Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Bulge Oscillation Driven by Outflows of Active Galactic Nuclei. I. Fast Outflow Case

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

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

Pith's one-line read Episodic fast outflows from active galactic nuclei, with stars forming inside them, can drive coherent radial breathing in non-rotating spherical bulges at speeds of a few tens of km/s, leaving a kinematic fossil of past black hole…

desk verdict A credible forward-model argument that episodic AGN outflows can leave fossil radial motions in bulges, but the headline few-10 km/s amplitude leans on an ad hoc fg=0.1 mass-loss budget and marginal linearity. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17725 v2 pith:FLE4ZD7B submitted 2024-12-23 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Yue-Chang Peng , Jian-Min Wang , Yu Zhao , Luis C. Ho This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords AGNoutflowsgalaxybulgesbulgeoscillationsdynamicalfrictionstellarkinematicsstarformationinsupermassiveblackholeslinearperturbationtheory
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 argues that when a supermassive black hole goes through an active episode, the fast outflow it launches—which can contain newly formed stars—acts as a gravitational and dynamical perturbation on the surrounding bulge. Using linearized kinetic theory of stellar systems, the authors show that a spherical, non-rotating bulge responds to the outflow by developing a net radial velocity: it first shrinks slightly, then expands as gas is lost, reaching a few tens of km/s for a $10^{10}$ solar-mass bulge with a 500 solar-mass-per-year outflow. Once the AGN switches off, this radial motion does not stop instantly; it decays on roughly the AGN lifetime, meaning bulges could retain a measurable kinematic memory of past outflows. The significance is that bulge kinematics, not just gas or emission lines, could serve as a fossil diagnostic of a galaxy's black hole feeding history.

What carries the argument

The machinery is linearized kinetic perturbation theory of a collisionless stellar system in angle-action coordinates, following the response-kernel method of Dootson & Magorrian (2022) and Murali (1999). The central object is the self-gravity response potential, whose time evolution is obtained by solving the linearized Boltzmann equation with a source term from injected outflowing stars and a dynamical-friction term from their passage through the bulge; the final observable is the angle-averaged radial velocity of bulge stars. The external perturbation is the sum of two pieces: the potential of the escaping outflow, determined by mass conservation, and the potential change from gas mass lost by the bulge, normalized so that the total mass lost in one AGN episode equals the bulge's gas content. Angle-action variables allow each orbit's response to be computed by a discrete Fourier transform along the radial angle, and the time-convolution integral yields the response coefficients from which the radial velocity is assembled.

What would settle it

Look for the predicted coherent radial velocity pattern in a bulge whose AGN is known to have been active within the last roughly one AGN lifetime: if a $10^{10}$ solar-mass bulge with an outflow of about 500 solar masses per year shows no few-tens-of-km/s expansion or contraction signal that decays after the AGN switches off, or if the measured gas-loss fraction over an episode falls well below f_g = 0.1, the central prediction is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that episodic fast AGN outflows with star formation inside them act as an external potential perturbation plus a dynamical-friction source on an otherwise equilibrium spherical bulge, and that this combination drives a nonzero bulk radial velocity. The response potential oscillates and damps after the outflow ends, and the mean radial velocity follows the outflow on/off duty cycle, reaching a few 10 km/s for a $10^{10}$ solar-mass bulge with an outflow rate of 500 solar masses per year, and tending to zero within roughly the AGN lifetime after quenching. The paper identifies two competing perturbation channels: the potential of the escaping outflow itself, which pulls the bulge inward at early times, and the mass loss from the bulge's gas reservoir, which pushes the bulge outward as it expands toward a new equilibrium. Larger outflow rates produce faster radial motion, while larger outflow velocities produce weaker motion, because the outflowing density is lower and fewer outflowing stars are captured by the bulge.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted velocities rest on the assumption that over one AGN episode the outflow removes the full gas content of the bulge, f_g M_bul with f_g = 0.1, and that this gas is removed uniformly following the original potential shape; if the expelled fraction is lower or the removal is spatially concentrated, the computed tens-of-km/s velocities shrink or change sign.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A bulge that recently hosted a fast AGN outflow should show a coherent radial velocity pattern of order 10 km/s that tracks the AGN on/off state, not random stellar motions.
  • After the AGN quenches, the radial velocity decays to zero on a timescale comparable to the AGN lifetime, so the kinematic signal is a short-lived fossil of the last active episode.
  • Larger mass outflow rates produce faster bulge radial motion, while faster outflow velocities produce slower motion, because the outflowing density and the capture probability both drop.
  • The model implies that the Milky Way's bulge may currently be contracting from past activity of its central black hole, a signature testable with stellar-survey and integral-field observations of nearby bulges.
  • Because the same outflow episodes also shape the bulge, the predicted residual radial motion offers a direct kinematic counterpart to feedback energy traced by galaxy binding energy and stellar mass relations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted signal is real, bulge radial velocities could be used as an independent clock of AGN duty cycles in galaxies whose current AGN is weak or off, complementing ionization echoes and absorption-line proximity effects.
  • The same formalism could be inverted: observed residual radial motion in a quiescent bulge could be used to estimate the mass outflow rate and lifetime of the last supermassive-black-hole episode.
  • Because the model assumes spherical symmetry and no rotation, rotating bulges and disk contamination would mix the breathing signal with rotational kinematics, likely requiring spatially resolved stellar velocity maps to isolate it.
  • The authors note that slower outflows, with velocities comparable to the bulge velocity dispersion, enter a regime where the perturbation approximation breaks down and mixing efficiency approaches unity; if such outflows dominate, the observable signatures could be stronger and more dissipative than the fast-outflow case treated here.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a linear-response calculation for a non-rotating, spherically symmetric isothermal bulge perturbed by a fast, massive AGN outflow whose cold gas forms stars. The perturbation consists of three pieces: the potential of the escaping outflow, the potential change from removing the bulge's gas, and the combined effects of stellar injection and dynamical friction. The authors solve the linearized Boltzmann equation in angle-action variables with a response-matrix formalism and compute the induced mean radial velocity of the bulge. Their central claim, stated in the abstract and Section 4, is that an episodic outflow with mass rate ~500 M_sun/yr acting on a 1e10 M_sun bulge produces radial velocities of a few tens of km/s, and that after the AGN switches off the radial velocity decays toward zero on a timescale ~tau_AGN, leaving a potentially observable kinematic fossil of past SMBH activity.

Significance. The idea that bulge kinematics may retain a signature of past AGN episodes is attractive, and the paper is genuinely forward-modeling: no parameter is fitted to reproduce a target radial velocity, and the response-matrix machinery is imported from established stellar-dynamics references. If the quantitative prediction were robust, it would motivate new spectroscopic searches for radial breathing motions in nearby bulges. However, the headline amplitude currently rests on an unsupported gas-removal budget and on perturbation amplitudes that are not small compared with sigma0^2. With conservative gas-fraction values typical of massive early-type bulges, the predicted signal drops to roughly the 1 km/s level, below the observability claimed in the paper. The significance is therefore conditional on a revised, better-justified amplitude estimate.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eqs. (36)-(37)] The quantitative claim is set by the assumption that one AGN episode removes the entire gas content of the bulge, Mdot*tau_AGN = f_g M_bul with f_g = 0.1. This is not derived from an observational gas budget or a self-consistent supply model, and the predicted radial velocity scales essentially linearly with the removed mass. Typical cold-gas fractions in massive early-type bulges are generally at or below a few percent, so f_g = 0.1 likely overestimates the signal by a factor of 2-10; for f_g = 0.01 the quoted few-times-10 km/s velocities would fall to order 1 km/s, below the observational threshold asserted in Section 5. The authors should either justify f_g with referenced gas-fraction measurements for the relevant bulge population or present the signal explicitly as a function of f_g and of the radial distribution of the removed gas.
  2. [Sections 2.2-2.3, Eqs. (10) and (36)] The linearization underlying Eq. (10) requires the perturbing potential to be small compared with the unperturbed potential scale sigma0^2. With Eq. (37) and M_bul = 2 sigma0^2 R_bul/G, the final amplitude of Phi_e,bul from Eq. (36) is about 0.66 sigma0^2 at R = 0.1 R_bul and about 0.34 sigma0^2 at R = 0.5 R_bul; Figure 2 likewise shows the response potential reaching values of order 0.2-0.4 sigma0^2. These amplitudes are not a small perturbation, so the linear response calculation and the numerical velocities in Figures 3-4 are being used outside their strict validity regime. The authors should either restrict the quoted results to parameter combinations where |Phi_1|/sigma0^2 is demonstrably small or extend the calculation beyond first order, and they should quantify how the radial velocity changes within the valid regime.
  3. [Section 2.4, Eqs. (12) and (36)] The temporal and spatial treatment of the mass-loss term is too idealized for the quoted parameters. The outflow is switched on with a step function H(t), and Phi_e,bul removes gas uniformly from all radii with a linear time ramp starting at t = 0. For Mdot = 800 M_sun/yr, Eq. (37) gives tau_AGN = 2.5e6 yr, while the text states the outflow crossing time is ~1e6 yr, so the two timescales are not widely separated. A centrally concentrated or radially propagating removal history would change both the amplitude and the sign of the induced response. The authors should test the sensitivity of v_R to a delayed or propagating mass-loss profile rather than assuming instantaneous, spatially uniform gas removal.
  4. [Section 3, after Eq. (67)] The numerical results are presented without convergence tests. The response matrix is sensitive to the number and shape of the potential-density basis functions, the radial grid, the temporal step Delta_tau, and the number of Fourier modes n in Eqs. (56)-(57); the paper does not state these choices or demonstrate that the results in Figures 2-4 have converged. Given that the central numbers depend on the response-matrix solution, the authors should report convergence checks or at least specify the numerical resolution and show that the radial velocities are stable under refinement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eq. (29)] The normalization of f0 appears inconsistent with Eq. (30) when the potential of Eq. (31) is used; integrating f0 over velocity gives a factor exp(2) relative to the stated rho0 unless the constant is adjusted. The authors should verify the prefactor.
  2. [Section 5] The statements that the radial velocity 'exceeds a few 10 km/s' and is 'not so dependent on the outflow velocity' should be quantified with the actual ranges shown in Figures 3-4, including the dependence on radius and on time after quenching.
  3. [Figures 1-4] Several figure captions and axis labels lack units or parameter definitions, such as the number of basis functions in Figure 1 and the time normalization in the right panel of Figure 2. The reader should be able to reproduce each panel from the caption alone.
  4. [References] The citation to Dootson & Magorrian (2022) is given as an arXiv preprint; if the paper has appeared in a journal, the published reference should be used.
  5. [Abstract and Section 1] The sentence 'Still, we find non-zero radial velocity of bulges will be driven by the episodic outflows' is grammatically awkward and should be rewritten for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the bulge response is a forward linear-response calculation from independently specified perturbations; the fg = 0.1 gas-budget assumption is an input, not a fit to the predicted velocity.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and forward-modeled. The external perturbations are fixed before solving: the outflow potential follows from the conserved mass-injection profile (Eq. 35), the mass-loss potential is specified by the assumed gas fraction fg = 0.1 (Eqs. 36-37), and the source term is the injection distribution function (Eq. 39). The response coefficients Bα are obtained by solving the linearized Boltzmann/response equation (Eq. 67) using response kernels from Murali (1999) and Dootson & Magorrian (2022), and the radial velocity is then a derived moment of the perturbed distribution function (Eqs. 45-73). No parameter is fitted so that vR matches a pre-chosen value; the few-10 km/s amplitudes are outputs of the calculation, not inputs. The self-citations present (Ho 1997; Kormendy & Ho 2013; Xie et al. 2021; Zhuang et al. 2021; Molina et al. 2023) are observational or empirical references used as external evidence for star clusters, the M-sigma relation, and AGN feedback, and they do not carry the linear-response derivation. The most fragile element is Eq. 37: choosing fg = 0.1 fixes the total removed mass and hence strongly controls the amplitude, so a lower gas fraction would reduce the predicted velocities; however, this is an assumption-sensitivity concern, not circularity, because fg is not derived from the predicted vR. The paper also flags its own idealization, 'the model is for an ideal case with a sphere of bulges without rotation' (Section 5), which is a limitation but not evidence of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative predictions rest on several hand-chosen parameters and domain assumptions. The dominant perturbation is the mass-loss potential (Eq 36), whose amplitude is set by fg=0.1 and the assumed gas removal profile. The response formalism is standard, but the input perturbation is a prescribed model.

free parameters (5)
  • fg (gas fraction) = 0.1
    Eq 37 sets the total mass removed in one AGN episode to fg M_bul; this directly sets the amplitude of the mass-loss potential and hence the predicted radial velocity.
  • ln Lambda (Coulomb logarithm) = not stated
    Appears in the dynamical friction coefficient (Eq 8) but no numeric value is given; the results depend on it.
  • Rin/Rbul (inner boundary) = 0.01
    Chosen in Section 4; sets the radial domain and the initial outflow launch radius.
  • sigma_e (outflow star velocity dispersion) = sigma0
    Set equal to the bulge dispersion in Section 4; controls the fraction of outflow stars captured by bulge orbits.
  • power-law basis index range = alpha in [-3, -1]
    Density basis functions are chosen as power laws with this index range (Figure 1); the response depends on the basis choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The bulge is a non-rotating, spherically symmetric, collisionless stellar system with an isothermal distribution function f0 proportional to exp(-E/sigma0^2) (Eq 29).
    This defines the unperturbed equilibrium; real bulges are triaxial, rotating, and have varied density profiles.
  • domain assumption The outflow is fast enough (Vout >> sigma0) that outflowing stars mostly escape the bulge and the only collisional effect is radial dynamical friction (Eq 5).
    This justifies dropping diffusion terms and treating the perturbed stars as a hot phase that does not mix into the bulge.
  • ad hoc to paper The total mass lost by the bulge in one AGN episode equals the bulge gas mass, Mdot tau_AGN = fg M_bul with fg = 0.1 (Eq 37).
    This fixes tau_AGN from the mass outflow rate; it is not derived from observations or simulations and directly sets the amplitude of the dominant perturbation.
  • domain assumption The mass-loss potential follows the original isothermal-sphere potential shape and ramps linearly in time (Eq 36).
    This assumes the gas is removed uniformly from the bulge in the same spatial distribution as the stars; a different removal profile changes the response.
  • domain assumption The perturbation is small enough for linearized Boltzmann and response theory.
    By the end of the episode, the mass-loss potential is about 0.2 sigma0^2, so the linear assumption is marginal but not obviously violated.
  • domain assumption The outflow crossing time is much shorter than the AGN lifetime, justifying a step-function time dependence H(t) (Eq 12).
    For the fastest cases (Mdot=800 Msun/yr, tau_AGN=2.5 Myr), tau_cross is about 1 Myr, only a factor 2.5 smaller, so the step-function assumption is questionable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bulge Oscillation Driven by Outflows of Active Galactic Nuclei. I. Fast Outflow Case." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLE4ZD7B

@misc{pith2026241217725,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bulge Oscillation Driven by Outflows of Active Galactic Nuclei. I. Fast Outflow Case},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLE4ZD7B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17725}
}
abstract

There is growing evidence for star formation inside outflows of active galactic nuclei (AGNs). The formed stars are injected into bulges and give rise to perturbation of bulges. In this paper, we investigate the issues of non-rotating, spherically symmetric bulges under the perturbation of fast, massive outflows with stars formed inside. We show that the potential perturbation of outflows together with injection and dynamical friction of these stars could drive bulge oscillations. Still, we find non-zero radial velocity of bulges will be driven by the episodic outflows of AGNs and after the AGN quenched, the radial velocity will tend to zero within a timescale $\sim\tau_{\rm AGN}$, which is the AGN's lifetime. For some typical values of bulges and AGNs, we find the expansion and contraction velocities are of a few $10\,\rm km\,s^{-1}$ for $10^{10}\,M_\odot$ bulges and mass outflowing rate $500\,M_\odot/\rm yr$, which would give observational signatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17725 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: The distribution of outflow velocity with R obtained from Equation (32), corresponding to different outflow velocities at inner boundary. Middle: The density basis functions with different power-law indexes ranging between [−3, −1], and the values at the inner boundary are normalized to 1. Right: The potential basis functions are obtained from the density basis functions by solving Poisson’s equation analytica… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of time evolution of bulge’s self-gravitational response potential Φs1 normalized to the σ 2 0. The left panel corresponds to the response within one τAGN, while the middle panel corresponds to the response Φs1 after AGN (outflow) is quenched, the right panel is the time evolution of Φs1 at certain radius. To show the temporal behavior, we extend the dimensionless time τ from 2 to 5. The vertical red dott… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial velocity evolution for different mass injection rate and τAGN with Vout = 900 km/s at Rin. The upper panel is the velocity evolution during τAGN, and the lower panel is the velocity evolution after central SMBH’s active timescale. τ is the dimensionless time. We can see that with larger M˙ out, although the corresponding τAGN is smaller, the radial velocity is still larger. During τAGN, we can find that the b… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial velocity evolution for different outflowing velocity at Rin with M˙ out = 500 M⊙ / yr. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., & Ostriker, J

    Bajtlik, S., Duncan, R. C., & Ostriker, J. P. 1988, ApJ, 327, 570, doi: 10.1086/166217

    doi:10.1086/166217 1988

  2. [2]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition 15 Bla˜na D´ıaz, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., et al

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition 15 Bla˜na D´ıaz, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2311

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2311 2008

  3. [3]

    2014, A&A, 562, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322464

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Sturm, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322464

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322464 2014

  4. [4]

    P., & Gerhard, O

    Clarke, J. P., & Gerhard, O. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2171, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac603

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac603 2022

  5. [5]

    2024, A&A, 685, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346972

    Decataldo, D., Shen, S., Mayer, L., Baumschlager, B., & Madau, P. 2024, A&A, 685, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346972

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346972 2024

  6. [6]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.15725, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.15725

    Dootson, D., & Magorrian, J. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.15725, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.15725

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.15725 2022

  7. [7]

    P., et al

    Erwin, P., Seth, A., Debattista, V . P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2446, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab126

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab126 2021

  8. [8]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 605, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21512.x

    Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A., & Quataert, E. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 605, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21512.x

    arXiv 2012

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

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

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

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 4586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3449

    Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3449

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 3409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz564

    Gallagher, R., Maiolino, R., Belfiore, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz564

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

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

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

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    Guo, F., & Mathews, W. G. 2012, ApJ, 756, 181, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/181

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.13322, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.13322

    Hamilton, C., & Fouvry, J.-B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.13322, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.13322

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ho, L. C. 1997, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, V ol. 6, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, ed. J. Franco, R. Terlevich, & A. Serrano, 5, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9606016

    1997 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    S., Kriss, G

    Kaastra, J. S., Kriss, G. A., Cappi, M., et al. 2014, Science, 345, 64, doi: 10.1126/science.1253787

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 148, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/148

    Karouzos, M., Woo, J.-H., & Bae, H.-J. 2016, ApJ, 819, 148, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/148

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    C., & Lo, K

    Keto, E., Ho, L. C., & Lo, K. Y . 2005, ApJ, 635, 1062, doi: 10.1086/497575

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Hennawi, J

    Khrykin, I. S., Hennawi, J. F., Worseck, G., & Davies, F. B. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 649, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1288

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    2005, ApJL, 635, L121, doi: 10.1086/499430

    King, A. 2005, ApJL, 635, L121, doi: 10.1086/499430

    2005 doi

  13. [21]

    2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    King, A., & Pounds, K. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    A., et al

    Kolcu, T., Maciejewski, W., Gadotti, D. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1896

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

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

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    B., Crenshaw, D

    Kraemer, S. B., Crenshaw, D. M., George, I. M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 577, 98, doi: 10.1086/342173

    2002 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Reeves, J., et al

    Laha, S., Reynolds, C. S., Reeves, J., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 13, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01255-2

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    2016, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol

    Laurikainen, E., Peletier, R., & Gadotti, D., eds. 2016, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 418, Galactic Bulges, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19378-6

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    2007, MNRAS, 374, 515, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11155.x

    Levin, Y . 2007, MNRAS, 374, 515, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11155.x

    2007

  20. [28]

    Levin, Y ., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2003, ApJL, 590, L33, doi: 10.1086/376675

    2003 doi

  21. [29]

    2020, A&A, 633, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936803

    Lutz, D., Sturm, E., Janssen, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936803

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Fabian, A

    Maiolino, R., Russell, H. R., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2017, Nature, 544, 202, doi: 10.1038/nature21677

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.19863

    Mercedes-Feliz, J., Angl´es-Alc´azar, D., Kiat Oh, B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.19863. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.19863

    2023

  24. [32]

    C., Wang, R., et al

    Molina, J., Ho, L. C., Wang, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaa9b

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    1999, ApJ, 519, 580, doi: 10.1086/307408

    Murali, C. 1999, ApJ, 519, 580, doi: 10.1086/307408

    1999 doi

  26. [34]

    A., & V oit, G

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

    1995 doi

  27. [35]

    Palmer, P. L. 1994, Stability of collisionless stellar systems: mechanisms for the dynamical structure of galaxies, V ol. 185, doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-3059-4

    1994 doi

  28. [36]

    Proga, D., & Kallman, T. R. 2004, ApJ, 616, 688, doi: 10.1086/425117

    2004 doi

  29. [37]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Chiappini, C., Perez-Villegas, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039030

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, A&A, 686, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449191

    Rigamonti, F., Cortese, L., Bollati, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449191

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 2423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2319

    Shi, Y ., Yu, X., Mao, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2319

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    N., et al

    Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/44

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    Tremaine, S., & Weinberg, M. D. 1984, MNRAS, 209, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/209.4.729

    1984 doi

  34. [42]

    D., & Aalto, S

    Veilleux, S., Maiolino, R., Bolatto, A. D., & Aalto, S. 2020, A&A Rv, 28, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0121-9

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    B., Cortese, L., Catinella, B., et al

    Watts, A. B., Cortese, L., Catinella, B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1968, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae898

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    C., Zhuang, M.-Y ., & Shangguan, J

    Xie, Y ., Ho, L. C., Zhuang, M.-Y ., & Shangguan, J. 2021, ApJ, 910, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe404

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    T., et al

    Zhou, Y ., Li, Z.-Y ., Simion, I. T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd181

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    C., & Shangguan, J

    Zhuang, M.-Y ., Ho, L. C., & Shangguan, J. 2021, ApJ, 906, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc94d

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    2012, ApJL, 745, L34, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L34

    Zubovas, K., & King, A. 2012, ApJL, 745, L34, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L34

    2012 doi

  40. [48]

    Zubovas, K., & King, A. R. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 400, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2472

    2014 doi

Pith tools

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