Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

The Morphology of Dwarf Galaxies Hosting Variable Active Galactic Nuclei

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Photometric variability in dwarf galaxies exposes active galactic nuclei with estimated black hole masses of roughly $10^{3.6}$ to $10^{6.6}$ solar masses, lower on average than those found by optical spectroscopy.

desk verdict First morphological study of variability-selected dwarf AGN hosts with useful HST data, but the model-selection criterion as written contradicts the reported fits, and the central mass/luminosity comparison rests on that step. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02751 v1 pith:XPX4ZU2C submitted 2025-02-04 astro-ph.GA

Erin Kimbro , Vivienne Baldassare , Guy Worthey , Marla Geha , Jenny Greene This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarfgalaxiesactivegalacticnucleiintermediate-massblackholesphotometricvariabilitygalaxymorphologyHubbleSpaceTelescopeholescalingrelationsnuclearstarclusters
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

Most dwarf-galaxy black hole searches use optical spectroscopy, a method that can miss active galactic nuclei (AGN) whose emission lines are diluted by star formation or absent because the galaxy has little gas. This paper instead studies eight dwarf galaxies whose AGN were found through photometric variability, meaning their brightness changes over time, using Hubble Space Telescope images in three bands. Light-profile fits yield estimated black hole masses of roughly $10^{3.6}$ to $10^{6.6}$ solar masses, lower on average than dwarf AGN found by spectroscopy, and the nuclear point sources are brighter than ordinary star clusters yet dimmer than spectroscopically selected AGN. The authors conclude that variability selection can uncover a population of lower-mass, lower-luminosity AGN in dwarf galaxies that spectroscopic surveys systematically miss.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by photometric variability as an AGN selector that does not depend on emission-line ratios, combined with two-dimensional light-profile decomposition of the Hubble images into disk, bulge, unresolved point-source, and nuclear components. Black hole masses are not measured directly but inferred from two scaling relations: the bulge-stellar-mass to black-hole-mass relation calibrated down to dwarf galaxies, and the total-stellar-mass to black-hole-mass relation for local AGNs. The nature of each point source is tested by comparing its near-infrared, optical, and ultraviolet luminosities and colors with stellar population models and with nuclear star cluster scaling relations, while X-ray observations of the same galaxies provide an independent check.

What would settle it

Dynamical mass measurements of these nuclei, for example from spatially resolved molecular gas kinematics, would settle the claim: if any nucleus comes out above roughly $10^6$ solar masses, the conclusion that variability selection finds lower-mass black holes than spectroscopy would fail. A complementary check is deep optical spectroscopy looking for broad hydrogen-$\alpha$ or high-ionization lines; their absence would put the AGN interpretation in doubt.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a population offset: active dwarf galaxies identified by optical variability host estimated black hole masses of $10^{3.6}$ to $10^{6.6}$ solar masses, with nuclear point sources about forty times dimmer than dwarf AGN selected by the standard emission-line BPT diagram (an emission-line test for AGN activity) and about ten times brighter than point sources in non-active dwarfs. The host galaxies are morphologically heterogeneous: three of eight are irregular, and the regularly structured ones are best fit by pseudo-bulges rather than classical bulges. Five of eight central point sources have colors inconsistent with pure star clusters, and three galaxies have X-ray detections consistent with AGN activity, supporting the interpretation that these are genuine active nuclei. On the paper's reading, these are low-luminosity AGN that spectroscopy misses, either because star formation dilutes their line emission or because the galaxies are too gas-poor to show standard AGN line ratios.

Load-bearing premise

The black hole masses are not measured; they are estimates from scaling relations calibrated on more massive galaxies and extrapolated down to about $10^4$ solar masses, and if those relations change shape at low masses the claimed contrast with spectroscopically selected AGN collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spectroscopic AGN searches in dwarf galaxies are incomplete at the low-luminosity end; variability monitoring can recover a population they miss.
  • Black hole occupation fractions inferred from spectroscopy alone may underestimate how many low-mass galaxies harbor intermediate-mass black holes.
  • The prevalence of pseudo-bulges among the regularly structured hosts supports the idea that low-mass black holes grow through secular, disk-driven processes rather than major mergers.
  • The intermediate brightness and cluster-inconsistent colors of the point sources imply that these nuclei contain both AGN and stellar cluster light, so separating the two requires multi-band, high-resolution follow-up.
  • Wide-field time-domain surveys can build much larger samples of variability-selected dwarf AGN and test how host morphology correlates with black hole mass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the population offset holds up, the local occupation fraction of black holes in dwarf galaxies may be higher than spectroscopic surveys imply, because variability catches nuclei that leave no AGN signature in line ratios.
  • A decisive extension would be a dynamical mass measurement for one of these nuclei, for example from spatially resolved molecular gas kinematics; a mass above roughly $10^6$ solar masses would overturn the lower-mass conclusion.
  • The five point sources with red, cluster-inconsistent colors could be followed up with mid-infrared spectroscopy or deeper X-ray observations to confirm the AGN interpretation independently of the scaling relations.
  • Applying the same imaging analysis to larger variability-selected samples, such as those expected from wide-field time-domain surveys, could map how bulge and disk structure correlate with black hole mass across the $10^3$ to $10^6$ solar mass range.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes HST/WFC3 imaging of eight dwarf galaxies that host AGN candidates selected via optical photometric variability in Baldassare et al. (2020). The authors use GALFIT to decompose the galaxies into Sérsic bulges, disks, nuclear components, and point sources, finding that regular hosts are best fit by pseudobulges rather than classical bulges. They estimate black hole masses from bulge-mass and total-stellar-mass scaling relations, obtaining a range of ~10^3.6–10^6.6 M_sun, and compare the point-source luminosities and BH masses with samples selected via optical spectroscopy (Reines et al. 2013; Kimbrell et al. 2021, 2023). The central claim is that variability selection can uncover lower-mass BHs and lower-luminosity AGN than optical spectroscopic selection.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is an important step for understanding the occupation fraction of intermediate-mass black holes and the biases of different AGN selection techniques in dwarf galaxies. The paper presents a rare, homogeneous HST dataset and makes a direct comparison of variability-selected versus spectroscopically selected AGN hosts. The authors are appropriately cautious about the extrapolation of BH scaling relations, which is a strength. However, the reliability of the point-source measurements and the resulting mass/luminosity comparisons depends on a GALFIT model-selection step whose stated criterion appears internally inconsistent; this must be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. The AIC definition as AIC = 2k − log(χ2_ν) is not the standard Akaike Information Criterion for least-squares fitting, which is (up to a constant) χ2 + 2k, or equivalently 2k + χ2_ν · dof. For the 200×200 pixel cutout used here, dof is ~4×10^4, so adding a PSF changes χ2_ν by at most a few percent; the log term in Eq. (3) would then vary by much less than the 2k penalty, and the criterion would almost always select the model with the fewest components. Yet Table 2 reports PSF components in five of the eight galaxies. This is an internal inconsistency: either Eq. (3) is a typo and the actual decision rule is undocumented, or the models were selected by eye rather than by the stated AIC. Because the point-source magnitudes and bulge parameters from these selected models feed the luminosity and mass comparisons that constitute the main claim, the selection step must be made reproducible and correct.
  2. The text states that fits were obtained for all galaxies except NSA 156688, which is edge-on, and that 'four of them are fit with point sources.' Both statements conflict with Table 2, which lists a F110W fit for NSA 156688 (with a PSF magnitude of 22.50) and shows PSF entries for five galaxies (67333, 51928, 124554, 104881, 156688). Please clarify the sample of galaxies that enter the morphological and point-source analyses, and ensure the text and table agree.
  3. The black hole masses are estimated by extrapolating scaling relations calibrated on more massive galaxies down to total stellar masses of ~10^7 M_sun and bulge masses that yield log M_BH ≈ 3.6–6.6. The authors state this extrapolation should be treated with caution, but the central comparison with the Reines et al. (2013) sample (Fig. 9) relies entirely on these extrapolated values. The paper should quantify how sensitive the claimed lower-mass result is to plausible changes in the low-mass slope or normalization of the relations, for example by recomputing the comparison using the upper/lower scatter bounds on log M_BH or by using an alternative relation. As written, the conclusion that variability selection 'finds lower mass black holes' is not robust to the acknowledged possibility that the relations change at low mass.
  4. The evidence that the bright point sources are AGN rather than nuclear star clusters is presented as internally contradictory. Figure 5 shows that the point-source luminosities are not significantly brighter than the predictions for an NSC, while Figure 7 (and the text) states that the inferred stellar masses of the point sources are 'over massive' given the galaxy stellar mass, leading to the conclusion that the emission is not entirely stellar. These two statements are in tension: if the sources are underluminous for an NSC, they should not appear overmassive unless the mass-to-light ratio is anomalous. The paper needs either a model that reconciles these findings (e.g., a composite NSC+AGN scenario with quantitative predictions) or a clearer explanation of why the color-based mass estimate is preferred over the luminosity-based comparison. Without a firm classification of the point sources as AGN, the luminosity comparison in Fig. 8 is not necessarily a comparison of AGN luminosities.
minor comments (6)
  1. The entries in Table 4 for log M_BH are labeled 'bulge' and 'total' but the text says Eq. (5) is used only for the four galaxies with regular morphology and Eq. (6) for irregular galaxies; Table 4 lists values for both columns for several galaxies, which is confusing. Please clarify which column was used for the final BH mass estimates per object.
  2. The redshifts in Table 1 include NSA 67333 at z=0.0020 with a distance of 11.2 Mpc, which is inconsistent with a Hubble-flow distance at that redshift; the distance appears to come from a peculiar-velocity model. Please state the distance source or note that distances are not purely from redshifts.
  3. The sentence 'The two galaxies that are not fit with point sources are star forming and have no clear photometric center' does not match Table 2, where three galaxies (124477, 88260, 57867) lack PSF entries. Please reconcile the count.
  4. The text uses 'varaiations' and 'over massive'—these should be corrected to 'variations' and 'overmassive'.
  5. The definition of α_ox in Eq. (7) is missing a minus sign if it is intended to follow the standard convention α_ox = 0.3838 log(f_2keV / f_2500) = -0.3838 log(f_2500 / f_2keV). Please check the sign convention and the direction of the offset in Fig. 4.
  6. The appendix note for NSA 51928 says 'The PSF is off nuclear,' but the main text states all point sources are 'central.' Please clarify the spatial offset and its implications for the AGN interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: black hole masses and comparison samples come from independent published scaling relations and catalogs; the central comparison does not reduce to fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

This paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its central claim. The black hole masses in Table 4 are obtained by applying two externally published scaling relations (Schutte et al. 2019, Eq. 5; Reines & Volonteri 2015, Eq. 6) to GALFIT-derived bulge luminosities and NSA stellar masses; neither relation is fitted or recalibrated in this work, so the mass estimates are not constructed to reproduce the comparison samples. The comparison samples (Reines et al. 2013 for BH masses; Kimbrell et al. 2021 for point-source luminosities) are independent catalogs, not outputs of the present fits. The parent variability catalog (Baldassare et al. 2020) is cited as the source of the sample rather than as authority for the morphological or photometric conclusions. Although some cited works share authors with the present paper, none is used as a uniqueness theorem or as an unverified premise that forces the conclusion. The acknowledged extrapolation of the scaling relations below their calibration range is a systematic-uncertainty concern, not a circular reduction. The AIC expression in Section 3.1 is non-standard and appears inconsistent with the reported model choices, but this is a reproducibility or validity issue: the point-source magnitudes and bulge masses are measurements, not quantities defined in terms of the claimed lower-mass/lower-luminosity result. No equation in the paper defines its output in terms of its input, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no ad hoc constants. It relies on published scaling relations, stellar population models, and the parent variability catalog, with the main assumptions being the extrapolation of BH scaling relations to lower masses and the fidelity of the PSF models.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Schutte et al. (2019) bulge mass-BH mass relation (Eq. 5) holds for low-mass pseudobulges below its calibration range.
    Used in Section 4.1 for three galaxies; the authors note the extrapolation and caution that the relation may change in the low-mass regime.
  • domain assumption The Reines & Volonteri (2015) total stellar mass-BH mass relation (Eq. 6) applies to irregular dwarf galaxies and to the full sample.
    Applied in Section 4.1 to irregular galaxies and galaxies without bulge fits; extrapolated to stellar masses as low as 10^7.3 M_sun.
  • domain assumption The variability-selected sources from Baldassare et al. (2020) are genuine AGN rather than supernovae, variable stars, or other transients.
    The sample is built on this catalog (Section 2); the authors provide supporting X-ray and color evidence, but the parent selection is assumed.
  • domain assumption The Tiny Tim PSF models and the secondary empirical PSFs adequately represent the HST point spread function for point source photometry.
    Section 3.1 acknowledges that ideal PSF star conditions (a bright star near the target in every frame) were not met, and only seven stars across eight observations were available.
  • domain assumption Stellar population synthesis models with solar or sub-solar metallicity and a Kroupa IMF accurately represent the nuclear star clusters.
    Section 3.3 uses Starburst99, Worthey (1994), and Bruzual & Charlot (2003) to interpret point source colors and masses; the authors note synthetic UV spectra can shift colors by about 0.2 magnitudes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Morphology of Dwarf Galaxies Hosting Variable Active Galactic Nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XPX4ZU2C

@misc{pith2026250202751,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Morphology of Dwarf Galaxies Hosting Variable Active Galactic Nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XPX4ZU2C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02751}
}
abstract

We analyze Hubble Space Telescope (HST) optical imaging of eight low-mass galaxies hosting active galactic nuclei (AGN) identified via their photometric variability in \cite{baldassare_search_2020}. We use GALFIT to model the 2D galaxy light profiles, and find a diversity of morphologies. The galaxies with regular morphologies are best fit with pseudo-bulges and disks, rather than classical bulges. We estimate black hole masses using scaling relations and find black hole masses of 10$^{3.7-6.6}$ M$_\odot$. We compare this sample to dwarf galaxies with AGN selected via optical spectroscopy. On average, the variable host galaxies have lower mass black holes. We analyze the brightest point source in each galaxy and find their properties are not entirely consistent with star clusters, indicating that they are likely AGN. These point sources are found to have lower luminosities than spectroscopically selected dwarf AGN, but brighter than the point sources in dwarf galaxies not identified as AGN. Our detailed imaging analysis shows that variability selection has the potential to find lower mass black holes and lower luminosity AGN than optical spectroscopy. These active dwarfs may have been missed by spectroscopic searches due to star formation dilution or low gas content.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02751 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HST F110W images for the eight dwarf galaxies in our sample. They are shown at the same scale at 0.13”/pixel and images are 52′′ on each side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left Panel: Image from HST of NSA 124554. Middle: Model generated with GALFIT. Right: Residual image after model is subtracted from the data. The radial profile is shown on the far right. The orange line shows the model surface brightness profile and the black circles show the surface brightness profile extracted from isophotal fitting. The dashed lines represent the different components of the model. The blue line … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Images from the F300W filter, with the brightest point encircled in red in each image. We overplot the isointensity contours on the image. NSA 51928 does not have any significant UV emission. Images are 14′′ on each side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: αox plotted against UV Luminosity at 2500 ˚A. The purple dots show the points from this work. The black squares show points from Baldassare et al. (2017a). The grey triangles show points from Wasleske & Baldassare (2023). This trend is not observed in dwarf galaxies (B…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The top figure shows the near-IR PSF luminosity plotted against the predicted luminosity of an NSC. The pur￾ple dots show a cluster of 100 Myrs and the orange dots show a cluster of 10 Myrs. The bottom figure, similarly, shows the measured UV luminosity against the pre…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Color-color plot of the brightest point sources. The purple dots show the dust-corrected colors of the point source. The black line and the grey dashed line show SSPs with different metallicities. Five of the galaxies have colors inconsistent with stellar populations …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Measured NSC mass given the color of the cluster plotted against total stellar mass. The purple dots show the predicted nsc mass based of its PSF measurements. The or￾ange dots show the predicted NSC mass based on its aperture photometry measurements. The grey dots sho…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Histogram showing the distribution of estimated black hole masses. The black line shows the average black hole mass from broad-line AGN from Reines et al. (2013). The error on the BH mass measurements are up to 0.68 dex. The variable selected AGN in dwarfs have lower m…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left Panel: Image from HST. Middle: Model generated with GALFIT. Right: Residual image after model is subtracted from the data. The far right image shows the 1D isophotal fitting, with the residuals shown in the bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left Panel: Image from HST. Middle: Model generated with GALFIT. Right: Residual image after model is subtracted from the data.The far right image shows the 1D isophotal fitting, with the residuals shown in the bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Amor ´ ın, R., Aguerri, J. A. L., Mu˜ noz-Tu˜ n´ on, C., & Cair´ os, L. M. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 501, 75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200809591

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200809591 2009

  2. [2]

    Arjona-Galvez, E., Di Cintio, A., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024, The role of AGN feedback on the evolution of dwarf galaxies from cosmological simulations: SMBHs suppress star formation in low-mass galaxies, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.00929

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.00929 2024

  3. [3]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae6cf 2018

  4. [4]

    F., Reines, A

    Baldassare, V. F., Reines, A. E., Gallo, E., & Greene, J. E. 2017a, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9067 —. 2017b, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9067

  5. [5]

    Ostriker, J. P. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 929, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f51

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f51 2022

  6. [6]

    D., Geha, M

    Bradford, J. D., Geha, M. C., Greene, J. E., Reines, A. E., & Dickey, C. M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac88d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac88d 2018

  7. [7]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 1.11.0, [object Object], doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.596036

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.11.0, [object Object], doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.596036

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.596036 2024

  8. [8]

    2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    work page arXiv 2003

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    J., Shen, Y., Liu, X., et al

    Burke, C. J., Shen, Y., Liu, X., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 1880, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2478

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Satyapal, S., Abel, N

    Cann, J. M., Satyapal, S., Abel, N. P., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf88d

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 3273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2597

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

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    A., & Megeath, S

    Cohen, M., Wheaton, W. A., & Megeath, S. T. 2003, The Astronomical Journal, 126, 1090, doi: 10.1086/376474

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M

    Done, C., Davis, S. W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 420, 1848, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19779.x

    2012

  7. [15]

    E., & Ho, L

    Dong, R., Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/73

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 2122, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw093

    Neumayer, N. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 2122, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw093

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Greene, J. E. 2012, Nature Communications, 3, 1304, doi: 10.1038/ncomms2314

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    E., Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Ho, L. C., & Barth, A. J. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 688, 159, doi: 10.1086/592078

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Heckman, T

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

    2006

  12. [20]

    E., & Ho, L

    Jiang, Y.-F., Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2011a, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, L45, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/737/2/L45

    doi

  13. [21]

    E., Ho, L

    Jiang, Y.-F., Greene, J. E., Ho, L. C., Xiao, T., & Barth, A. J. 2011b, The Astrophysical Journal, 742, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/68

    doi

  14. [22]

    W., Brandt, W

    Just, D. W., Brandt, W. N., Shemmer, O., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 665, 1004, doi: 10.1086/519990

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Reines, A

    Kimbrell, S. J., Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Geha, M. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf762 15

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

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

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

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Koudmani, S., Sijacki, D., & Smith, M. C. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 2112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2252

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    E., Hook, R

    Krist, J. E., Hook, R. N., & Stoehr, F. 2011, 8127, 81270J, doi: 10.1117/12.892762

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 123, 3, doi: 10.1086/313233

    1999 doi

  20. [28]

    1998, The Astronomical Journal, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

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

    1998 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc90

    Messick, A., Baldassare, V., Geha, M., & Greene, J. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc90

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 28, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0

    Neumayer, N., Seth, A., & B¨ oker, T. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 28, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00125-0

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Seth, A

    Nguyen, D. D., Seth, A. C., Neumayer, N., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 858, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe28

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    E., Greene, J

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

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    E., & Volonteri, M

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

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    Reyes, M. A. C. d. l., Asali, Y., Wechsler, R., et al. 2024, Stellar Mass Calibrations for Local Low-Mass Galaxies, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2409.03959

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 166, 470, doi: 10.1086/506525

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    F., Schawinski, K., Treister, E., et al

    Sartori, L. F., Schawinski, K., Treister, E., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 3722, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2238

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    Schutte, Z., & Reines, A. E. 2022, Nature, 601, 329, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04215-6

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    E., & Greene, J

    Schutte, Z., Reines, A. E., & Greene, J. E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab35dd

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, 116, doi: 10.1086/528955

    Seth, A., Ag¨ ueros, M., Lee, D., & Basu-Zych, A. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, 116, doi: 10.1086/528955

    2008 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Sun, M., Zeimann, G

    Trump, J. R., Sun, M., Zeimann, G. R., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 811, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/26 Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al. 2001, The Astronomical Journal, 122, 549, doi: 10.1086/321167

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8666

    Ward, C., Gezari, S., Nugent, P., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8666

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    J., & Baldassare, V

    Wasleske, E. J., & Baldassare, V. F. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace16b —. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5442

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    1994, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 95, 107, doi: 10.1086/192096

    Worthey, G. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 95, 107, doi: 10.1086/192096

    1994 doi

  37. [45]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15528.x 16 APPENDIX A

    Zibetti, S., Charlot, S., & Rix, H.-W. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15528.x 16 APPENDIX A. NOTES ON INDIVIDUAL GALAXIES NSAID 67333: This galaxy is best modeled with a single bulge component and a PSF. Intere...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.