Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Magellan Spectroscopy of AGNs in Low-mass Galaxies: Scaling Relations and a Triple-Peaked AGN

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Four low-mass active galaxies sit on the same black hole scaling relations as massive galaxies, and one of them shows a triple-peaked spectrum consistent with an AGN outflow plus a surrounding ring or disk of gas ionized by shocks or star…

desk verdict A useful, honest data paper with a rare triple-peaked AGN, but the shock-ionized ring conclusion leans on forced [O III] components that are not detected. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18703 v1 pith:2HLYV2MM submitted 2025-07-24 astro-ph.GA

Megan R. Sturm , Amy E. Reines , Jenny Greene , Sheyda Salehirad This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleilow-massgalaxiesblackholescalingrelationsvirialmassestriple-peakedemissionlinesAGNoutflowsshockionizationdwarf
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper sets out to enlarge the sparse census of black holes in low-mass galaxies by measuring stellar velocity dispersions and virial black hole masses for six active galaxies drawn from large spectroscopic surveys. The four galaxies with measurable broad-line black hole masses lie within the scatter of the $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_*$ and $M_{\rm BH}$--$M_*$ relations defined by much more massive galaxies. One object, GAMA 5227891, shows triple-peaked H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, [N II], and [S II] emission with red and blue components offset by roughly $\pm140$ km s$^{-1}$, while [O III] is dominated by a single central peak plus a broad outflow component. The authors interpret this as a central AGN driving an ionized outflow, surrounded by an extended ring or disk of gas whose ionization is dominated by shocks and/or star formation. If correct, this is a rare, resolved example of AGN feedback acting on the gas of a galaxy.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a multi-component Gaussian decomposition of the AGN emission lines, anchored by the [S II] doublet and extended to H$\alpha$, [N II], and H$\beta$ under velocity-space width constraints, with an independent fit to [O III] tested against three models. For the triple-peaked galaxy, the red and blue components are forced in Model 3 to match the offsets, widths, and flux ratios seen in the other lines, which is what allows the flanking gas to be placed on diagnostic diagrams; the spatial offset of the emission is read directly from the two-dimensional spectra. Virial black hole masses come from the standard single-epoch estimator using broad H$\alpha$ luminosity and FWHM, and stellar velocity dispersions come from absorption-line fitting where absorption is detected, with [N II] line widths used as a proxy otherwise.

What would settle it

A deeper, higher signal-to-noise spectrum of the [O III] region of GAMA 5227891 that can detect or rule out weak components at $-131$ and $+156$ km s$^{-1}$ relative to the central peak would settle the matter; if the red and blue [O III] peaks are absent, Model 3 and the shock/star-formation classification of the outer gas would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the low-mass active galaxies studied here continue the canonical black hole scaling relations: the four objects with broad H$\alpha$ detections have virial masses $M_{\rm BH}\sim10^{6.2}$--$10^{7.3}\,M_\odot$ and velocity dispersions $\sim25$--$80$ km s$^{-1}$, and they sit within the scatter of the canonical $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_*$ relation and the $M_{\rm BH}$--$M_*$ relation for local AGNs. The paper's second, more novel claim concerns GAMA 5227891, a more massive host ($M_*\sim10^{10.97}\,M_\odot$), whose Balmer and forbidden lines show three kinematic components separated by roughly $\pm140$ km s$^{-1}$ while [O III] keeps a single narrow peak plus a broad, blueshifted component. The authors argue the data are consistent with a single central AGN whose outflow produces the broad [O III], together with an extended, roughly symmetric ring or disk of gas visible in the other lines. Line ratios of the flanking components fall in the composite/star-forming region of BPT diagrams and match shock models at electron density $\sim100$ cm$^{-3}$ and velocities of $\sim400$--$1000$ km s$^{-1}$; the authors caution that a triple-AGN system, while not formally ruled out, is highly unlikely.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation of the outer gas as shock- or star-formation-ionized rests on weak red and blue peaks in the [O III] line whose positions and fluxes were forced by the fitter to match the other triple-peaked lines; if those peaks are not real, the shock and star-formation diagnosis loses its main spectral support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scaling-relation result holds, surveys of faint active galaxies in dwarfs can estimate black hole masses from galaxy stellar mass or velocity dispersion alone in the $M_{\rm BH}\sim10^6$--$10^7\,M_\odot$ range.
  • The triple-peaked system implies that AGN outflows can coexist with—and possibly help create—extended gas structures whose ionization is dominated by shocks, so feedback may be visible as a kinematic ring or disk rather than only as a nuclear line.
  • The absence of a downturn at low $\sigma_*$ is consistent with earlier low-mass AGN samples, but the paper notes that selection bias toward more massive black holes leaves the lowest-mass end of the relations untested.
  • The two galaxies without broad H$\alpha$ receive only upper limits on black hole mass that fall below scaling-relation predictions, indicating that many low-mass AGNs may lack a broad-line region or be type 2 sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the shocked-gas picture is right, GAMA 5227891 is a nearby system in which the same AGN outflow that ionizes the nuclear gas also shapes gas at kiloparsec radii; a deep narrow-band image should reveal star-forming regions or shocked filaments at the radii corresponding to the red and blue line offsets.
  • The forced Model 3 fit to [O III] is the empirical hinge of the shock and star-formation interpretation, and higher signal-to-noise spectroscopy of the [O III] region would settle whether the flanking components are real; until then, the outer-gas ionization story should be treated as suggestive rather than established.
  • If the apparent absence of a low-mass downturn in $M_{\rm BH}$--$\sigma_*$ is real rather than a selection effect, it would argue against the strongest light-seeding scenarios, but the paper's own bias discussion shows the present sample cannot carry that weight.
  • Extending the three-component fitting strategy to other AGNs with asymmetric lines could uncover more such systems, especially if the forced-component approach is replaced by a Bayesian model comparison that handles undetected peaks explicitly.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents new Magellan/MagE spectroscopy of six AGN host galaxies selected from GAMA/SDSS, with stellar masses mostly below 5×10^9 M_sun. For four galaxies with broad H-alpha, the authors estimate virial black hole masses using the Greene & Ho (2005) scaling relation, and derive stellar velocity dispersions either from stellar absorption lines (two objects) or from the [N II] gas width as a proxy (four objects). They compare these measurements with the Kormendy & Ho (2013) M_BH-σ* and Reines & Volonteri (2015) M_BH-M* relations and report general consistency. The central new result is GAMA 5227891, a galaxy with triple-peaked H-alpha, H-beta, [N II], and [S II] emission lines while [O III] shows a single narrow peak plus a broad component. The authors interpret the central component as AGN photoionization with an outflow, and the red/blue peaks as an extended ring/disk ionized by shocks and/or star formation, based in part on BPT positions of forced [O III] components and Allen et al. (2008) shock models.

Significance. If the triple-peaked interpretation is correct, this is a rare, spatially resolved example of AGN feedback affecting circumnuclear gas, with a central AGN driving an outflow and outer gas ionized by shocks or star formation. The paper also adds four low-mass points to the black hole scaling relations using a consistent methodology. Strengths include the verification of the triple peaks against the raw 2D spectra (Appendix), the transparent description of the line fitting, and the explicit caveats about small sample size and the gas-proxy velocity dispersions. The main weakness is that the [O III] red/blue components, which carry the shock/star-formation diagnostic, are not independently detected; they are forced to match the other lines and are not statistically preferred by the fit.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.6, Fig. 5; §6.2, Fig. 9] The three-component [O III] fit (Model 3) is not statistically preferred: the reduced chi-squared is 0.986 versus 0.927 for Model 2, and the unconstrained three-component fit collapses to zero flux in one peak. The red and blue [O III] components are therefore not detected independently; their fluxes, offsets, and widths are forced to follow the other emission lines. Nevertheless, Section 6.2 and Figure 9 use exactly these forced components to compute [O III]/H-beta for the red and blue peaks, place them on the BPT diagrams, and compare them with Allen et al. (2008) shock grids, and the abstract and conclusions state that the outer gas is 'predominantly ionized by shocks and/or star formation.' Since the [O III]/H-beta axis is unconstrained by the data for these components, the shock/star-formation interpretation is not supported by an independent diagnostic. The authors should either reframe the conclusion as conditional on the assumed [O III] model or provide an analysis that does not depend on the forced components (for example, using [S II]/H-alpha alone or showing how the BPT placement changes with plausible [O III] flux upper limits).
  2. [§6.3, Fig. 8] The interpretation of the red/blue peaks as an extended ring/disk rests on the 2D spectra showing emission offset in position and velocity, but no quantitative measure is provided, such as the spatial extent of the emission, the spatial centroids of the red and blue components, or a rotation-curve fit. The data are also consistent with other kinematic structures, including a bipolar outflow or a warped disk, and the discussion in Section 6.3 acknowledges that distinguishing these scenarios is difficult. To make the 'ring/disk' language in the abstract and conclusions load-bearing, the authors should either quantify the spatial distribution and its kinematics, or soften the claim to a structure that is 'disk-like or outflow-related' and specify what future observation would discriminate between these cases.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] For GAMA 5227891, the tabulated [O III] fluxes are those of Model 2, but the red/blue BPT points in Figure 9 use Model 3 forced components whose fluxes are not listed anywhere; report the Model 3 component fluxes and their uncertainties since they are used in diagnostic plots.
  2. [§4.6, Table 3] The stellar velocity dispersion reported for GAMA 5227891 is derived from the total [N II] width of a triple-peaked profile (157 km/s); using this as a proxy likely overestimates the true stellar velocity dispersion, and this should be noted prominently when interpreting the object's position in Figure 6.
  3. [§5.1] The text says four galaxies are compared with the scaling relations, but four of the six galaxies have σ* from the [N II] gas proxy; the figures and text should consistently remind the reader that those points carry an additional 0.15 dex scatter from the σ_g-σ* relation.
  4. [§6.2] The sentence 'the red and blue peaks lie in the composite and star-forming regions' should explicitly say 'under Model 3's assumed [O III] components,' not just 'if these red/blue peaks in [O III] do indeed exist,' because the fluxes are model-imposed.
  5. [§2] The sample description says 'we select a subset of five galaxies' and then adds one filler object, making six; the wording could be clarified to avoid apparent inconsistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scaling-relation results rest on external virial and benchmark relations, and the triple-peaked [O III] interpretation is explicitly conditional rather than a predicted derivation.

full rationale

The main scientific results of this paper are the virial black hole masses and their placement on the M_BH-sigma* and M_BH-M* relations. The BH masses are obtained from Equation (1), which is the Greene & Ho (2005) virial relation with epsilon = 1 as in Reines et al. (2013); this is an external calibration applied to the measured broad H-alpha luminosity and FWHM, and the comparison relations (Kormendy & Ho 2013; Reines & Volonteri 2015; Xiao et al. 2011; Baldassare et al. 2020) are independent external benchmarks. The velocity dispersions come from pPXF fits to stellar absorption lines or from the [N II] width using the external sigma*-sigma_g relation of Barth et al. (2008). Self-citations (Salehirad et al. 2022; Reines et al. 2013) supply the target list and the fitting recipe, but they are not fitted constraints and the new MagE data are independent. For the triple-peaked galaxy, the red/blue peaks in H-alpha, H-beta, [N II], and [S II] are robustly detected and confirmed in the raw 2-D spectra (Appendix). The [O III] red/blue components are not independently detected: Section 4.6 states that the unconstrained three-component fit collapses, and Model 3 is only obtained by forcing offsets, widths, and flux ratios to mimic the other lines, with reduced chi^2 = 0.986 versus 0.927 for Model 2. However, the paper does not present Model 3 as a prediction; it explicitly hedges the interpretation with "if these red/blue peaks in the [O III] line do indeed exist" and "very dim, if present at all", and in Section 6.3 calls the shock/ring scenario "speculative" and needing additional observations. The BPT and shock-model comparison for the red/blue [O III] peaks is therefore a conditional consistency argument built on an assumed model, not a derived result whose output is equivalent to its input. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard is present; the closest issue is a robustness and assumption concern, not circularity.

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

The analysis rests on standard astrophysical assumptions: the virial BH mass estimator, the gas-velocity dispersion proxy, the local applicability of scaling relations, and the use of published shock models. No free parameters are fitted in this paper; all quantities are either measured from the spectra or taken from external catalogs or relations. No new fundamental entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gas in the broad-line region is virialized and the BLR size scales with H alpha luminosity as in Greene & Ho (2005), applied here via Eq. (1) with epsilon=1.
    This is the standard virial BH mass estimator for broad-line AGNs and is an unproved assumption at the low-mass end, though widely used.
  • domain assumption [N II] line width is a valid proxy for stellar velocity dispersion with about 0.15 dex scatter (Barth et al. 2008), used for four galaxies.
    Section 4.5; replaces direct stellar absorption measurements for galaxies without detectable absorption lines.
  • domain assumption The local scaling relations from Kormendy & Ho (2013) and Reines & Volonteri (2015) are applicable at z about 0.2 without redshift evolution.
    Sections 5.1 and 5.2 compare samples at z about 0.2 to local relations.
  • domain assumption Shock models from Allen et al. (2008) with transverse magnetic field b=1 microGauss describe the ionization of the red and blue gas.
    Section 6.2 bottom panels; used to interpret the red and blue peaks of Model 3 as shock ionized.
  • domain assumption The stellar mass of GAMA 5227891 from the GAMA ProSpect table (10^10.97 Msun) is reliable despite the missing g-band imaging that motivated the change from the originally reported value.
    Section 2; the object is kept in the sample largely because of the triple-peaked spectrum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magellan Spectroscopy of AGNs in Low-mass Galaxies: Scaling Relations and a Triple-Peaked AGN." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2HLYV2MM

@misc{pith2026250718703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magellan Spectroscopy of AGNs in Low-mass Galaxies: Scaling Relations and a Triple-Peaked AGN},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2HLYV2MM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18703}
}
abstract

In this work, we aim to further populate the low-mass regime of black hole (BH) scaling relations to better understand the formation and growth mechanisms of central supermassive BHs. We target six galaxies that have been previously identified as hosting active galactic nuclei (AGN) based on optical spectroscopy from the Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey or the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) with stellar masses reported to be M$_\star < 5 \times 10^9$ M$_\odot$. Using follow-up optical spectroscopy from the Magellan Echellette Spectrograph (MagE), we extract galaxy velocity dispersions ($\sigma_\star$) and estimate virial BH masses from broad H$\alpha$ emission. We find that the galaxies in our sample do not deviate significantly from either the M$_{BH}-\sigma_\star$ or M$_{BH}-$M$_{\star}$ scaling relations defined by higher mass galaxies. Additionally, we identify one galaxy with triple-peaked SII, NII, H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ emission lines. This spectral shape is not shared by OIII and, in fact, the OIII line appears to have distinct kinematics from the other emission lines. Incorporating the spatial distribution of the various emission lines, we find that the galaxy spectrum is consistent with a prominent central AGN driving an outflow, surrounded by an extended ring/disk of gas predominantly ionized by shocks and/or star formation. This work has implications for the demographics of BHs in low-mass galaxies and the role of AGN feedback.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DESI Legacy Imaging Survey SkyViewer Images of our six low-mass galaxies. We overlay the 10” × 1” slit used to observe each target in red. We also provide a scale bar of length 2” along with the corresponding length in kpc. ⩾ 2. Finally, they make a redshift cut (z ⩽ 0.3) to make sure the [S II] doublet is within the observed wavelength range, leaving them with a final parent sample of 23,460 galaxies. In their work… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Absorption and emission line fits for three of our galaxies (the remaining three galaxies are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: pPXF fits for the two galaxies in our sample exhibiting strong absorption lines (top) and the resulting residuals (bottom). The resulting fits from all 100 noise realizations from the Monte Carlo bootstrapping are shown in blue. do this for 100 noise realizations, wher…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The three models we consider for fitting the [O III] emission line (see §4.6). Model 1 includes a single Gaussian component. Model 2 includes one narrow component + one broad component. Model 3 includes three narrow components + one broad component. For the red/blue pe…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The MBH− σ∗ relation. Our galaxies are shown in orange with σ derived using [N II]. Vertical error bars rep￾resent the ∼0.5 dex uncertainty involved in using virial BH mass estimates and horizontal error bars incorporate both the uncertainty in the width of the [N II] …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 2-D (bottom) and 1-D (top) spectra for galaxy GAMA 5227891, which exhibits triple-peaked emission lines. In the top panel, orange lines show the best fit narrow line components and green lines show the best fit broad components. In the bottom panel, the horizontal grey…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: Narrow emission line ratio diagnostic diagrams for various fits to the [O III] emission line. Based on the GAMA spectrum, the galaxy lies in the AGN/Seyfert region (shown as the green square). Using Model 2, the galaxy lies in the AGN/Seyfert region (shown as the …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The raw 2-D (first column) and 1-D (second column) spectra and the sky-subtracted 2-D (third column) and 1-D (fourth column) spectra resulting from the reduction pipeline for our triple-peaked galaxy GAMA 5227891. The triple peaks are visible both in the raw data and …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Groves, B

    Allen, M. G., Groves, B. A., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., & Kewley, L. J. 2008, ApJS, 178, 20, doi: 10.1086/589652

    doi:10.1086/589652 2008

  2. [2]

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

    Baldassare, V. F., Dickey, C., Geha, M., & Reines, A. E. 2020, ApJL, 898, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba0c1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba0c1 2020

  3. [3]

    F., Reines, A

    Baldassare, V. F., Reines, A. E., Gallo, E., & Greene, J. E. 2015, ApJL, 809, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/L14 —. 2017, ApJ, 850, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9067

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/l14 2015

  4. [4]

    F., Reines, A

    Baldassare, V. F., Reines, A. E., Gallo, E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 57, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/57

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/57 2016

  5. [5]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  6. [6]

    J., Greene, J

    Barth, A. J., Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2008, AJ, 136, 1179, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/3/1179

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/3/1179 2008

  7. [7]

    J., Ho, L

    Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., Rutledge, R. E., & Sargent, W. L. W. 2004, ApJ, 607, 90, doi: 10.1086/383302 18

    doi:10.1086/383302 2004

  8. [8]

    Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., Driver, S. P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2620 Ben ´ ıtez, E., Rodr ´ ıguez-Espinosa, J. M., Cruz-Gonz´ alez, I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, L56, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx188 Ben ´ ıtez, E., Cruz-Gonz´ alez, I., Rodr ´ ıguez-Espinosa, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2884

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2620 2020

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Malkan, M. A. 2011, ApJ, 726, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/59

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    N., Treu, T., Auger, M

    Bennert, V. N., Treu, T., Auger, M. W., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/20

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    2003

  4. [12]

    2020, A&A, 634, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936321

    Caglar, T., Burtscher, L., Brandl, B., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936321

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3020

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    2004, PASP, 116, 138, doi: 10.1086/381875

    Cappellari, M., & Emsellem, E. 2004, PASP, 116, 138, doi: 10.1086/381875

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Peletier, R

    Chen, Y.-P., Trager, S. C., Peletier, R. F., et al. 2014, A&A, 565, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322505 De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanovi´ c, T., et al. 2019, NewAR, 86, 101525, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101525

    2014

  8. [16]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Elitzur, M., & Ho, L. C. 2009, ApJL, 701, L91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/L91

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    V., & Ho, L

    Filippenko, A. V., & Ho, L. C. 2003, ApJL, 588, L13, doi: 10.1086/375361

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    V., & Sargent, W

    Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1989, ApJL, 342, L11, doi: 10.1086/185472

    1989 doi

  12. [21]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 539, L13, doi: 10.1086/312840

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

    2000 doi

  13. [22]

    W., & Scott, N

    Graham, A. W., & Scott, N. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 798, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/54

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122, doi: 10.1086/431897 —. 2007, ApJ, 670, 92, doi: 10.1086/522082

    2005 doi

  15. [24]

    E., Ho, L

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

    2008 doi

  16. [25]

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

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    E., Peng, C

    Greene, J. E., Peng, C. Y., Kim, M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 721, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/721/1/26

    2010 doi

  18. [27]

    2002, ApJ, 579, 205, doi: 10.1086/342703

    Gu, Q., & Huang, J. 2002, ApJ, 579, 205, doi: 10.1086/342703

    2002 doi

  19. [28]

    R., Suntzeff, N

    Hamuy, M., Walker, A. R., Suntzeff, N. B., et al. 1992, PASP, 104, 533, doi: 10.1086/133028

    1992 doi

  20. [29]

    A., Tremonti, C

    Hao, L., Strauss, M. A., Tremonti, C. A., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 1783, doi: 10.1086/428485

    2005 doi

  21. [30]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11946, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11946

    Harikane, Y., Zhang, Y., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11946, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11946

    2023 doi arXiv

  22. [31]

    E., Bennert, V

    Harris, C. E., Bennert, V. N., Auger, M. W., et al. 2012, ApJS, 201, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/29

    2012 doi

  23. [32]

    M., Miley, G

    Heckman, T. M., Miley, G. K., & Green, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 281, 525, doi: 10.1086/162125

    1984 doi

  24. [33]

    1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    Horne, K. 1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    1986 doi

  25. [34]

    2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 386, 2242, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13195.x H¨ aring, N., & Rix, H.-W

    Hu, J. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 386, 2242, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13195.x H¨ aring, N., & Rix, H.-W. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 604, L89, doi: 10.1086/383567 Juodˇ zbalis, I., Conselice, C. J., & Singh, M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1353, do...

    2008

  26. [35]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x

    2003

  27. [36]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 121, doi: 10.1086/321545

    2001 doi

  28. [37]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x

    2006

  29. [38]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec40

    Geha, M. 2021, ApJ, 911, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec40

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al

    Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.00012, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.00012

    2023 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    2013, A&A, 549, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219411

    Kollatschny, W., & Zetzl, M. 2013, A&A, 549, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219411

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    Kormendy, J., Bender, R., & Cornell, M. E. 2011, Nature, 469, 374, doi: 10.1038/nature09694

    2011 doi

  33. [42]

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

    2013 doi

  34. [43]

    2006, ApJ, 643, 112, doi: 10.1086/502798

    Laor, A. 2006, ApJ, 643, 112, doi: 10.1086/502798

    2006 doi

  35. [44]

    R., Greene, J

    Ludwig, R. R., Greene, J. E., Barth, A. J., & Ho, L. C. 2012, ApJ, 756, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/51

    2012 doi

  36. [45]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230

    2023 doi arXiv

  37. [46]

    Marconi, A., & Hunt, L. K. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, L21, doi: 10.1086/375804 19

    2003 doi

  38. [47]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.05448, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.05448

    2023 doi arXiv

  39. [48]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/184

    2013 doi

  40. [49]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 547, 140, doi: 10.1086/318372 M¨ uller-S´ anchez, F., Comerford, J

    Merritt, D., & Ferrarese, L. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 547, 140, doi: 10.1086/318372 M¨ uller-S´ anchez, F., Comerford, J. M., Nevin, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/103

    2001 doi

  41. [50]

    B., & Ingargiola, A

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., & Ingargiola, A. 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, 0.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11813

    2014 doi

  42. [51]

    D., Seth, A

    Nguyen, D. D., Seth, A. C., Neumayer, N., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe28 —. 2019, ApJ, 872, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafe7a

    2018 doi

  43. [52]

    2023, ApJL, 942, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca9d3

    Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., Ding, X., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca9d3

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    2018, ApJL, 864, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad8b2

    Pacucci, F., Loeb, A., Mezcua, M., & Mart ´ ın-Navarro, I. 2018, ApJL, 864, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad8b2

    2018 doi

  45. [54]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020a, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    doi

  46. [55]

    X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020b, pypeit/PypeIt: Release 1.0.0, v1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3743493

    doi

  47. [56]

    2001, A&A, 369, 1048, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010163

    Prugniel, P., & Soubiran, C. 2001, A&A, 369, 1048, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010163

    2001 doi

  48. [57]

    Reines, A. E. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 26, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01556-0

    2022 doi

  49. [58]

    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

  50. [59]

    E., & Volonteri, M

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

    2015 doi

  51. [60]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 3278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2448

    Ricarte, A., & Natarajan, P. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2448

    2018 doi

  52. [61]

    J., Shields, G

    Rosario, D. J., Shields, G. A., Taylor, G. B., Salviander, S., & Smith, K. L. 2010, ApJ, 716, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/131

    2010 doi

  53. [62]

    E., & Molina, M

    Salehirad, S., Reines, A. E., & Molina, M. 2022, ApJ, 937, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8876 —. 2025, ApJ, 979, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a57

    2022 doi

  54. [63]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 23, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/23

    2016 doi

  55. [65]

    2010, A&A, 516, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014193

    Schulze, A., & Wisotzki, L. 2010, A&A, 516, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014193

    2010 doi

  56. [66]

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

    2022 doi

  57. [67]

    E., & Strauss, M

    Shen, Y., Liu, X., Greene, J. E., & Strauss, M. A. 2011, ApJ, 735, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/48

    2011 doi

  58. [68]

    L., Shields, G

    Smith, K. L., Shields, G. A., Salviander, S., Stevens, A. C., & Rosario, D. J. 2012, ApJ, 752, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/63

    2012 doi

  59. [69]

    R., & Reines, A

    Sturm, M. R., & Reines, A. E. 2024, ApJ, 971, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad55e6

    2024 doi

  60. [70]

    N., Hopkins, A

    Taylor, E. N., Hopkins, A. M., Baldry, I. K., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1587, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19536.x

    2011

  61. [71]

    E., Barth, A

    Thornton, C. E., Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., Rutledge, R. E., & Greene, J. E. 2008, ApJ, 686, 892, doi: 10.1086/591519

    2008 doi

  62. [73]

    2008, MNRAS, 383, 1079, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x

    Volonteri, M., Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1079, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12589.x

    2008

  63. [75]

    1999, ApJL, 519, L39, doi: 10.1086/312106

    Wandel, A. 1999, ApJL, 519, L39, doi: 10.1086/312106

    1999 doi

  64. [76]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/49

    Woo, J.-H., Schulze, A., Park, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/49

    2013 doi

  65. [77]

    A., & Blandford, R

    Woo, J.-H., Treu, T., Malkan, M. A., & Blandford, R. D. 2006, ApJ, 645, 900, doi: 10.1086/504586

    2006 doi

  66. [78]

    J., Greene, J

    Xiao, T., Barth, A. J., Greene, J. E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/28

    2011 doi

  67. [79]

    I., Papovich, C., et al

    Yang, G., Caputi, K. I., Papovich, C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 950, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd639

    2023 doi

  68. [80]

    L., & Greene, J

    Zakamska, N. L., & Greene, J. E. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 784, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu842

    2014 doi

  69. [81]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029a

    Zhang, X. 2024, ApJ, 960, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029a

    2024 doi

  70. [82]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 1181–1198, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15528.x

    Zibetti, S., Charlot, S., & Rix, H.-W. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 1181–1198, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15528.x

    2009

Pith tools

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