Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Black Hole Scaling Relations in the Dwarf-galaxy Regime with $Gaia$-Sausage/Enceladus and $\omega$Centauri

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The intermediate-mass black hole in ωCentauri, taken as the stripped nucleus of the disrupted Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus dwarf galaxy, falls on the local black-hole–stellar-mass scaling relation and thereby suggests that relation extends into…

desk verdict A well-written, timely placement of the omega Cen IMBH on local scaling relations, but the headline overstates the strength of a single, debated point. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11251 v2 pith:Q7P574XW submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.GA

Guilherme Limberg This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords intermediate-massblackholesdwarfgalaxiesscalingrelationsGaia-Sausage/EnceladusomegaCentaurinuclearstarclustersholeseedinggalaxyevolution
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 aims to show that the Milky Way's most massive globular cluster, $\omega$Centauri—long suspected to be the stripped nuclear star cluster of an ancient dwarf galaxy—now provides a bridge between stellar-mass and supermassive black holes. Treating $\omega$Cen as the nucleus of the disrupted Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus (GSE) dwarf, the author compares its candidate intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) with the empirical relation between black-hole mass and host galaxy stellar mass ($M_{\rm BH}{-}M_\star$). The result is that $\omega$Cen/GSE sits on the relation extrapolated from massive galaxies, suggesting the scaling law continues into the dwarf-galaxy regime. The paper also checks the same system against the relation with stellar velocity dispersion and explores what its near-dormant growth history implies for black-hole seeding. A sympathetic reader would care because this single object could anchor the low-mass end of black-hole–galaxy coevolution and motivate searches for more IMBHs in stripped dwarf remnants.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing comparison is the placement of the $\omega$Cen/GSE system on the empirical $M_{\rm BH}{-}M_\star$ relation from Greene et al. (2020), which is built from dynamical black-hole masses plus upper limits in low-mass galaxies and thus offers a self-consistent baseline for extrapolation. The same Greene et al. relations anchor the $M_{\rm BH}{-}\sigma_\star$ check, with $\omega$Cen's velocity dispersion taken from Pechetti et al. (2024). For the growth-history analysis, the paper integrates Eddington-limited accretion equations from Fan et al. (2023) backward from the observed IMBH mass to constrain the initial seed mass and mean Eddington ratio.

What would settle it

Find a dynamical model of ωCen that reproduces the observed high-velocity stars without a central black hole—for example, interactions with a concentration of stellar-mass black holes—and show it fits the line-of-sight and proper-motion data as well as the IMBH model; that would remove the anchor, since there would be no measured BH mass to place on the relation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the candidate IMBH in $\omega$Centauri (mass between about $4{,}100$ and $21{,}100\,M_\odot$; Häberle et al. 2024) and the stellar mass of its proposed host dwarf galaxy GSE ($\log (M_\star/M_\odot) = 8.5 \pm 0.3$; Callingham et al. 2022), the paper shows the system falls on the local $M_{\rm BH}{-}M_\star$ relation of Greene et al. (2020), within its quoted scatter. It further shows that $\omega$Cen, other nuclear star clusters with IMBH candidates, and ultracompact dwarf galaxies all lie on the $M_{\rm BH}{-}\sigma_\star$ relation, using a recent velocity-dispersion measurement for $\omega$Cen. Under a heavy-seed (direct collapse) formation scenario, the inferred growth history requires an initial seed below roughly $10{,}000\,M_\odot$ accreting at about one percent Eddington for $\sim$3 Gyr until quenching at the GSE merger, making it the low-accretion counterpoint to high-redshift overmassive black holes like GN-z11; a light-seed origin from a Population III supernova remnant would instead suggest that both seeding channels operate.

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument rests on two premises this paper adopts from other work: the fast-moving stars in ωCen demand a central IMBH (rather than a cluster of stellar-mass compact objects or binary interactions), and ωCen is the stripped nucleus of GSE with a stellar mass near $10^{8}$.5 M_sun; if either fails, the paper's dwarf-regime anchor disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $\omega$Cen/GSE truly hosts an IMBH that follows the extrapolated relation, black-hole–galaxy coevolution is not confined to massive galaxies; it persists in dwarfs with stellar masses near $10^{8.5}\,M_\odot$.
  • Stripped nuclear star clusters and ultracompact dwarf galaxies in the Local Group become concrete targets for future IMBH searches, since the relation predicts where their central black holes should sit.
  • A heavy-seeded IMBH in a dwarf can remain almost dormant for billions of years, so the absence of active galactic nucleus activity in small galaxies does not rule out a central black hole.
  • If light seeding applies to $\omega$Cen, the local IMBH population directly measures the mass distribution of Population III seeds, complementing high-redshift observations of overmassive black holes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One data point cannot distinguish whether the relation extends unchanged into the dwarf regime or merely appears to because of scatter; the next test is to measure IMBH masses in several more stripped NSCs (e.g., M54 in Sagittarius) and see if they cluster around the relation.
  • If the frozen-accretion picture is right, local dwarf IMBHs are essentially fossils of the early Universe, offering a way to probe seed masses and accretion physics that is independent of the high-redshift luminosity functions.
  • The large quoted scatter ($\pm 0.65$–$0.81$ dex) means the paper's claim is a suggestive anchor, not a proof; a future sample of a dozen dwarf hosts would be needed to pin down the slope and scatter at the low-mass end.
  • The comparison with GN-z11 suggests that at fixed stellar mass, the ratio $M_{\rm BH}/M_\star$ can differ by orders of magnitude depending on redshift and environment; if so, single-epoch scaling relations may be an oversimplification.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper places the claimed intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) in omega Centauri, interpreted as the stripped nuclear star cluster of the Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus (GSE) dwarf galaxy, on published scaling relations between black hole mass and host stellar mass as well as stellar velocity dispersion. Using the Haberle et al. (2024) mass range for the IMBH, the Callingham et al. (2022) stellar mass for GSE, and the Greene et al. (2020) scaling relations, the author argues that omega Cen/GSE lies on the local MBH-Mstar relation and therefore that the relation extends into the dwarf-galaxy regime. The paper also compares the system with high-redshift overmassive black holes, discusses BH seeding scenarios through simple growth tracks, and examines other candidate stripped nuclear star clusters in the Milky Way. The central claim is contextual rather than based on new fits: the author compares a single new point to existing relations and does not re-derive them.

Significance. If the IMBH interpretation and the GSE association both hold, omega Cen/GSE would provide the lowest-mass anchor to date for black hole-galaxy coevolution, connecting stellar-mass black holes in star clusters to supermassive black holes in galaxies. The paper is transparent about its reliance on published data and relations, and it explicitly discloses the inclusion of low-mass galaxies in the Greene et al. (2020) fits. The simple growth-track analysis for light and heavy seeding scenarios is a useful illustration of how this single object could discriminate between formation channels. However, the scientific leverage is limited by the dependence on two debated external premises and by the fact that the single data point sits within the large scatter of the adopted relations; the paper's stated claims are somewhat stronger than the evidence supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 3.1] The abstract's characterization of the Greene et al. (2020) relation as 'extrapolated from local massive galaxies (Mstar > 1e10)' is inaccurate, because the paper itself states in Section 2 that Greene et al. fit low-mass galaxies and IMBH upper limits as well as detections in the dwarf regime (Nguyen et al. 2019; Woo et al. 2019). The comparison is therefore not a pure extrapolation, and the low-mass supporting points are partially built into the relation from the outset. The wording 'follows the scaling relation extrapolated from local massive galaxies' and the summary's 'demonstrated' overstate the strength; they should be tempered to 'consistent with' and 'suggests,' respectively.
  2. [Section 3.1, Figure 1] Given the ±0.65 to ±0.81 dex scatter of the adopted Greene et al. relations, the single omega Cen/GSE point (log Mstar = 8.5 ± 0.3; MBH = 4100–21100 Msun) cannot discriminate between a genuine extension and a broken or heavily scattered relation. The paper itself acknowledges in Section 3.1 that there are no constraints on the scatter or BH occupation fraction for GSE-mass galaxies. The claim of extension thus rests on a single data point and should be framed as suggestive rather than demonstrated; ideally the authors would quantify how many independent low-mass points are needed to test the relation.
  3. [Section 2 and Section 3.1] The placement of the point depends on two premises not established in this work: the Haberle et al. (2024) IMBH interpretation (with alternatives cited via Banares-Hernandez et al. 2024, but not discussed) and the GSE association with host stellar mass from Callingham et al. (2022), derived indirectly from globular-cluster counts and abundance matching. The paper should explicitly state that the result is conditional on both premises and discuss the sensitivity of the conclusion to, for example, a lower host mass or a BH mass at the low end of the allowed range. As written, the abstract presents the extension as a result rather than as a conditional implication.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The last sentence uses 'constraint IMBH demographics'; 'constraint' should be 'constrain'.
  2. [Introduction] The phrase 'extrapolated from massive galaxies (Mstar ≳ 10 Msun)' appears to be missing the exponent; the intended threshold is Mstar > 10^10 Msun.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption refers to 'Miky Way' instead of 'Milky Way'.
  4. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'attempted to constraint the slope' should read 'attempted to constrain the slope'.
  5. [Section 3.4] The text refers to 'NGC 6751 (M54)', but M54 is NGC 6715; the same object is correctly called NGC 6715 in the caption of Figure 2. Please correct this inconsistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the omega Cen/GSE point is an external, non-fitted test of published scaling relations.

full rationale

This paper performs no fitting and derives no new scaling relation. Its central comparison places the omega Cen/GSE IMBH point (from Haeberle et al. 2024; host mass from Callingham et al. 2022) onto the M_BH-M* and M_BH-sigma relations published by Greene et al. (2020). The omega Cen/GSE point is not included in those fits, so the statement that it lies on the relation is an external, falsifiable test, not a quantity restored by construction. The Greene et al. relations themselves include low-mass galaxies, IMBH upper limits, and the NGC 205/NGC 4395 detections, as the paper explicitly discloses in Section 2; this makes the word 'extrapolated' in the abstract and the presentation of NGC 205/NGC 4395 as supporting points somewhat weaker than 'independent verification', but it does not make the omega Cen/GSE comparison circular, since that object was not used in the fit. The GSE-omega Cen host identification relies on external work (Massari et al. 2019; Callingham et al. 2022), with one supporting relation from the author's own prior paper (Limberg et al. 2022); this self-citation is not load-bearing because the association is multiply supported and the scaling-relation test would be well-defined even if that prior paper were ignored. No step in the paper reduces by definition to its inputs, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Overall circularity is very low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests entirely on published measurements and relations; it introduces no new free parameters into the scaling relations. The growth-track exercise uses two assumed seed masses, but these do not affect the main scaling-relation placement. The key unverified inputs are the IMBH interpretation, the GSE association, and the indirect GSE stellar mass.

free parameters (2)
  • Heavy seed initial BH mass = 8000 Msun
    Assumed in Section 3.3 to illustrate the heavy-seed growth track; chosen from the heavy seeding range, not fitted to data.
  • Light seed initial BH mass = 30 Msun
    Assumed in Section 3.3, inspired by Gaia BH3, to illustrate the light-seed growth track.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Greene et al. (2020) MBH-Mstar and MBH-sigma relations and their scatters are accurate descriptions of local scaling relations.
    Adopted as the benchmark in Sections 3.1 and 3.2; the paper does not re-derive them, and the central claim is consistency with these relations.
  • domain assumption omega Cen is the stripped nuclear star cluster of Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus.
    Assumed from kinematics and the MNSC-Mstar relation (Limberg et al. 2022); the paper calls GSE the 'best candidate' but not a confirmed host, and the Mstar of the host is taken from Callingham et al. (2022).
  • domain assumption The fast-moving stars in omega Cen require a central intermediate-mass black hole.
    Based on Haberle et al. (2024); the paper cites Banares-Hernandez et al. (2024) for alternative explanations but does not rule them out, so the MBH value is not independently established.
  • domain assumption The stellar mass of GSE is log Mstar = 8.5 +/- 0.3 from Callingham et al. (2022).
    The host mass is derived indirectly from globular cluster counts and a halo mass relation; only Sagittarius is sanity-checked in the paper.
  • domain assumption BH growth tracks can be modeled with the Fan et al. (2023) formalism under constant Eddington ratio.
    Adopted in Section 3.3; the resulting 'almost no accretion' conclusion depends on this simple model and on the assumed seed mass and freeze time.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Black Hole Scaling Relations in the Dwarf-galaxy Regime with $Gaia$-Sausage/Enceladus and $\omega$Centauri." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q7P574XW

@misc{pith2026241111251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Black Hole Scaling Relations in the Dwarf-galaxy Regime with $Gaia$-Sausage/Enceladus and $\omega$Centauri},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q7P574XW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11251}
}
abstract

The discovery of fast moving stars in the Milky Way's most massive globular cluster, $\omega$Centauri ($\omega$Cen), has provided strong evidence for an intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) inside of it. However, $\omega$Cen is known to be the stripped nuclear star cluster (NSC) of an ancient, now-destroyed, dwarf galaxy. The best candidate to be the original host progenitor of $\omega$Cen is the tidally disrupted dwarf $Gaia$-Sausage/Enceladus (GSE), a former Milky Way satellite as massive as the Large Magellanic Cloud. I compare $\omega$Cen/GSE with other central BH hosts and place it within the broader context of BH-galaxy (co)evolution. The IMBH of $\omega$Cen/GSE follows the scaling relation between central BH mass and host stellar mass (${\rm M}_{\rm BH}{-}{\rm M}_\star$) extrapolated from local massive galaxies (${\rm M}_\star \gtrsim 10^{10}\,{\rm M}_\odot$). Therefore, the IMBH of $\omega$Cen/GSE suggests that this relation extends to the dwarf-galaxy regime. I verify that $\omega$Cen (GSE), as well as other NSCs with candidate IMBHs and ultracompact dwarf galaxies, also follow the ${\rm M}_{\rm BH}{-}\sigma_\star$ relation with stellar velocity dispersion. Under the assumption of a direct collapse BH, $\omega$Cen/GSE's IMBH would require a low initial mass ($\lesssim$10,000 ${\rm M}_{\odot}$) and almost no accretion over $\sim$3 Gyr, which could be the extreme opposite of high-$z$ galaxies with overmassive BHs such as GN-z11. If $\omega$Cen/GSE's IMBH formed from a Population III supernova remnant, then it could indicate that both light and heavy seeding mechanisms of central BH formation are at play. Other stripped NSCs and dwarf galaxies could help further populate the ${\rm M}_{\rm BH}{-}{\rm M}_{\star}$ and ${\rm M}_{\rm BH}{-}\sigma_\star$ relations in the low-mass regime and constraint IMBH demographics and their formation channels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MBH–M⋆. Local (z ∼ 0) regular (non-AGN) galaxies are shown as blue and orange diamonds for late- and early-type galaxies, respectively (Greene et al. 2020). White triangles with black edges are constraining MBH upper limits derived from stellar dynamics (also compiled by Greene et al. 2020), including Fornax dSph (Fnx; Jardel & Gebhardt 2012). MW is in yellow (Genzel et al. 2010). Local AGNs are shown as the gray ‘+… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MBH–σ⋆. Symbols and colors follow the scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MBH–redshift. The corresponding time since Big Bang is calculated with Planck Collaboration et al. (2020) cosmology (upper axis). Symbols and colors follow the same scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MNSC–M⋆. Blue and orange diamonds represent late- and early-type galaxies, respectively. The MNSC–M⋆ relation is the black line (±0.6 dex scatter as the shaded re￾gion; Neumayer et al. 2020). Squares are different MW can￾didate NSCs and host galaxies (see text); M54/Sa…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V., Chilingarian, I

    Afanasiev, A. V., Chilingarian, I. V., Mieske, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4856 2, 4

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    P., Seth, A

    Ahn, C. P., Seth, A. C., Cappellari, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 102 2, 5

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 20 5

    Alfaro-Cuello, M., Kacharov, N., Neumayer, N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 20 5

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Laporte, C. F. P., & Deg, N. 2022, ApJ, 937, 12 2 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Quataert, E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, L109 4 Ba˜ nares-Hern´ andez, A., Calore, F., Camalich, J. M., &

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Read, J. I. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00939 1

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    F., Dickey, C., Geha, M., & Reines, A

    Baldassare, V. F., Dickey, C., Geha, M., & Reines, A. E. 2020, ApJL, 898, L3 2, 4, 5

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Ho, L. C. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1031 4

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 1520 1, 2

    Baumgardt, H., & Hilker, M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1520 1, 2

    work page 2018

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143 2

    2019

  2. [10]

    Bekki, K., & Freeman, K. C. 2003, MNRAS, 346, L11 1

    2003

  3. [11]

    F., McIntosh, D

    Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2003, ApJS, 149, 289 2

    2003

  4. [12]

    A., Chapman, S

    Bellazzini, M., Ibata, R. A., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 1147 6

    2008

  5. [13]

    Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611 1

    2018

  6. [14]

    A., Helmi, A., & Tissera, P

    Bignone, L. A., Helmi, A., & Tissera, P. B. 2019, ApJL, 883, L5 2, 5

    2019

  7. [15]

    A., et al

    Bonaca, A., Conroy, C., Cargile, P. A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 897, L18 2

    2020

  8. [16]

    Burkert, A., & Forbes, D. A. 2020, AJ, 159, 56 2

    2020

  9. [17]

    M., Cautun, M., Deason, A

    Callingham, T. M., Cautun, M., Deason, A. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4107 2, 3 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604 4

    2022

  10. [18]

    J., Gregg, M

    Drinkwater, M. J., Gregg, M. D., Hilker, M., et al. 2003, Nature, 423, 519 5

    2003

  11. [19]

    1997, MNRAS, 284, 576 1

    Eckart, A., & Genzel, R. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 576 1

    1997

  12. [20]

    Fan, X., Ba˜ nados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373 1, 5, 6 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 1 Gaia Collaboration, Panuzzo, P., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, L2 1, 5

    2023

  13. [21]

    J., Brook, C

    Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, NatAs, 3, 932 2

    2019

  14. [22]

    M., & Ho, L

    Gebhardt, K., Rich, R. M., & Ho, L. C. 2002, ApJL, 578, L41 3, 4, 5, 6

    2002

  15. [23]

    2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121 3, 5, 6

    Genzel, R., Eisenhauer, F., & Gillessen, S. 2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121 3, 5, 6

    2010

  16. [24]

    M., Klein, B

    Ghez, A. M., Klein, B. L., Morris, M., & Becklin, E. E. 1998, ApJ, 509, 678 1

    1998

  17. [25]

    Grand, R. J. J., Kawata, D., Belokurov, V., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1603 2, 5

    2020

  18. [26]

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

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 H¨ aberle, M., Neumayer, N., Seth, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06015 1, 2, 3, 4

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 3935 4

    Habouzit, M., Volonteri, M., & Dubois, Y. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3935 4

    2017

  20. [28]

    M., Heinke, C

    Haggard, D., Cool, A. M., Heinke, C. O., et al. 2013, ApJL, 773, L31 5

    2013

  21. [29]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 39 2, 3, 5, 6

    Harikane, Y., Zhang, Y., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 39 2, 3, 5, 6

    2023

  22. [30]

    D., et al

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113 1

    2018

  23. [31]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85 1

    2018

  24. [32]

    Helmi, A., White, S. D. M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Zhao, H. 1999, Nature, 402, 53 6

    1999

  25. [33]

    P., Mackereth, J

    Horta, D., Schiavon, R. P., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1385 6

    2021

  26. [34]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27 1

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27 1

    2020

  27. [35]

    R., & Gebhardt, K

    Jardel, J. R., & Gebhardt, K. 2012, ApJ, 746, 89 3, 4

    2012

  28. [36]

    I., Caldwell, N., Rich, R

    Johnson, C. I., Caldwell, N., Rich, R. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 168 6

    2017

  29. [37]

    N., Cohen, J

    Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 102 2

    2013

  30. [38]

    I., Greene, J

    Kokorev, V., Caputi, K. I., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 38 4

    2024

  31. [39]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511 1, 2, 4

    2013

  32. [40]

    A., & Sijacki, D

    Koudmani, S., Henden, N. A., & Sijacki, D. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3568 4

    2021

  33. [41]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pfeffer, J. L., Chevance, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2472 6

    2020

  34. [42]

    Lane, J. M. M., Bovy, J., & Mackereth, J. T. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1209 2

    2023

  35. [43]

    W., Joo, J

    Lee, Y. W., Joo, J. M., Sohn, Y. J., et al. 1999, Nature, 402, 55 1

    1999

  36. [44]

    O., P´ erez-Villegas, A., et al

    Limberg, G., Souza, S. O., P´ erez-Villegas, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 109 2

    2022

  37. [45]

    W., et al

    Liu, C., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Peng, E. W., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 17 5

    2020

  38. [46]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230 2, 3, 5, 6

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230 2, 3, 5, 6

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    2024, Nature, 627, 59 5, 6 9

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 59 5, 6 9

    2024

  40. [48]

    Ostheimer, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1082 2, 6

    2003

  41. [49]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Renzini, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 22 6

    2021

  42. [50]

    H., & Helmi, A

    Massari, D., Koppelman, H. H., & Helmi, A. 2019, A&A, 630, L4 2

    2019

  43. [51]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 48 1 —. 2021, ApJ, 923, 92 2

    2020

  44. [52]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 1413 4

    Natarajan, P. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1413 4

    2021

  45. [53]

    2020, A&A Rv, 28, 4 2, 7

    Neumayer, N., Seth, A., & B¨ oker, T. 2020, A&A Rv, 28, 4 2, 7

    2020

  46. [54]

    Neumayer, N., & Walcher, C. J. 2012, AdAst, 2012, 709038 2, 4

    2012

  47. [55]

    D., Seth, A

    Nguyen, D. D., Seth, A. C., Neumayer, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 104 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

    2019

  48. [56]

    2008, ApJ, 676, 1008 1, 2, 4

    Noyola, E., Gebhardt, K., & Bergmann, M. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1008 1, 2, 4

    2008

  49. [57]

    A., Brammer, G., van Dokkum, P

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 129 5

    2016

  50. [58]

    2023, ApJL, 957, L3 4, 5, 6

    Pacucci, F., Nguyen, B., Carniani, S., Maiolino, R., & Fan, X. 2023, ApJL, 957, L3 4, 5, 6

    2023

  51. [59]

    2022, ApJ, 924, 48 3, 4, 5, 6

    Pechetti, R., Seth, A., Kamann, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 48 3, 4, 5, 6

    2022

  52. [60]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 4941 2, 4, 5

    Pechetti, R., Kamann, S., Krajnovi´ c, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4941 2, 4, 5

    2024

  53. [61]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 2514 6 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Pfeffer, J., Lardo, C., Bastian, N., Saracino, S., & Kamann, S. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2514 6 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6 2, 6

    2021

  54. [62]

    Reines, A. E. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 26 1, 4, 5

    2022

  55. [63]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82 2, 3, 4

    2015

  56. [64]

    J., & Cassisi, S

    Ruiz-Lara, T., Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., & Cassisi, S. 2020, NatAs, 4, 965 6

    2020

  57. [65]

    E., & Greene, J

    Schutte, Z., Reines, A. E., & Greene, J. E. 2019, ApJ, 887, 245 4

    2019

  58. [66]

    C., van den Bosch, R., Mieske, S., et al

    Seth, A. C., van den Bosch, R., Mieske, S., et al. 2014, Nature, 513, 398 2, 4

    2014

  59. [67]

    K., et al

    Shankar, F., Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3119 4

    2016

  60. [68]

    S., Brooks, A

    Sharma, R. S., Brooks, A. M., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 103 4

    2020

  61. [69]

    P., et al

    Suh, H., Scharw¨ achter, J., Farina, E. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.05333 6

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 16 5

    Tremou, E., Strader, J., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 16 5

    2018

  63. [71]

    2010, A&A Rv, 18, 279 1, 5

    Volonteri, M. 2010, A&A Rv, 18, 279 1, 5

    2010

  64. [72]

    2008, MNRAS, 383, 1079 1, 4, 5

    Volonteri, M., Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1079 1, 4, 5

    2008

  65. [73]

    W., Liu, C., et al

    Wang, K., Peng, E. W., Liu, C., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 296 5

    2023

  66. [74]

    Willmer, C. N. A. 2018, ApJS, 236, 47 2

    2018

  67. [75]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 755 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

    Woo, J.-H., Cho, H., Gallo, E., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 755 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

    2019

  68. [76]

    J., Greene, J

    Xiao, T., Barth, A. J., Greene, J. E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 28 4

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.