Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 80 references

WISDOM Project -- XXV. Improving the CO-dynamical supermassive black hole mass measurement in the galaxy NGC 1574 using high spatial resolution ALMA observations

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first NGC 1574 black hole mass measurement from CO gas kinematic data that spatially resolve the black hole's sphere of influence, yielding $M_{\rm BH}=(6.2\pm1.2)\times10^7\,M_\odot$ and indicating that the earlier…

desk verdict First SoI-resolving SMBH mass for NGC 1574 is convincing, but unmodeled non-circular motions could bias the result by tens of percent—worth peer review with a requested sensitivity test. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10662 v1 pith:MB35K2QJ submitted 2025-07-14 astro-ph.GA

Hengyue Zhang , Martin Bureau , Ilaria Ruffa , Timothy A. Davis , Pandora Dominiak , Jacob S. Elford , Federico Lelli , Thomas G. Williams This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords supermassiveblackholemassmoleculargasdynamicsALMACO(2-1)observationssphereofinfluenceKeplerianrotationNGC1574position-anglewarpgalaxyscalingrelations
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 sets out to show that a black hole mass measured from molecular gas kinematics becomes trustworthy only when the observations spatially resolve the black hole's sphere of influence. Using new high-resolution ALMA observations of carbon monoxide in the lenticular galaxy NGC 1574, it reports the first spatially resolved view of that sphere of influence and a clear Keplerian rise in the rotation curve toward the nucleus. Forward modelling of the full data cube gives a black hole mass of $(6.2\pm1.2)\times10^7\,M_\odot$, slightly smaller than but consistent with the earlier intermediate-resolution measurement. The authors argue that the value of the new observation is accuracy rather than precision: resolving the sphere of influence breaks the degeneracy between black hole mass and stellar mass-to-light ratio, and reveals a central position-angle warp that previous data could not trace. If correct, the result implies that molecular-gas black hole masses from data that only marginally resolve the sphere of influence can be systematically overestimated.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the forward modelling of the entire CO data cube rather than just its moment maps. A model galaxy is built from an exponential molecular gas disc and a stellar mass distribution derived from a multi-Gaussian expansion of the Hubble image, deprojected at the fitted inclination and scaled by a constant mass-to-light ratio, with a point mass at the centre representing the black hole. From this combined mass model a circular velocity curve is computed, a constant gas velocity dispersion is added, a position-angle warp that varies linearly with radius is applied, and the resulting velocity field is projected, convolved with the synthesised beam, and spectrally binned to produce a synthetic cube that is compared pixel-by-pixel with the data in a Markov chain Monte Carlo fit. The key quantity carrying the argument is the resolved Keplerian rise in the position-velocity diagram: the innermost detected gas radius is $R_{\rm min}\approx4.1$ pc, about a third of the equality radius $R_{\rm eq}\approx11$ pc where stellar and black hole masses are equal, so the central velocities are dominated by the black hole and are nearly independent of the stellar mass-to-light ratio.

What would settle it

Fit the same data cube with a dynamical model that adds radial or other non-circular motions matching the observed $\pm55$ km/s spiral-arm residuals: if the best-fitting $M_{\rm BH}$ shifts by more than $1\sigma$ from $6.2\pm1.2\times10^7\,M_\odot$, the circular-orbit assumption is falsified. Alternatively, a deeper observation that resolves radii below $R_{\rm min}\approx4$ pc should show the projected velocity continuing to rise roughly as $v\propto r^{-1/2}$ for the lower mass; if the rise instead follows the curve expected for $1.0\times10^8\,M_\odot$, the resolved measurement is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the discovery is that the previously unresolved central few parsecs of NGC 1574 contain a Keplerian velocity rise that unambiguously detects the supermassive black hole's gravity, and that modelling this rise gives $M_{\rm BH}=(6.2\pm1.2)\times10^7\,M_\odot$. The observations reach a synthesised beam of $0\farcs078\times0\farcs070$ (about $7.5\times6.7$ pc), and while this beam is larger than the traditional $GM_{\rm BH}/\sigma_e^2$ sphere-of-influence radius, it resolves the physically meaningful equality radius $R_{\rm eq}\approx0\farcs12$ (11 pc) at which the enclosed stellar mass equals the black hole mass; the innermost detected gas orbits at $R_{\rm min}\approx4.1$ pc, well inside the region where the black hole dominates. The best-fitting model also finds that the isovelocity twist is a position-angle warp that steepens toward the centre, with an inner position angle of $326^\circ$ rather than the previously inferred $342^\circ$, and the velocity residuals contain spiral-arm-like non-circular motions of up to $\pm55$ km s$^{-1}$. The new mass is $1.7\sigma$ smaller than the previous value of $(1.0\pm0.2)\times10^8\,M_\odot$, so the unresolved data appear to have been slightly high.

Load-bearing premise

The gas particles are assumed to move on circular orbits when the mass model is converted into kinematics, and if the mild non-circular motions seen as $\pm55$ km/s spiral-arm residuals are stronger near the centre than the models assume, the black hole mass could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NGC 1574's black hole mass is $(6.2\pm1.2)\times10^7\,M_\odot$, about $1.7\sigma$ below the previous unresolved measurement, so the older data overestimated the mass slightly.
  • Resolving the sphere of influence breaks the usual degeneracy between black hole mass and stellar mass-to-light ratio, so the black hole mass is constrained by the inner Keplerian rise rather than by the stellar light model.
  • The position-angle warp in the central $0\farcs2$ region is larger than previously inferred, with the inner position angle at $326^\circ$ rather than $342^\circ$; a two-component warp model does not improve the fit, so a single linear warp describes the disc.
  • NGC 1574 sits slightly below the $1\sigma$ scatter of the $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_e$ relation but within the $3\sigma$ scatter, and within $1\sigma$ of the $M_{\rm BH}$--$M_*$ relation, suggesting the offset is more likely due to an overestimated velocity dispersion.
  • The measurement implies that molecular-gas dynamical masses from data that only marginally resolve the sphere of influence can be systematically inaccurate, reinforcing the need for high-resolution observations in black hole scaling-relation studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If marginally resolved molecular-gas masses are often biased high, part of the observed scatter in the $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_e$ relation may be measurement scatter; a systematic comparison of resolved and unresolved measurements of the same galaxies would test this.
  • The spiral-arm-like residuals suggest bar-driven radial gas flows down to the circumnuclear disc; modelling these flows explicitly, for example with a barred potential or radial-velocity terms, could both correct the residuals and quantify gas inflow toward the black hole.
  • Because the galaxy is nearly face-on, inclination dominates the statistical error; an independent stellar-dynamical measurement of the same black hole would provide a cross-check of both $M_{\rm BH}$ and the velocity dispersion.
  • A future observation with an even smaller beam, about 3 pc or less, could test whether the central Keplerian rise continues along the $6.2\times10^7\,M_\odot$ curve or turns over, revealing additional central mass or a breakdown of the linear warp model.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents new ALMA 12CO(2-1) observations of the lenticular galaxy NGC 1574 with a synthesised beam of 0.078" x 0.070" (≈7.5 x 6.7 pc), roughly a factor of two higher resolution than the previous intermediate-resolution data. The observations reveal a prominent central velocity rise in the position-velocity diagram, which the authors interpret as the first spatial resolution of the SMBH's sphere of influence in this galaxy. Using the KinMS forward-modelling code and GAStimator MCMC sampler, they model the full data cube and infer a SMBH mass of (6.2 ± 1.2) x 10^7 M_sun, consistent with but slightly smaller than the earlier value of (1.0 ± 0.2) x 10^8 M_sun from Ruffa et al. (2023). They also characterise a position-angle warp, an M/L ratio, and place the galaxy on the M_BH-σ_e and M_BH-M_* scaling relations.

Significance. If the measurement is robust, the paper provides a valuable high-spatial-resolution molecular gas dynamical mass measurement that directly tests the accuracy of a previous, marginally resolved measurement and contributes to the WISDOM sample. The strengths of the work include the forward modelling of the complete data cube (not just moment maps), the explicit comparison with a no-SMBH model that fails to reproduce the central velocity rise, the use of publicly available and widely used tools (KinMS, GAStimator, JAM), and a detailed discussion of statistical and systematic uncertainties. The main weakness is the treatment of non-circular motions, which are detected as ±55 km/s residual spiral-arm features but are only dismissed by an amplitude comparison rather than by a quantitative bias estimate. A secondary weakness is the definition of the sphere of influence used to support the 'first to resolve' claim, which depends on R_eq and R_min rather than the traditional R_SoI that is slightly smaller than the beam.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (3)] The manuscript argues that the ±55 km/s deprojected residuals are negligible because they are smaller than the maximum circular velocity of ~380 km/s within the SoI. This comparison is not appropriate for assessing the mass bias: the SMBH mass is constrained primarily by the innermost Keplerian region, where the circular velocities are considerably lower than 380 km/s, and M_BH scales as the square of the deprojected velocity. A coherent non-circular component of ~15% of the local circular speed at the radii that dominate the likelihood would shift M_BH by ~30%, which exceeds the quoted 1σ statistical uncertainty of ±1.2 x 10^7 M_sun. To support the claim of improved accuracy, the authors should test the sensitivity of M_BH to non-circular motions, for example by (i) fitting a model that includes radial or streaming motions, (ii) masking the residual spiral-arm regions and refitting, or (iii) explicitly adding a systematic uncertainty term derived from the residual velocity field. As it stands, the potential bias is unquantified and comparable to the reported error budget.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (3)] The claim that these are 'the first to spatially resolve the SMBH's sphere of influence' rests on the choice of R_eq (0.12") and R_min (0.043") rather than the traditional R_SoI = G M_BH / σ_e^2 ≈ 0.059". Since the synthesised beam FWHM of 0.074" is actually slightly larger than R_SoI, the statement is definition-dependent. The authors do motivate R_eq and R_min convincingly, and the no-SMBH model failure provides strong internal support, but the paper should explicitly acknowledge that under the classical definition the beam does not resolve the SoI, and explain why R_eq and R_min are the more meaningful metrics for this dataset. This is important because the 'first to resolve' wording appears in the abstract and is used to argue that the new measurement is more accurate than the previous one.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2.3.3] The cleaning-depth flux correction is described thoroughly, but the resulting corrected total flux (10.1 Jy km/s) is substantially lower than the uncorrected intermediate-resolution value (17.9 Jy km/s); it would help the reader if the Jorsater & van Moorsel correction were sketched in a sentence or a reference to the exact equation, rather than only cited.
  2. [§3.4] The statement that the inner PA differs from the Ruffa et al. (2023) value by 8σ would be more informative if the quoted uncertainty of the previous measurement were given explicitly in the text (the abstract of that paper already does so, but the value is not repeated here).
  3. [Throughout] There are minor typographical issues, including missing spaces ('the12CO(2-1)'), 'mean line-of-light velocities' instead of 'line-of-sight velocities' in §2.3.2, and inconsistent use of 'circumnuclear' vs 'circum-nuclear' in the introduction. These should be corrected in a final proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: M_BH is an MCMC-fitted free parameter, the Keplerian rise is data-driven, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central result, M_BH = (6.2 ± 1.2) x 10^7 M_sun, is obtained by forward-modelling the full CO data cube with KinMS and sampling the posterior with GAStimator. M_BH is a free parameter of the fit, not an input imposed by the model or by any prior measurement, so the inference is not circular by construction. The claimed detection of the Keplerian velocity rise is supported by an explicit comparison: a no-SMBH model fails to reproduce the central PVD rise while the best-fitting model reproduces it, and the high-resolution data show central line-of-sight velocities up to ~170 km/s versus ~120 km/s in the lower-resolution cube. The stellar mass distribution is an independent HST/MGE input with M/L as a free parameter, and the MGE parameters from Ruffa et al. (2023) are external imaging data rather than a restatement of the target result. The PA-warp model is inherited from prior work, but the paper tests it against a two-component warp using the BIC, so the adopted form is not forced by the cited work. The 'sphere of influence resolved' claim is made using both the prior mass estimate and the formal R_eq computed from the new fit; while R_eq depends on the fitted M_BH, the argument is not a reduction of output to input because the data themselves trace kinematics at R_min ~ 0.043 arcsec, inside both R_SoI and R_eq, and the Keplerian rise is visible directly in the PVD. The paper explicitly flags the circular-orbit assumption and residual non-circular motions of up to ±55 km/s as a systematic uncertainty (Section 4.1); this is a robustness concern, not a circularity. Self-citations (e.g., the chi-square rescaling validation and the R_min procedure) affect uncertainty estimation and interpretation but do not determine the fitted mass. No equation or fitting step equates the claimed prediction to an input by definition, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model has 11 fitted parameters, including the target M_BH, and relies on several kinematic idealizations (circular orbits, linear warp, exponential disc) and an external distance. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (11)
  • Black hole mass (M_BH) = 6.2 x 10^7 M_sun
    Primary target of the fit, free parameter in the forward model and MCMC.
  • Stellar mass-to-light ratio (M/L) = 7.1 M_sun/L_sun,F606W
    Free parameter scaling the MGE stellar mass distribution.
  • Galaxy inclination (i) = 26.7 deg
    Free parameter; M_BH depends on sin^-2(i), driving a major part of the uncertainty.
  • Inner position angle (PA_inner) = 326.0 deg
    Free parameter in the linear PA warp model.
  • Outer position angle (PA_outer) = 39.0 deg
    Free parameter in the linear PA warp model.
  • Gas velocity dispersion (sigma_gas) = 11.3 km/s
    Spatially constant free parameter added in quadrature to the circular velocity.
  • Gas disc scale length (R_s) = 0.55 arcsec
    Exponential disc scale length, free parameter.
  • Systemic velocity = 1028.7 km/s
    Nuisance parameter fitted to the data cube.
  • Disc integrated intensity = 13.1 Jy km/s
    Nuisance parameter controlling total flux.
  • Kinematic center X offset = 0.00 arcsec
    Nuisance parameter.
  • Kinematic center Y offset = 0.02 arcsec
    Nuisance parameter.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Gas particles move on circular orbits when deriving gas kinematics from the mass model.
    Section 3.2 states this assumption. Non-circular motions are detected in residuals (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption The total mass in the central ~0.3 x 0.3 kpc^2 is dominated by the SMBH and stars; gas and dark matter are negligible.
    Section 3.2 justifies with gas mass less than 5% and negligible dark matter in galaxy centers.
  • domain assumption The stellar mass distribution is axisymmetric, described by the MGE of the HST F606W image, with a spatially constant M/L.
    Section 3.2 uses the MGE from Ruffa et al. (2023), deprojected analytically at a given inclination.
  • domain assumption The CO gas surface brightness follows an exponential disc.
    Section 3.1 adopts this after confirming consistency with the observed deconvolved profile.
  • domain assumption The position angle warp varies linearly with radius.
    Section 3.3 adopts the same warp model as Ruffa et al. (2023); a two-component warp does not improve BIC.
  • domain assumption The gas velocity dispersion is spatially constant.
    Section 3.2 states that variable dispersion models do not fit better nor change M_BH.
  • domain assumption The adopted distance of 19.9 +/- 2.0 Mpc from SBF is correct.
    Section 2.1, from Tonry et al. (2001); distance scales linearly with M_BH and is not included in the error budget.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WISDOM Project -- XXV. Improving the CO-dynamical supermassive black hole mass measurement in the galaxy NGC 1574 using high spatial resolution ALMA observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MB35K2QJ

@misc{pith2026250710662,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WISDOM Project -- XXV. Improving the CO-dynamical supermassive black hole mass measurement in the galaxy NGC 1574 using high spatial resolution ALMA observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MB35K2QJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10662}
}
abstract

We present a molecular gas dynamical supermassive black hole (SMBH) mass measurement in the nearby barred lenticular galaxy NGC 1574, using Atacama Large Millimeter/sub-millimeter Array observations of the $^{12}$CO(2-1) emission line with synthesised beam full-widths at half-maximum of $0.''078\times0.''070$ ($\approx7.5\times6.7$ pc$^2$). The observations are the first to spatially resolve the SMBH's sphere of influence (SoI), resulting in an unambiguous detection of the Keplerian velocity increase due to the SMBH towards the centre of the gas disc. We also detect a previously known large-scale kinematic twist of the CO velocity map, due to a position angle (PA) warp and possible mild non-circular motions, and we resolve a PA warp within the central $0.''2\times0.''2$ of the galaxy, larger than that inferred from previous intermediate-resolution data. By forward modelling the data cube, we infer a SMBH mass of $(6.2\pm1.2)\times10^7$ M$_\odot$ ($1\sigma$ confidence interval), slightly smaller than but statistically consistent with the SMBH mass derived from the previous intermediate-resolution data that did not resolve the SoI, and slightly outside the $1\sigma$ scatter of the SMBH mass -- stellar velocity dispersion relation. Our measurement thus emphasises the importance of observations that spatially resolve the SMBH SoI for accurate SMBH mass measurements and gas dynamical modelling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10662 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Data products of NGC 1574 created from our ALMA 12CO(2-1) data cube. Top-left: Zeroth-moment (integrated-intensity) map. Top-right: First￾moment (intensity-weighted mean line-of-sight velocity) map. Bottom-left: Second-moment (intensity-weighted line-of-sight velocity dispersion) map. The synthesised beam (0. ′′078×0. ′′069) is shown as a black open ellipse in the bottom-left corner of each map. Bottom-right: Kinema… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Integrated 12CO(2-1) spectrum of NGC 1574, extracted from the central 2. ′′6×2. ′′6 region of the data cube, covering all of the detected emission. Velocities are measured relative to the best-fitting systemic velocity along the top axis (see Section 3.4). The dot-dashed line indicates the zero flux level. The shaded region highlights the channels within the line FWZI, used to measure the total flux. The spectrum sh… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Central region (0. ′′25×0. ′′25) of the NGC 1574 1.3-mm continuum image, showing the only source detected. Contour levels are equally spaced between the peak intensity of 2.02 ± 0.02 mJy beam−1 and 20 times the RMS noise. The synthesised beam (0. ′′078 × 0. ′′069) is shown in the bottom￾left corner as a black open ellipse. The source is only marginally spatially resolved. of a galaxy’s gas distribution and circular … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plots showing the 2D joint posterior distributions between non-nuisance model parameters. The colours represent increasing confidence levels from 68.3% (red, 1𝜎) to 99.7% (grey, 3𝜎). The histograms show each parameter’s 1D marginalised posterior distribution; th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) First-moment (intensity-weighted mean line-of-sight velocity) map of the NGC 1574 data cube. (b) – (c) First-moment maps of the best-fitting dynamical model from (b) this work and (c) the best-fitting model of Ruffa et al. (2023), obtained by fitting intermediate s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Observed kinematic major-axis position-velocity diagram of NGC 1574 (orange scale with black contours), overlaid with the PVDs of different models (cyan contours): no SMBH (left), best-fitting model from this work (centre) and best-fitting model of Ruffa et al. (2023) …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SMBH mass (𝑀BH) and effective stellar velocity dispersion (𝜎e) of NGC 1574 (red data point), compared to those of other galaxies with SMBH mass measurements derived using molecular gas kinematics (blue data points) and other methods (grey data points). The best-fitting…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Hickox R

    Alexander D. M., Hickox R. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012NewAR..56...93A 56, 93

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.003 2012

  2. [2]

    J., Boizelle B

    Barth A. J., Boizelle B. D., Darling J., Baker A. J., Buote D. A., Ho L. C., Walsh J. L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822L..28B 822, L28

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/l28 2016

  3. [4]

    F., McIntosh D

    Bell E. F., McIntosh D. H., Katz N., Weinberg M. D., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJS..149..289B 149, 289

    doi:10.1086/378847 2003

  4. [5]

    V., da Costa L

    Bernardi M., Alonso M. V., da Costa L. N., Willmer C. N. A., Wegner G., Pellegrini P. S., Rit \'e C., Maia M. A. G., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340463 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....123.2990B 123, 2990

    work page doi:10.1086/340463 2002

  5. [6]

    D., McKee C

    Blandford R. D., McKee C. F., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159843 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...255..419B 255, 419

    doi:10.1086/159843 1982

  6. [7]

    D., Barth A

    Boizelle B. D., Barth A. J., Walsh J. L., Buote D. A., Baker A. J., Darling J., Ho L. C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2a0a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881...10B 881, 10

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2a0a 2019

  7. [8]

    D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd24d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908...19B 908, 19

    Boizelle B. D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd24d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908...19B 908, 19

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd24d 2021

  8. [9]

    Bureau M., Carignan C., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....123.1316B 123, 1316

    doi:10.1086/338899 2002

Show all 80 references
  1. [10]

    M., Bentz M

    Cackett E. M., Bentz M. C., Kara E., 2021, @doi [iScience] 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021iSci...24j2557C 24, 102557

    2021

  2. [11]

    Cappellari M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05412.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.333..400C 333, 400

    2002

  3. [12]

    Cappellari M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13754.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.390...71C 390, 71

    2008

  4. [13]

    K., van der Marel R

    Cappellari M., Verolme E. K., van der Marel R. P., Verdoes Kleijn G. A., Illingworth G. D., Franx M., Carollo C. M., de Zeeuw P. T., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342653 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...578..787C 578, 787

    2002 doi

  5. [14]

    Cappellari M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.1709C 432, 1709

    2013 doi

  6. [15]

    H., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f7810.48550/arXiv.2104.07779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919...77C 919, 77

    Cohn J. H., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f7810.48550/arXiv.2104.07779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919...77C 919, 77

    2021

  7. [16]

    H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958..186C 958, 186

    Cohn J. H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958..186C 958, 186

    2023 doi

  8. [17]

    H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7bb0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..179C 975, 179

    Cohn J. H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7bb0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..179C 975, 179

    2024 doi

  9. [18]

    Combes F., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834560 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...623A..79C 623, A79

    2019 doi

  10. [19]

    D'Onofrio M., Marziani P., Chiosi C., 2021, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2021.694554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021FrASS...8..157D 8, 157

    2021

  11. [20]

    M., 2011, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1101.1499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1101.1499D p

    Dame T. M., 2011, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1101.1499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1101.1499D p. arXiv:1101.1499

    2011 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    A., et al., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429..534D 429, 534

    Davis T. A., et al., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429..534D 429, 534

    doi

  13. [22]

    A., Bureau M., Cappellari M., Sarzi M., Blitz L., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11819 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.494..328D 494, 328

    Davis T. A., Bureau M., Cappellari M., Sarzi M., Blitz L., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11819 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.494..328D 494, 328

    doi

  14. [23]

    A., Bureau M., Onishi K., Cappellari M., Iguchi S., Sarzi M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4675D 468, 4675

    Davis T. A., Bureau M., Onishi K., Cappellari M., Iguchi S., Sarzi M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4675D 468, 4675

    2017 doi

  15. [24]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.3818D 473, 3818

    Davis T. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.3818D 473, 3818

    2018 doi

  16. [25]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.4061D 496, 4061

    Davis T. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.4061D 496, 4061

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    A., Ma C.-P., Greene J

    Dominiak P., Bureau M., Davis T. A., Ma C.-P., Greene J. E., Gu M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae314 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.1597D 529, 1597

    2024 doi

  18. [27]

    arXiv:2404.11260

    Dominiak P., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.11260 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240411260D p. arXiv:2404.11260

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [28]

    Emsellem E., Monnet G., Bacon R., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...285..723E 285, 723

    1994

  20. [29]

    Ferrarese L., Merritt D., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539L...9F 539, L9

    2000 doi

  21. [30]

    C., Jaffe W., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...470..444F 470, 444

    Ferrarese L., Ford H. C., Jaffe W., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...470..444F 470, 444

    1996 doi

  22. [31]

    C., Barth A

    Gao H., Ho L. C., Barth A. J., Li Z.-Y., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3c6a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..244...34G 244, 34

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    C., Li Z.-Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8dea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262...54G 262, 54

    Gao H., Ho L. C., Li Z.-Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8dea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262...54G 262, 54

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    Gebhardt K., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...539L..13G 539, L13

    2000 doi

  25. [34]

    G \"u ltekin K., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698..198G 698, 198

    2009 doi

  26. [35]

    M., Costa T., Tadhunter C

    Harrison C. M., Costa T., Tadhunter C. N., Fl \"u tsch A., Kakkad D., Perna M., Vietri G., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0403-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..198H 2, 198

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    R., Moran J

    Herrnstein J. R., Moran J. M., Greenhill L. J., Trotter A. S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431421 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...629..719H 629, 719

    2005 doi

  28. [37]

    A., 1974, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974A&AS...15..417H 15, 417

    H \"o gbom J. A., 1974, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974A&AS...15..417H 15, 417

    1974

  29. [38]

    A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117668 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995AJ....110.2037J 110, 2037

    Jorsater S., van Moorsel G. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117668 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995AJ....110.2037J 110, 2037

    1995 doi

  30. [39]

    M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a38 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934..162K 934, 162

    Kabasares K. M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a38 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934..162K 934, 162

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..511K 51, 511

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..511K 51, 511

    2013 doi

  32. [42]

    E., Hook R

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

    2011 doi

  33. [43]

    Y., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...727...20K 727, 20

    Kuo C. Y., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...727...20K 727, 20

    2011 doi

  34. [44]

    Lang P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897..122L 897, 122

    2020 doi

  35. [45]

    H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19283.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.1452L 418, 1452

    Laurikainen E., Salo H., Buta R., Knapen J. H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19283.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.1452L 418, 1452

    2011

  36. [46]

    A., Bureau M., Cappellari M., Liu L., Ruffa I., Smith M

    Lelli F., Davis T. A., Bureau M., Cappellari M., Liu L., Ruffa I., Smith M. D., Williams T. G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac249310.48550/arXiv.2209.00363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.4066L 516, 4066

    2022

  37. [47]

    Maia M. A. G., da Costa L. N., Latham D. W., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJS...69..809M 69, 809

    1989 doi

  38. [48]

    Maiolino R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.627...59M 627, 59

    2024 doi

  39. [49]

    J., Ma C.-P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..184M 764, 184

    McConnell N. J., Ma C.-P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..184M 764, 184

    2013 doi

  40. [50]

    P., Waters B., Schiebel D., Young W., Golap K., 2007, in Shaw R

    McMullin J. P., Waters B., Schiebel D., Young W., Golap K., 2007, in Shaw R. A., Hill F., Bell D. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI. p. 127

    2007

  41. [51]

    Merloni A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708..137M 708, 137

    2010 doi

  42. [52]

    J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2677 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.4789M 464, 4789

    Mitzkus M., Cappellari M., Walcher C. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2677 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.4789M 464, 4789

    2017 doi

  43. [53]

    Morganti R., 2017, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2017.00042 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017FrASS...4...42M 4, 42

    2017

  44. [54]

    Nagai H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e6e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..193N 883, 193

    2019 doi

  45. [55]

    W., van der Werf P

    Neumayer N., Cappellari M., Reunanen J., Rix H. W., van der Werf P. P., de Zeeuw P. T., Davies R. I., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.1329N 671, 1329

    2007 doi

  46. [56]

    D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab77aa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892...68N 892, 68

    Nguyen D. D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab77aa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892...68N 892, 68

    2020 doi

  47. [57]

    D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.4123N 504, 4123

    Nguyen D. D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.4123N 504, 4123

    2021 doi

  48. [58]

    D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.2920N 509, 2920

    Nguyen D. D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.2920N 509, 2920

    2022 doi

  49. [59]

    V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..319N 490, 319

    North E. V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..319N 490, 319

    2019 doi

  50. [60]

    Onishi K., Iguchi S., Sheth K., Kohno K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806...39O 806, 39

    2015 doi

  51. [61]

    A., Bureau M., Cappellari M., Sarzi M., Blitz L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx631 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4663O 468, 4663

    Onishi K., Iguchi S., Davis T. A., Bureau M., Cappellari M., Sarzi M., Blitz L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx631 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4663O 468, 4663

    2017 doi

  52. [62]

    Osorno J., Nagar N., Richtler T., Humire P., Gebhardt K., Gultekin K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A..37O 679, A37

    2023 doi

  53. [63]

    Pensabene A., Carniani S., Perna M., Cresci G., Decarli R., Maiolino R., Marconi A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936634 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...637A..84P 637, A84

    2020 doi

  54. [64]

    W., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891L...1P 891, L1

    Pesce D. W., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891L...1P 891, L1

    2020 doi

  55. [65]

    C., Illingworth G

    Phillips A. C., Illingworth G. D., MacKenty J. W., Franx M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....111.1566P 111, 1566

    1996 doi

  56. [66]

    A., 2024, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies12040036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Galax..12...36R 12, 36

    Ruffa I., Davis T. A., 2024, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies12040036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Galax..12...36R 12, 36

    2024 doi

  57. [67]

    Ruffa I., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2368 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.3739R 489, 3739

    2019 doi

  58. [68]

    Ruffa I., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.6170R 522, 6170

    2023 doi

  59. [69]

    C., Rudnick G., Ho L

    Sarzi M., Rix H.-W., Shields J. C., Rudnick G., Ho L. C., McIntosh D. H., Filippenko A. V., Sargent W. L. W., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/319724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...550...65S 550, 65

    2001 doi

  60. [70]

    A., Cappellari M., Hartke J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3309 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2341S 527, 2341

    Simon D. A., Cappellari M., Hartke J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3309 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2341S 527, 2341

    2024 doi

  61. [71]

    D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz625 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.4359S 485, 4359

    Smith M. D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz625 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.4359S 485, 4359

    2019 doi

  62. [72]

    D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab791 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.5984S 503, 5984

    Smith M. D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab791 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.5984S 503, 5984

    2021 doi

  63. [73]

    B., Allevato V., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5f5f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889...32S 889, 32

    Suh H., Civano F., Trakhtenbrot B., Shankar F., Hasinger G., Sanders D. B., Allevato V., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5f5f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889...32S 889, 32

    2020 doi

  64. [74]

    L., Dressler A., Blakeslee J

    Tonry J. L., Dressler A., Blakeslee J. P., Ajhar E. A., Fletcher A. B., Luppino G. A., Metzger M. R., Moore C. B., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...546..681T 546, 681

    2001 doi

  65. [75]

    M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...641..689V 641, 689

    Vestergaard M., Peterson B. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...641..689V 641, 689

    2006 doi

  66. [76]

    L., Barth A

    Walsh J. L., Barth A. J., Ho L. C., Sarzi M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770...86W 770, 86

    2013 doi

  67. [77]

    Zhang H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.3240Z 530, 3240

    2024 doi

  68. [78]

    Zhang H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.537..520Z 537, 520

    2025 doi

  69. [79]

    Zhu K., Lu S., Cappellari M., Li R., Mao S., Gao L., Ge J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527..706Z 527, 706

    2024 doi

  70. [80]

    van den Bosch R. C. E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...831..134V 831, 134

    2016 doi

  71. [81]

    van den Bosch R. C. E., van de Ven G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15177.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1117V 398, 1117

    2009

  72. [82]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.