Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 96 references

At 50 pc resolution, the same region of SNL-1 still yields Kroupa-like dynamics and Salpeter-like spectra, and a newly resolved 1.6-billion-solar-mass black hole.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

At 50 pc resolution the stellar mass-to-light ratio from dynamics is Kroupa-like (about 2.3) while spectral fitting is Salpeter-like (about 3.5), so the IMF tension persists over the same field of view.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A careful, transparent study that delivers the first 50 pc view of SNL-1; the IMF tension finding is persuasive but the PSF systematic and missing spectral M/L uncertainty need attention before publication. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.01732 v1 pith:7PBA3QY4 submitted 2025-09-01 astro-ph.GA

SNELLS-HD I: a first look at the stellar properties of the massive strong-lens galaxy SNL-1 with 50 pc resolution

Adriano Poci , Russell J. Smith This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords massive early-type galaxiesstellar initial mass functionstrong gravitational lensingsupermassive black holeSchwarzschild dynamical modelsstellar populationsadaptive-optics integral-field spectroscopySNL-1
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

SNL-1 is a massive, nearby strong-lens galaxy for which mass-based methods (lensing plus dynamics) and spectral absorption-line fits have long disagreed about the stellar initial mass function. This paper obtains new adaptive-optics VLT/MUSE data that resolve the centre at roughly 50 pc scale, and performs a triaxial Schwarzschild dynamical model and a flexible full-spectrum stellar-population fit over exactly the same 1.25-arcsecond aperture. The central result is that the mismatch persists: dynamics yield a Kroupa-like stellar mass-to-light ratio of about 2.3, while the spectra prefer a Salpeter-like ratio of about 3.5, corresponding to an IMF mismatch parameter alpha_IMF ~ 0.65. The same data also resolve the black hole's sphere of influence, giving M_bh = 1.62 x 10^9 solar masses and revealing a flattened nuclear stellar disk; the authors conclude that a real physical 'tension' may be an artefact of comparing techniques sensitive to different mass ranges of the IMF.

Core claim

Using new adaptive-optics-assisted MUSE Narrow-Field Mode data, the paper measures stellar kinematics of SNL-1's inner 1.25 arcseconds (about 805 pc) at an effective resolution of ~36 pc. A triaxial Schwarzschild orbit-superposition model reproduces all four observed line-of-sight kinematic moments and directly resolves the black hole's sphere of influence, yielding M_bh = (1.62 +0.056/-0.054) x 10^9 solar masses. The same model gives a stellar mass-to-light ratio M/L_F814W ~ 2.3, consistent with a Kroupa-like IMF. Spectral fits with the flexible full-spectrum fitting code alf over the identical aperture give M/L_F814W ~ 3.5, favouring a Salpeter-like IMF slope alpha ~ 2.3 for stars below on

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a triaxial Schwarzschild orbit-superposition model: a large library of stellar orbits is integrated in each trial gravitational potential, and a weighted subset is chosen to reproduce the observed kinematic maps after convolution with a modelled point-spread function. The PSF is a multi-Gaussian expansion fitted to the MUSE exposure-time calculator prediction. The spectroscopic counterpart is alf, a full-spectrum fitting code that varies stellar age, chemical abundances, kinematics, and a broken-power-law IMF. The argument is carried by comparing the mass-to-light ratios from both techniques over one common aperture.

Load-bearing premise

The adaptive-optics point-spread function is taken from an exposure-time calculator model rather than measured from the data, and it is convolved into every dynamical-model prediction; if the true PSF core differs, the black-hole mass and nuclear disk structure could shift beyond the quoted statistical errors.

What would settle it

Measure the actual delivered PSF of the NFM observations from a suitably placed star, a parallel AO calibration frame, or telemetry-based PSF reconstruction, and re-run the same Schwarzschild fits. If the recovered black-hole mass or the central velocity-dispersion peak changes by more than the quoted ~5 percent uncertainty, the central claim is not stable. A second check is to observe SNL-1's nucleus with an independent high-resolution IFU and verify that the same M_bh and M/L emerge without the AO PSF assumption.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Previous comparisons of spectral and dynamical IMF estimates that did not match apertures must be revisited: aperture mismatch is not the explanation for SNL-1.
  • The resolved black-hole mass, consistent with the M-sigma relation, rules out an unresolved central dark mass as the source of the dynamical-to-spectroscopic M/L discrepancy.
  • The nuclear disk and bar-like gas and dust morphology mean SNL-1's centre is structurally complex; models assuming simple axisymmetric or isotropic orbits could be biased.
  • A joint multi-scale, multi-tracer model combining the narrow-field and wide-field kinematics with lensing and gas data is needed to confirm the inferred nuclear structure and dark-matter properties.
  • Future adaptive-optics spectroscopy of other strong-lens galaxies can test whether the same-aperture IMF mismatch is generic or peculiar to SNL-1.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the ETC model PSF is broader than the actually delivered PSF, the quoted black-hole mass could be overestimated and the flattening of the nuclear disk underestimated; the turbulence-independent PSF deserves an on-sky calibration.
  • The persistence of the mismatch at fixed aperture suggests that spectral 'IMF' parameters and dynamical 'IMF' parameters need not agree even in principle, because they integrate over different stellar-mass ranges; a joint model with the low-mass cutoff as a free parameter could reconcile them.
  • SNL-1 may be a poor benchmark for cross-technique IMF comparisons; its complex nucleus could exaggerate differences that simpler galaxies would not show.
  • The two-part power-law IMF prior fixes the high-mass slope, forcing spectroscopic M/L to scale with the dwarf fraction; allowing the high-mass slope to vary would be a direct test of the claimed tension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents new VLT/MUSE NFM AO-assisted observations of the central ~1.25 arcsec of the strong-lens early-type galaxy SNL-1, reaching ~50 pc resolution. The authors measure stellar kinematics and fit triaxial Schwarzschild dynamical models, obtaining a black-hole mass M_bh = (1.62 +0.056/-0.054) x 10^9 solar masses with a resolved sphere of influence, and detecting a nuclear stellar disk. They also fit the spectra with alf, recovering a Salpeter-like low-mass IMF slope and a stellar M/L_F814W ~3.5, in contrast to the dynamical M/L_F814W ~2.3 (Kroupa-like). The IMF tension therefore persists when both methods probe the same aperture. The paper discusses possible resolutions, including a high low-mass cutoff, and excludes several previously suggested explanations.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable demonstration of MUSE NFM's ability to resolve black-hole spheres of influence and nuclear kinematics at ~50 pc in a lens galaxy, and the same-aperture comparison of dynamical and spectral IMF diagnostics is an important step forward for the IMF debate. The paper is commendably transparent: it corrects an underestimated error cube (Appendix B), documents CTI-induced sky residuals and describes its ad-hoc sky subtraction (Appendix A), masks dust, and explicitly acknowledges that the low-mass cutoff m_cut is unconstrained. The dynamical and spectral analyses are independent, and both are compared against external IMF expectations. The principal weakness is the unverified ETC-based PSF, which enters every Schwarzschild prediction and is not propagated into the quoted M_bh uncertainty; this limits the strength of the central claim until quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Table 2, §3.1, Table 3, §6] The adopted PSF is the ETC model, not measured from data, and footnote 2 states that the ETC model does not depend on turbulence. The MGE PSF (Table 2) has FWHM components 0.052″ and 0.102″ containing ~42% and ~50% of the weight, while the BH sphere of influence is ~0.12″ (§6). The BH signal is therefore only marginally resolved. The quoted uncertainty on log10(M_bh) (Table 3, ±0.0148 dex) is the statistical spread of the model grid and does not include any PSF systematic. The statement in §6 that the constraint on M_bh is “unambiguous” is not supported outside the grid. Please quantify the PSF systematic (e.g., by repeating the fit with perturbed MGE PSF models or independent PSF estimates) and propagate it into M_bh and into the dynamical M/L used in the alpha_IMF comparison via the M_bh–Υ anticorrelation (Fig. 6).
  2. [Appendix A] The sky subtraction uses an annulus at ~3.5″ radius from the galaxy centre, and the text states that this annulus “contains sky and some signal from the science target”. This ad-hoc sky spectrum is subtracted from the whole cube. The impact of subtracting galaxy light, which has its own stellar population and LOSVD, on the central 1.25″ science aperture is not quantified. If the annulus galaxy contribution is not negligible, it could introduce a systematic additive component in both the stellar kinematics and the alf spectral fits, with consequences for M_bh and the measured IMF slope. Please estimate the surface-brightness contrast between the annulus and the science aperture and test sensitivity to the choice of annulus.
  3. [§4.1, Appendix D] The spatially resolved alf fits fix 11 elemental abundances to their best-fit values from the integrated aperture spectrum. The paper acknowledges the implicit assumption of no strong gradients in those elements. Because the IMF slope alpha_1 and the derived M/L can trade off with abundance variations, a test is needed to show that this procedure does not bias the spectroscopic M/L. For example, fitting a subset of bins with all abundances free, or injecting synthetic abundance gradients, would demonstrate robustness.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] “Wield-Field Camera 2” should be “Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2” (or the intended instrument name).
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (2)] The definition of V2 in the circularity expression is non-standard and potentially confusing; please clarify the notation (e.g., whether V2 is the squared velocity magnitude and how it enters the denominator).
  3. [§5] The caveat that the central regions are not well described by a single LOSVD is stated for the gas kinematics; the same caveat applies to the stellar kinematics measured with pPXF, which assumes a single LOSVD per bin. It would be helpful to note this explicitly when presenting the stellar kinematic maps.
  4. [§6] “at least 10 Gyrold” should read “at least 10 Gyr old”.
  5. [Fig. 13] The light curves from randomly sampled posteriors sometimes deviate from the measured curves; consider displaying median and credible intervals instead of a random sample to aid readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the dynamical and spectral analyses are independent, and the PSF/mcut caveats are acknowledged systematics rather than circular inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a comparison of two independent measurement techniques applied to the same 1.25-arcsec aperture: a triaxial Schwarzschild dynamical model fit to MUSE NFM stellar kinematics, giving M/L_F814W ~ 2.3 and M_bh = (1.62+0.056/-0.054)e9 M_sun, and the alf spectral-fitting code giving a Salpeter-like low-mass IMF slope and M/L_F814W ~ 3.5. Neither measurement is defined in terms of the other, and the quoted alpha_IMF ~ 0.65 is a direct ratio of these independently fitted quantities against standard IMF calibrations. The SMBH mass is constrained by the kinematics through the Schwarzschild grid, not taken from any input assumption; the PSF used in the models is adopted from the MUSE ETC (footnote 2 transparently notes it is turbulence-independent), which is an unverified systematic that could affect the M_bh error budget, but this is a correctness/robustness concern, not circular reasoning. The paper's proposed high-mcut resolution is explicitly stated to be unconstrained by the data ('We conclude that mcut is unconstrained by the data'), so it is not presented as a derived result. Self-citations to prior work by the authors (Poci & Smith 2022; Smith 2014, 2020) provide context and previously proposed hypotheses, but the conclusions do not reduce to those citations: the exclusion of the spatial-mismatch explanation is based on the new same-FoV measurements, and the mcut discussion is explicitly left unresolved. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input by construction. The paper also documents data-reduction limitations (CTI sky issues, error-cube underestimation) in appendices, further supporting that the analysis is a transparent application of independent methods rather than a self-justifying derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

All free parameters are standard astrophysical model parameters fitted to data. No new particles or entities are introduced. The assumptions are clearly stated in the paper; the most fragile is the unverified ETC PSF model.

free parameters (5)
  • M_bh (SMBH mass) = 1.62e9 M_sun (log10 = 9.21 +/- 0.0148)
    Free parameter in the Schwarzschild model, constrained by the resolved central kinematics.
  • q, p, u (intrinsic axis ratios) = 0.3973, 0.9210, 0.9999
    Free shape parameters of the triaxial mass distribution.
  • log10(M200/M_star) = 1.25 +/- 0.285
    Dark matter halo mass ratio, free in the fit but weakly constrained by the small FoV.
  • Upsilon (global M/L) = 2.335 +/- 0.0753 M_sun/L_sun
    Spatially constant mass-to-light ratio scale factor in the dynamical model.
  • alpha1 (IMF low-mass slope in alf) = 2.28 +/- 0.19 from aperture fit; ~2.3 in binned fits
    Free parameter in the two-part broken power-law IMF used in the spectral fitting.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Planck 2018 cosmology (H0=67.66, Om=0.3111)
    Assumed distance scale and cosmology stated in Section 1.
  • domain assumption Concentration-mass relation of Dutton & Maccio (2014)
    Used in Section 3.1 to tie CDM to M200/M_star, reducing free parameters.
  • domain assumption Spatially constant M/L over the kinematic FoV
    Explicit assumption in Section 3.1 when building the gravitational potential from F814W light.
  • ad hoc to paper The ETC PSF model represents the true delivered PSF
    Section 2.1 adopts the ETC model because no isolated stars are available; the model is turbulence-independent.
  • ad hoc to paper Sky is constant and galaxy light negligible in the 3.5 arcsec annulus used for sky subtraction
    Appendix A: the annular spectrum is subtracted from the full cube; the paper argues surface brightness drops steeply enough.
  • domain assumption alf IMF parametrisation: two-part broken power law with fixed high-mass slope 2.3 and m_max=100 Msun
    Section 4.1: this is the standard alf assumption and defines what 'Salpeter-like' means in the spectral fits.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SNELLS-HD I: a first look at the stellar properties of the massive strong-lens galaxy SNL-1 with 50 pc resolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PBA3QY4

@misc{pith2026250901732,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SNELLS-HD I: a first look at the stellar properties of the massive strong-lens galaxy SNL-1 with 50 pc resolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PBA3QY4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01732}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We present a dynamical and chemical study of the centre of a massive early-type strong-lens galaxy ESO286-G022 (SNL-1). Analysing new data obtained through the adaptive-optics-assisted Narrow-Field Mode of VLT/MUSE, we aim to measure the mass distribution and internal properties of SNL-1 at $\sim 50\ {\rm pc}$ resolution. In particular, we aim to address the tension in the reported IMF measurements of SNL-1 between strong-lens/dynamical and spectral-fitting techniques. We fit a triaxial orbital dynamical model to the measured stellar kinematics, including constraining the mass of the (resolved) central supermassive black-hole. The dynamical model is consistent with the mass-to-light ratio expected for a Kroupa-like IMF. We also employ a highly-flexible spectral-fitting technique, which instead favours a Salpeter-like IMF (low-mass slope $\alpha\approx 2.3$) over the same spatial region. To conclude, we discuss possible origins of this discrepancy, both intrinsic and technical.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01732 by Adriano Poci, Russell J. Smith.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: HST F814W image of SNL–1. Isophotes are shown as thin black lines. The solid black box shows the FoV of the MUSE NFM. The dashed white circle has a diameter of 1.25′′ , which is the region explored in this work. The blue and green dashed arcs demarcate REin and Re, respectively. SNL–1 exhibits flattened isophotes, though the effect of the dust lane is visible in the inner-most contour. as a strong-lens to … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: One-dimensional azimuthally-averaged brightness pro￾file of the model PSF. Black points show the PSF ‘image’ (the model provided by the MUSE ETC). The red solid line shows the MGE model fit to that image. The green points show the residuals of the fit (image − model/image), arbitrarily offset for presenta￾tion. The grey solid and dashed lines show the 0 and ±10% (on a linear axis) of the residuals, respect… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top: Synthetic HST F814W-band image of SNL–1. Multiple dusty structures are visible on the near side SNL–1. Bot￾tom: Identical image as above, but with the derived mask overlaid in green showing where dust has been detected, and subsequently removed. Overlaid in white is the circular FoV over which the spectroscopy is analysed in this work. of interesting and still-debated astrophysical processes. The cent… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pseudo-slit profiles of the stellar velocity (star sym￾bols) and velocity dispersion (cross symbols) for SNL–1. The pro￾files are extracted within pseudo-slits laid on the binned kinematic FoV (S/N = 40) with a width of ±0.2 ′′. Profiles are shown for major- (red) and minor- (black) axis slits. Shaded regions illus￾trate the mean measurement uncertainty of the kinematic fits in each region. corresponding b… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Subset of the parameter exploration for the Schwarzschild model of SNL–1. Points are coloured by relative goodness-of-fit as given by Eq. (1). Best-fit parameters are demarcated by solid brown lines. The panels show a subset of the total parameter-space explored, focusing on the low χ 2 region. The full parameter-space exploration is shown in Appendix C. for the number of Voronoi bins, Nobs = 179, the numb… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of changing the SMBH mass on the predicted stellar velocity dispersion. From left to right are the measured kinematics, the best-fit model, a model with an over-massive M•, and a model with an under-massive M•, given by adjacent steps in the parameter-space. The other parameters of the model are held fixed to the best-fit values. The impact of changing M• is seen clearly in the velocity dispersion, … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Minor-to-major axis ratio q against intermediate-to￾major axis ratio p, as a function of radius. The left and right extrema of the colourbar denote the FWHM of the PSF and max￾imum extent of the kinematics, respectively. The model extends beyond these bounds, but is unconstrained by the spectroscopy in those regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Orbital circularity λz as a function of time-averaged mean orbital radius, for the best-fit Schwarzschild model. Darker colours indicate higher contributions to the model. Horizontal dashed lines demarcate the orbital categories defined in Zhu et al. (2018), with corresponding labels on the right. MNRAS 000, i–xix (2024) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: SSP-equivalent mean stellar age (top) and mean stellar metallicity [Fe/H] (bottom) from alf. Right: The corre￾sponding 1σ uncertainties derived from the posteriors of the alf fit to each Voronoi bin. spatial location. The SSP-equivalent mean stellar age and mean stellar metallicity are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Elemental abundances as measured in alf. linearly from 0.05 − 0.30′′, according to distance from the galaxy centre. We then mask the wavelength regions corre￾sponding to the Hβ, [Oiii]5007+4959, Hα, and [Nii]6548+ 6584 emission lines, regardless of whether emission is de￾tected or not. This spectrum is then fit using simple stellar population spectral templates from Vazdekis et al. (2016), using multiplic… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Radial profiles of a number of stellar-population prop￾erties measured from alf; from top to bottom, SSP-equivalent mean stellar age, stellar metallicity [Fe/H], the individual ele￾mental abundances which were left free to vary, the low-mass IMF slope, and the M⋆/LF 814W . For every measured property, we re-created 2D maps by randomly sampling the posterior dis￾tributions of all spatial bins, and re-measu… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Gas velocities derived from the WFM and NFM observations. The left-most panel shows the WFM velocities as contours overlaid on the HST F814W image, while the colour map in the next shows more clearly the extent of the gas measurements. The third and fourth panels show the inner structures derived from the NFM data, and a comparison to the HST F336W, respectively. In each pair of panels, the velocity conto… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Left: Collapsed [Nii] emission line image (approxi￾mately corrected for Hα contamination), with velocity contours overlaid. Both fields have been smoothed to enhance visibility of the main structures. Right: the same after subtracting a simple elliptically-symmetric model, highlighting the spiral features. that it assembled very early, and its stellar populations have remained largely unchanged since. The… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · 9 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    D., Smith R

    Alton P. D., Smith R. J., Lucey J. R., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1242 , 478, 4464

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1242 2018

  2. [2]

    SPIE, pp 577--588, @doi 10.1117/12.790359

    Arsenault R., et al., 2008, in Adaptive Optics Systems . SPIE, pp 577--588, @doi 10.1117/12.790359

    doi:10.1117/12.790359 2008

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  4. [4]

    Athanassoula E., Bureau M., 1999, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/307677 , 522, 699

    work page doi:10.1086/307677 1999

  5. [5]

    SPIE, pp 131--139, @doi 10.1117/12.856027

    Bacon R., et al., 2010, in Ground-Based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III . SPIE, pp 131--139, @doi 10.1117/12.856027

    doi:10.1117/12.856027 2010

  6. [6]

    Barnab \`e M., Spiniello C., Koopmans L. V. E., Trager S. C., Czoske O., Treu T., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1727 , 436, 253

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1727 2013

  7. [7]

    R., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac3481 , 519, 688

    Bate M. R., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac3481 , 519, 688

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3481 2023

  8. [8]

    S., Smith K., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 , 13, 31

    Behnel S., Bradshaw R., Citro C., Dalcin L., Seljebotn D. S., Smith K., 2011, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118 , 13, 31

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2010.118 2011

  9. [9]

    J., et al., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20870.x , 422, 3574

    Brewer B. J., et al., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20870.x , 422, 3574

    arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    J., Katz H., Witten C., Saxena A., Laporte N., Bunker A

    Cameron A. J., Katz H., Witten C., Saxena A., Laporte N., Bunker A. J., 2023, Nebular Dominated Galaxies: Insights into the Stellar Initial Mass Function at High Redshift, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2311.02051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.02051 2023

  11. [11]

    400-410.] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05412.x , 333, 400

    Cappellari M., 2002, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 333, Issue 2, pp. 400-410.] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05412.x , 333, 400

    arXiv 2002

  12. [12]

    Cappellari M., 2016, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122432 , 54, 597

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122432 2016

  13. [13]

    Cappellari M., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 466, Issue 1, p.798-811] 10.1093/mnras/stw3020 , 466, 798

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3020 2017

  14. [14]

    345-354.] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x , 342, 345

    Cappellari M., Copin Y., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notice of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 342, Issue 2, pp. 345-354.] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x , 342, 345

    arXiv 2003

  15. [15]

    Cappellari M., Emsellem E., 2004, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/381875 , 116, 138

    doi:10.1086/381875 2004

  16. [16]

    Chabrier G., Hennebelle P., Charlot S., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/75 , 796, 75

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/75 2014

  17. [17]

    Initial mass function variability from the integrated light of diverse stellar systems

    Cheng C. M., Villaume A., Balogh M. L., Brodie J. P., Mart \'i n-Navarro I., Romanowsky A. J., van Dokkum P. G., 2023, Initial Mass Function Variability from the Integrated Light of Diverse Stellar Systems, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2309.14415

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.14415 2023

  18. [18]

    P., Smith R

    Collier W. P., Smith R. J., Lucey J. R., 2018a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2297 , 473, 1103

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2297

  19. [19]

    P., Smith R

    Collier W. P., Smith R. J., Lucey J. R., 2018b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1188 , 478, 1595

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1188

  20. [20]

    G., Villaume A., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6190 , 837, 166

    Conroy C., van Dokkum P. G., Villaume A., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6190 , 837, 166

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6190 2017

  21. [21]

    G., Lind K., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab49 , 854, 139

    Conroy C., Villaume A., van Dokkum P. G., Lind K., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab49 , 854, 139

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaab49 2018

  22. [22]

    A., McDermid R

    Davis T. A., McDermid R. M., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2366 , 464, 453

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2366 2017

  23. [23]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac600 , 512, 1522

    Davis T. A., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac600 , 512, 1522

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac600 2022

  24. [24]

    Deeley S., Drinkwater M., Sweet S., Bekki K., Couch W., Forbes D., 2023, The Formation Pathways of Compact Elliptical Galaxies, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2308.00305

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.00305 2023

  25. [25]

    Della Bruna L., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142315 , 660, A77

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142315 2022

  26. [26]

    A., Macci \`o A

    Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu742 , 441, 3359

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu742 2014

  27. [27]

    A., Mendel J

    Dutton A. A., Mendel J. T., Simard L., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01230.x , 422, L33

    arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Emsellem E., et al., 2022, arXiv:2110.03708 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    F \'e tick R. J. L., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935830 , 628, A99

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935830 2019

  30. [30]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  31. [31]

    A., Seidel M

    Gadotti D. A., Seidel M. K., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Husemann B., Coelho P., P \'e rez I., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526677 , 584, A90

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526677 2015

  32. [32]

    Gr \`e bol-Tom \`a s P., Ferr \'e -Mateu A., Dom \'i nguez-S \'a nchez H., 2023, Bridging the Gap in the Mass-Size Relation of Compact Galaxies with MaNGA , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2309.12394

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.12394 2023

  33. [33]

    E., Newman A

    Gu M., Greene J. E., Newman A. B., Kreisch C., Quenneville M. E., Ma C.-P., Blakeslee J. P., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac69ea , 932, 103

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac69ea 2022

  34. [34]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  35. [35]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering, vol

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 90-95] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  36. [36]

    S., Carignan C., Chemin L., Amram P., Epinat B., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv517 , 449, 4048

    Kam Z. S., Carignan C., Chemin L., Amram P., Epinat B., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv517 , 449, 4048

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv517 2015

  37. [37]

    S., Remus R.-S., Burkert A., Dolag K., Hoffmann T

    Karademir G. S., Remus R.-S., Burkert A., Dolag K., Hoffmann T. L., Moster B. P., Steinwandel U. P., Zhang J., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1251 , 487, 318

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1251 2019

  38. [38]

    C., 2013, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , 51, 511

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , 51, 511

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  39. [40]

    Kroupa P., 2001, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x , 322, 231

    arXiv 2001

  40. [41]

    Kroupa P., 2002, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1067524 , 295, 82

    doi:10.1126/science.1067524 2002

  41. [42]

    S., Peletier R

    La Barbera F., Vazdekis A., Ferreras I., Pasquali A., Allende Prieto C., R \"o ck B., Aguado D. S., Peletier R. F., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2407 , 464, 3597

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2407 2017

  42. [43]

    La Barbera F., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2192 , 489, 4090

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2192 2019

  43. [44]

    La Barbera F., Vazdekis A., Ferreras I., Pasquali A., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1136 , 505, 415

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1136 2021

  44. [45]

    A., Onishi K., Smith M., North E., Iguchi S., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1537 , 505, 4048

    Liu L., Bureau M., Blitz L., Davis T. A., Onishi K., Smith M., North E., Iguchi S., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1537 , 505, 4048

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1537 2021

  45. [46]

    Lu S., Zhu K., Cappellari M., Li R., Mao S., Xu D., 2023a, MaNGA DynPop -- II . Global Stellar Population, Gradients, and Star-Formation Histories from Integral-Field Spectroscopy of 10K Galaxies: Link with Galaxy Rotation, Shape, and Total-Density Gradients, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2304.11712

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.11712

  46. [47]

    Lu S., Zhu K., Cappellari M., Li R., Mao S., Xu D., 2023b, MaNGA DynPop -- V . The Dark-Matter Fraction versus Stellar Velocity Dispersion Relation and Initial Mass Function Variations: Dynamical Models and Full Spectrum Fitting of Integral-Field Spectroscopy, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2309.12395

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.12395

  47. [48]

    Lu A., et al., 2024, WISDOM Project XX -- Strong Shear Tearing Molecular Clouds Apart in NGC 524, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01291

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.01291 2024

  48. [49]

    Lyubenova M., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2434 , 463, 3220

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2434 2016

  49. [50]

    Martig M., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2729 , 508, 2458

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2729 2021

  50. [51]

    Mart \'i n-Navarro I., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/806/2/L31 , 806, L31

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/806/2/l31 2015

  51. [52]

    Mart \'i n-Navarro I., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935360 , 626, A124

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935360 2019

  52. [53]

    Mart \'i n-Navarro I., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141348 , 654, A59

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141348 2021

  53. [54]

    Massey R., Stoughton C., Leauthaud A., Rhodes J., Koekemoer A., Ellis R., Shaghoulian E., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15638.x , 401, 371

    arXiv 2010

  54. [55]

    J., Williams T

    Mitchell C. J., Williams T. B., Spekkens K., Lee-Waddell K., Kuzio de Naray R., Sellwood J. A., 2015, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/116 , 149, 116

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/116 2015

  55. [56]

    H., Ostriker J

    Naab T., Johansson P. H., Ostriker J. P., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L178 , 699, L178

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/l178 2009

  56. [57]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/177173 , 462, 563

    doi:10.1086/177173 1996

  57. [58]

    B., Smith R

    Newman A. B., Smith R. J., Conroy C., Villaume A., van Dokkum P., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa816d , 845, 157

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa816d 2017

  58. [59]

    P., Naab T., Johansson P

    Oser L., Ostriker J. P., Naab T., Johansson P. H., Burkert A., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2312 , 725, 2312

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/2312 2010

  59. [60]

    Parikh T., Saglia R., Thomas J., Mehrgan K., Bender R., Maraston C., 2024, Stellar Populations of Massive Early-Type Galaxies Observed by MUSE , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2402.06628

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.06628 2024

  60. [61]

    E., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 , 9, 21

    Perez F., Granger B. E., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 , 9, 21

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.53 2007

  61. [62]

    Pietrinferni A., Cassisi S., Salaris M., Castelli F., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/422498 , 612, 168

    doi:10.1086/422498 2004

  62. [63]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , 641, A6

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  63. [64]

    J., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac776 , 512, 5298

    Poci A., Smith R. J., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac776 , 512, 5298

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac776 2022

  64. [65]

    M., Zhu L., van de Ven G., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1154 , 487, 3776

    Poci A., McDermid R. M., Zhu L., van de Ven G., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1154 , 487, 3776

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1154 2019

  65. [66]

    Poci A., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1514 , 514, 3660

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1514 2022

  66. [67]

    Poci A., Smith R., Davis T., in prep

  67. [68]

    E., 1955, @doi [Astrophysical Journal, vol

    Salpeter E. E., 1955, @doi [Astrophysical Journal, vol. 121, p.161] 10.1086/145971 , 121, 161

    doi:10.1086/145971 1955

  68. [69]

    232, Aug

    Schwarzschild M., 1979, @doi [Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 232, Aug. 15, 1979, p. 236-247.] 10.1086/157282 , 232, 236

    doi:10.1086/157282 1979

  69. [70]

    Austin, Texas, pp 92--96, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011

    Seabold S., Perktold J., 2010, in Python in Science Conference . Austin, Texas, pp 92--96, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011

    doi:10.25080/majora-92bf1922-011 2010

  70. [71]

    J., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu082 , 443, L69

    Smith R. J., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu082 , 443, L69

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu082 2014

  71. [72]

    J., 2020, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-020217 , 58, 577

    Smith R. J., 2020, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-020217 , 58, 577

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-020217 2020

  72. [73]

    J., Lucey J

    Smith R. J., Lucey J. R., Conroy C., 2015a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv518 , 449, 3441

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv518

  73. [74]

    J., Alton P., Lucey J

    Smith R. J., Alton P., Lucey J. R., Conroy C., Carter D., 2015b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv132 , 454, L71

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv132

  74. [75]

    Sollima A., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2093 , 489, 2377

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2093 2019

  75. [76]

    A., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/518471 , 664, 204

    Spekkens K., Sellwood J. A., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/518471 , 664, 204

    doi:10.1086/518471 2007

  76. [77]

    Spiniello C., Koopmans L. V. E., Trager S. C., Czoske O., Treu T., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19458.x , 417, 3000

    arXiv 2011

  77. [78]

    INSPIRE: INvestigating Stellar Population In RElics V. A catalogue of ultra-compact massive galaxies outside the local Universe and their degree of relicness

    Spiniello C., et al., 2023, INSPIRE : INvestigating Stellar Population In RElics V . A Catalogue of Ultra-Compact Massive Galaxies Outside the Local Universe and Their Degree of Relicness, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2309.12966

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.12966 2023

  78. [79]

    SPIE, pp 1116--1126, @doi 10.1117/12.926110

    Str \"o bele S., et al., 2012, in Adaptive Optics Systems III . SPIE, pp 1116--1126, @doi 10.1117/12.926110

    doi:10.1117/12.926110 2012

  79. [80]

    P., Davies R

    Vaughan S. P., Davies R. L., Zieleniewski S., Houghton R. C. W., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx3199 , 475, 1073

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3199 2018

  80. [81]

    F., Beckman J

    Vazdekis A., Casuso E., Peletier R. F., Beckman J. E., 1996, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/192340 , 106, 307

    doi:10.1086/192340 1996

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.