panel b shows galaxies with 10.4 < log M∗/M < 10.6. The top row shows E’s according to G09 that also have P(Ell) > 0.65 according to Huertas-Com…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: ∆Σ1 is compared directly to ∆hµe i for the G09 galax￾ies. Points are color-coded according to the galaxy classifications in G09. Green points are P-bulges, blue points are C-bulges, and magenta circles are E’s. The reasonable agreement between ∆Σ1 and ∆hµe i suggests t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: This figure compares four structural parameters vs. the structural P-bulge/C-bulge indicators ∆hµe i and ∆Σ1. The two plots on the left in each row compare ∆hµe i and ∆Σ1 for the G09 sample, which includes both central and satellite galaxies. Green and blue points and…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Two additional structural parameters are compared to ∆hµe i and ∆Σ1. The format is the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Four colors that are sensitive to star-formation rate, stellar age, and dust content are plotted vs. ∆hµe i and ∆Σ1. Three are global, the last is central. The format is the same as in Figures 10 and 11. All colors have been corrected for dust using the global estimat…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Three stellar population indices from SDSS spectra plus a fourth index showing global specific star-formation rate from Brinchmann et al. (2004) are compared to ∆hµe i and ∆Σ1. The format is the same as in Figures 10 and 11. The presence of the elbow in the first thre…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Four emission-line ratios compared to ∆hµe i and ∆Σ1. The format is the same as in Figures 10 and 11. The Hα equivalent width is multiplied by -1 and the y-axis is reversed to maintain the same sense as in other figures. (Taking logs loses roughly 2% of galaxies, whic…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Dn4000 vs. ∆Σ1 and their histograms for our mass￾limited SDSS sample of central galaxies in the range 10.0 < log M∗/M < 10.4. Points are color-coded by the number density weighted by the magnitude completeness correction. The dip in the Dn4000 histogram is the familia…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    Abazajian K. N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    K., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524984 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..175..297A 175, 297

    Adelman-McCarthy J. K., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524984 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..175..297A 175, 297

    doi:10.1086/524984 2008

  3. [5]

    M., Loveday J., Brunner R

    Ball N. M., Loveday J., Brunner R. J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12627.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.383..907B 383, 907

    arXiv 2008

  4. [6]

    Barro G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765..104B 765, 104

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/104 2013

  5. [7]

    Barro G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b05 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...47B 840, 47

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6b05 2017

  6. [8]

    F., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682..355B 682, 355

    Bell E. F., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682..355B 682, 355

    doi:10.1086/589551 2008

  7. [9]

    F., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/420778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...608..752B 608, 752

    Bell E. F., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/420778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...608..752B 608, 752

    doi:10.1086/420778 2004

  8. [10]

    R., Moustakas J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..159B 47, 159

    Blanton M. R., Moustakas J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..159B 47, 159

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101734 2009

Show all 74 references
  1. [11]

    R., Roweis S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....133..734B 133, 734

    Blanton M. R., Roweis S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....133..734B 133, 734

    2007 doi

  2. [12]

    R., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342935 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125.2348B 125, 2348

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342935 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125.2348B 125, 2348

    2003 doi

  3. [13]

    R., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429803 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....129.2562B 129, 2562

    Blanton M. R., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429803 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....129.2562B 129, 2562

    2005 doi

  4. [14]

    B., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...706L.173B 706, L173

    Brammer G. B., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...706L.173B 706, L173

    2009 doi

  5. [15]

    B., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...739...24B 739, 24

    Brammer G. B., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...739...24B 739, 24

    2011 doi

  6. [16]

    Brinchmann J., Charlot S., White S. D. M., Tremonti C., Kauffmann G., Heckman T., Brinkmann J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351.1151B 351, 1151

    2004

  7. [17]

    Cappellari M., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09981.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366.1126C 366, 1126

    2006

  8. [18]

    M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307753 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...523..566C 523, 566

    Carollo C. M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307753 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...523..566C 523, 566

    1999 doi

  9. [19]

    Ceverino D., Dekel A., Tweed D., Primack J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.3291C 447, 3291

    2015 doi

  10. [20]

    arXiv:1909.10817

    Chen Z., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190910817C p. arXiv:1909.10817

    2019 arXiv

  11. [21]

    Cheung E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760..131C 760, 131

    2012 doi

  12. [22]

    Dekel A., Sari R., Ceverino D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703..785D 703, 785

    2009 doi

  13. [23]

    E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270....7D 270, 7

    Dressler A., Gunn J. E., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270....7D 270, 7

    1983 doi

  14. [24]

    P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10126.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368..414D 368, 414

    Driver S. P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10126.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368..414D 368, 414

    2006

  15. [25]

    G., Bournaud F., Elmegreen D

    Elmegreen B. G., Bournaud F., Elmegreen D. M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...688...67E 688, 67

    2008 doi

  16. [26]

    Erwin P., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2376 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.4039E 446, 4039

    2015 doi

  17. [27]

    M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665..265F 665, 265

    Faber S. M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665..265F 665, 265

    2007 doi

  18. [28]

    H., Saglia R

    Fabricius M. H., Saglia R. P., Fisher D. B., Drory N., Bender R., Hopp U., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754...67F 754, 67

    2012 doi

  19. [29]

    J., Faber S

    Fang J. J., Faber S. M., Koo D. C., Dekel A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776...63F 776, 63

    2013 doi

  20. [30]

    B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...642L..17F 642, L17

    Fisher D. B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...642L..17F 642, L17

    2006 doi

  21. [31]

    B., Drory N., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136..773F 136, 773

    Fisher D. B., Drory N., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136..773F 136, 773

    2008 doi

  22. [32]

    B., Drory N., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/942 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716..942F 716, 942

    Fisher D. B., Drory N., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/942 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716..942F 716, 942

    2010 doi

  23. [33]

    B., Drory N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/L47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...733L..47F 733, L47

    Fisher D. B., Drory N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/L47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...733L..47F 733, L47

    2011 doi

  24. [34]

    B., Drory N., 2016, in Laurikainen E., Peletier R., Gadotti D., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol

    Fisher D. B., Drory N., 2016, in Laurikainen E., Peletier R., Gadotti D., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 418, Galactic Bulges. p. 41 ( @eprint arXiv 1512.02230 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-19378-6_3

    2016 arXiv

  25. [35]

    B., Drory N., Fabricius M

    Fisher D. B., Drory N., Fabricius M. H., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697..630F 697, 630

    2009 doi

  26. [36]

    C., Krumholz M

    Forbes J. C., Krumholz M. R., Burkert A., Dekel A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.1552F 438, 1552

    2014 doi

  27. [37]

    A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14257.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393.1531G 393, 1531

    Gadotti D. A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14257.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393.1531G 393, 1531

    2009

  28. [38]

    A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482..506G 482, 506

    Gadotti D. A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482..506G 482, 506

    2019 doi

  29. [39]

    F., et al., 2009a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14983.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397..802H 397, 802

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2009a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14983.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397..802H 397, 802

    2009

  30. [40]

    F., Cox T

    Hopkins P. F., Cox T. J., Younger J. D., Hernquist L., 2009b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691.1168H 691, 1168

    doi

  31. [41]

    Huertas-Company M., Aguerri J. A. L., Bernardi M., Mei S., S \'a nchez Almeida J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    2011 doi

  32. [43]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003b, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06292.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.341...54K 341, 54

    2003

  33. [44]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003c, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346.1055K 346, 1055

    2003

  34. [45]

    Kim T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782...64K 782, 64

    2014 doi

  35. [46]

    Kormendy J., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155687 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...218..333K 218, 333

    1977 doi

  36. [47]

    418, Galactic Bulges

    Kormendy J., 2016, in Laurikainen E., Peletier R., Gadotti D., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 418, Galactic Bulges. p. 431 ( @eprint arXiv 1504.03330 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-19378-6_16

    2016 arXiv

  37. [48]

    C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/L176 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...715L.176K 715, L176

    Kormendy J., Barentine J. C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/L176 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...715L.176K 715, L176

    2010 doi

  38. [49]

    Kormendy J., Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ARA

    2004

  39. [50]

    E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723...54K 723, 54

    Kormendy J., Drory N., Bender R., Cornell M. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723...54K 723, 54

    2010 doi

  40. [51]

    Lee B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa40f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853..131L 853, 131

    2018 doi

  41. [53]

    L., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17834.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.411.2026M 411, 2026

    Masters K. L., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17834.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.411.2026M 411, 2026

    2011

  42. [54]

    M., Molaeinezhad A., Onodera M., Khosroshahi H

    Mosleh M., Tacchella S., Renzini A., Carollo C. M., Molaeinezhad A., Onodera M., Khosroshahi H. G., Lilly S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837....2M 837, 2

    2017 doi

  43. [55]

    K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..195...13O 195, 13

    Oh K., Sarzi M., Schawinski K., Yi S. K., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/195/2/13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..195...13O 195, 13

    2011 doi

  44. [56]

    Padmanabhan N., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524677 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...674.1217P 674, 1217

    2008 doi

  45. [57]

    G., Kelson D

    Patel S. G., Kelson D. D., Holden B. P., Franx M., Illingworth G. D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...53P 735, 53

    2011 doi

  46. [58]

    Querejeta M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A..19Q 625, A19

    2019 doi

  47. [59]

    D., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380601 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...602..190Q 602, 190

    Quintero A. D., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380601 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...602..190Q 602, 190

    2004 doi

  48. [60]

    S., Cox T

    Robertson B., Bullock J. S., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., Hernquist L., Springel V., Yoshida N., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...645..986R 645, 986

    2006 doi

  49. [61]

    Salo H., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..219....4S 219, 4

    2015 doi

  50. [62]

    T., Patton D

    Simard L., Mendel J. T., Patton D. R., Ellison S. L., McConnachie A. W., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/196/1/11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..196...11S 196, 11

    2011 doi

  51. [63]

    Strateva I., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.1861S 122, 1861

    2001 doi

  52. [64]

    Tacchella S., et al., 2015, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1261094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...348..314T 348, 314

    2015 doi

  53. [65]

    Wang W., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.4063W 469, 4063

    2017 doi

  54. [66]

    E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838...19W 838, 19

    Whitaker K. E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838...19W 838, 19

    2017 doi

  55. [67]

    J., Quadri R

    Williams R. J., Quadri R. F., Franx M., van Dokkum P., Labb \'e I., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691.1879W 691, 1879

    2009 doi

  56. [68]

    L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.1323W p

    Woo J., Ellison S. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1377 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.1323W p. 1323

    2019 doi

  57. [69]

    M., Koo D

    Woo J., Dekel A., Faber S. M., Koo D. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2755 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..237W 448, 237

    2015 doi

  58. [70]

    M., Faber S

    Woo J., Carollo C. M., Faber S. M., Dekel A., Tacchella S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.1077W 464, 1077

    2017 doi

  59. [71]

    K., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173..293W 173, 293

    Wyder T. K., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173..293W 173, 293

    2007 doi

  60. [72]

    J., van den Bosch F

    Yang X., Mo H. J., van den Bosch F. C., Zhang Y., Han J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...752...41Y 752, 41

    2012 doi

  61. [73]

    M., Faber S

    Yesuf H. M., Faber S. M., Trump J. R., Koo D. C., Fang J. J., Liu F. S., Wild V., Hayward C. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792...84Y 792, 84

    2014 doi

  62. [74]

    M., Faber S

    Yesuf H. M., Faber S. M., Koo D. C., Woo J., Primack J. R., Luo Y., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv191203633Y p. arXiv:1912.03633

    2019 arXiv

  63. [75]

    I., Zaritsky D., Lin H., Tucker D., Hashimoto Y., Shectman S

    Zabludoff A. I., Zaritsky D., Lin H., Tucker D., Hashimoto Y., Shectman S. A., Oemler A., Kirshner R. P., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...466..104Z 466, 104

    1996 doi

  64. [76]

    Zolotov A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2327Z 450, 2327

    2015 doi

  65. [77]

    G., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...45V 791, 45

    van Dokkum P. G., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...45V 791, 45

    2014 doi

  66. [78]

    G., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813...23V 813, 23

    van Dokkum P. G., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813...23V 813, 23

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.