arxiv: 2604.07297 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: no theorem link

Tracing the dynamical and structural complexity of spiral galaxy centres

Iris Breda , Glenn van de Ven , Sabine Thater , J. Falc\'on-Barroso , Prashin Jethwa , Masato Onodera , Joop Schaye , Jarle Brinchmann

show 2 more authors

Bodo Ziegler Federica Mauro

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords spiral galaxiesgalaxy centresstellar orbitsdynamical decompositionnuclear disksclassical bulgesintegral field spectroscopy

0 comments

The pith

Spiral galaxy centres exhibit diverse structures in their dynamically cold components rather than simple exponential profiles.

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

The authors examine the central regions of eight intermediate-to-massive spiral galaxies using high-resolution integral field spectroscopy. They separate the stellar orbits into cold, warm, hot, and counter-rotating groups to map the structure of the coldest parts. The analysis reveals that only one galaxy has a cold component following an exponential profile all the way in, while others show either a central drop like a doughnut or a much steeper compact inner disk. Galaxies with these nuclear disks tend to qualify as classical bulges with hot, old, red stars and high bulge-to-total light ratios. This finding indicates that centres of disk galaxies are more composite than assumed in standard photometric models that extrapolate the outer disk inwards.

Core claim

We uncovered remarkable structural diversity in the dynamically cold central component: one galaxy displays an exponential profile throughout, while the majority exhibit either a pronounced central drop resembling a doughnut-shaped structure or a compact inner disk significantly steeper than the outer disk. Most galaxies hosting nuclear disks are classifiable as classical bulges - hot, old, red, high bulge-to-total ratio.

What carries the argument

Orbit decomposition into cold, warm, hot, and counter-rotating components via photometric and dynamical modeling, which separates the contributions and reveals the true shape of the cold central structure.

If this is right

The total light beyond the bulge includes significant hot or counter-rotating orbits since cold plus warm fall short.
Sersic indexes for these orbital components are consistently above one.
Standard decomposition methods need to avoid inward extrapolation of the outer exponential disk.
Larger samples from integral field spectroscopy across mass ranges are required to understand these centres.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The diversity suggests that central structures in spirals arise from more varied processes than the classic versus pseudo-bulge dichotomy.
Testing the same decomposition on galaxy simulations could show which formation histories produce doughnut-like cold components.
If confirmed, this would mean nuclear disks are more common in galaxies with classical bulges than previously thought.

Load-bearing premise

The method used to decompose the stellar orbits into distinct cold, warm, hot, and counter-rotating populations accurately represents the actual dynamical makeup of the galaxies without major errors.

What would settle it

A survey of many more spiral galaxies finding that their dynamically cold central components mostly follow unbroken exponential profiles from the outer disk inward would disprove the reported structural diversity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07297 by Bodo Ziegler, Federica Mauro, Glenn van de Ven, Iris Breda, Jarle Brinchmann, J. Falc\'on-Barroso, Joop Schaye, Masato Onodera, Prashin Jethwa, Sabine Thater.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Surface brightness profiles of the cold (panels a and c) and cold plus warm (panels b and d) orbital components for the galaxy sample normalised by each galaxy’s best-fit exponential disk’s scale length and central surface brightness. Shaded regions indicate 1σ uncertainties, derived from models whose χ 2 values lie within 1σ of the best-fit solution. Each line is coloured according to total galaxy mass (r… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Panel (a): Relationship between M⋆,T and ⟨t⋆,B⟩M (large markers) and the parent disk (⟨t⋆,D⟩M, small markers). Panel (b): Comparison of M⋆,T and the mean age difference between bulge and disk components. In panel (b), the regions shaded blue and red depict the age difference between the hot and cold orbit components within the effective radius as a function of stellar mass for two different models, as d… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The formation of late-type galaxies has traditionally been described via two pathways: one producing pressure-supported classical bulges, the other rotationally supported pseudo-bulges. Early studies relied on photometric decompositions assuming an exponential disk extrapolated inwards. Recent high-resolution observations, however, reveal a far more complex landscape in disk galaxy centres. We investigated the morphology of central stellar components in intermediate-to-massive spiral galaxies, focusing on disentangling cold, warm, and hot orbital contributions, critically reassessing the standard approach of extrapolating the exponential disk profile inwards. We developed GLANCE (Galactic archaeoLogy via chronochemicAl and dyNamiCal modElling), a tool for photometric, chronochemical, and dynamical galaxy analysis, applied to 8 high-resolution MUSE galaxies to derive stellar population properties and decompose orbits into cold, warm, hot, and counter-rotating (CR) components. We uncovered remarkable structural diversity in the dynamically cold central component: one galaxy displays an exponential profile throughout, while the majority exhibit either a pronounced central drop resembling a doughnut-shaped structure or a compact inner disk significantly steeper than the outer disk. Most galaxies hosting nuclear disks are classifiable as classical bulges - hot, old, red, high bulge-to-total ratio - contrasting with galaxies showing a central cold-component deficit. Beyond the bulge, cold plus warm orbit contributions remain below the total, indicating non-negligible hot or CR orbits with S\'ersic indexes consistently above unity. These results highlight the composite nature of disk galaxy centres and the need for decomposition methods that avoid extrapolating the outer disk inwards, requiring large IFS samples across a broad mass range, complemented by simulations such as IllustrisTNG50.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

GLANCE orbit decomposition on 8 MUSE spirals shows cold central components often have doughnut drops or steep inner disks rather than exponentials, with nuclear disks tied to classical bulges, but the small sample and lack of robustness tests on the tool are the main limits.

read the letter

The main thing here is that the authors built GLANCE to combine photometry, stellar populations, and orbit decomposition, then ran it on eight high-resolution MUSE galaxies. They find the dynamically cold central component is rarely a simple inward extrapolation of the outer exponential; instead most show either a central drop that looks like a doughnut or a compact inner disk steeper than the outer one, and the galaxies with nuclear disks tend to have the hot, old, red, high B/T properties of classical bulges. Cold plus warm orbits also fall short of the total light, leaving room for hot and counter-rotating contributions with Sersic indices above 1. That is the concrete observational step beyond standard photometric splits. The work is useful because it gives specific examples of how centers are composite and why extrapolating the outer disk inward can miss the structure. The integration of chronochemical and dynamical information is a reasonable way to characterize the components. The soft spots are straightforward. With only eight galaxies the observed diversity could easily be selection-driven rather than representative of intermediate-to-massive spirals. The headline claims rest on GLANCE correctly isolating the cold orbit family without significant cross-contamination or sensitivity to the assumed potential and regularization choices, yet the stress-test note is accurate that no direct robustness checks against plausible modeling variations are described. That leaves moderate support for the structural conclusions until those checks are shown. This is for people who work with IFS data and think about bulge formation or galactic centers. A reader already using orbit modeling or MUSE-like datasets would pick up useful empirical cases, but the paper is not yet positioned for broad statements about galaxy populations. It deserves a serious referee because the data are real, the tool is new, and the topic is relevant, even if method validation and sample discussion will need attention in revision. Send it to peer review rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the GLANCE tool for combined photometric, chronochemical, and dynamical analysis of galaxies from MUSE IFS data. Applied to a sample of eight intermediate-to-massive spiral galaxies, it decomposes stellar orbits into cold, warm, hot, and counter-rotating families and reports substantial structural diversity in the dynamically cold central components (one continuous exponential profile; most showing central drops or steeper inner disks). Nuclear disks are found predominantly in hosts with classical-bulge properties (hot, old, red, high B/T), while cold+warm orbits fall short of the total light beyond the bulge, implying significant hot/CR contributions with Sérsic indices >1. The work argues against simple inward extrapolation of outer exponential disks and calls for larger IFS samples plus simulations.

Significance. If the GLANCE decomposition proves robust, the results usefully demonstrate that spiral-galaxy centers are more composite than traditional photometric decompositions suggest, with direct implications for bulge-formation pathways and the interpretation of nuclear disks. The integrated chronochemical-dynamical approach and the explicit contrast with outer-disk extrapolation are strengths; the explicit call for broader samples and IllustrisTNG50-style simulations is constructive.

major comments (2)

[GLANCE tool and orbit-decomposition section] The manuscript does not present quantitative validation (e.g., recovery tests on mock data with known orbit families or cross-checks against independent dynamical codes) of the GLANCE orbit decomposition. Because the headline claims of central structural diversity and the cold-component profiles rest on accurate separation of the cold family from warm/hot/CR orbits, the absence of such tests leaves open the possibility of significant cross-contamination driven by the assumed potential or regularization choices.
[Sample selection and results paragraphs] The sample comprises only eight galaxies. Statements that “the majority exhibit” central drops or steep inner disks and that “most galaxies hosting nuclear disks are classifiable as classical bulges” therefore cannot yet be taken as representative of the intermediate-to-massive spiral population; selection biases and the limited dynamic range in mass and morphology are not quantified.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that hot/CR orbits have “Sérsic indexes consistently above unity” without specifying the radial range used for the fit or the associated uncertainties; adding this detail would improve reproducibility.
[Figure captions and results section] Figure captions and text should explicitly state whether the plotted cold-component surface-density profiles include formal uncertainties or are shown only as point estimates.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and positive assessment of our work. We address each major comment below, indicating the revisions we will implement to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [GLANCE tool and orbit-decomposition section] The manuscript does not present quantitative validation (e.g., recovery tests on mock data with known orbit families or cross-checks against independent dynamical codes) of the GLANCE orbit decomposition. Because the headline claims of central structural diversity and the cold-component profiles rest on accurate separation of the cold family from warm/hot/CR orbits, the absence of such tests leaves open the possibility of significant cross-contamination driven by the assumed potential or regularization choices.

Authors: We agree that quantitative validation of the orbit decomposition is essential to support the claims regarding central structural diversity. The current manuscript relies on the established framework of Schwarzschild modeling with the chosen regularization, but does not include recovery tests. In the revised version we will add a new subsection presenting recovery experiments on mock MUSE-like data cubes with known input orbit families. These tests will quantify cross-contamination between cold, warm, hot and counter-rotating components as a function of assumed potential and regularization strength, and we will report the resulting uncertainties on the cold-component surface-density profiles. revision: yes
Referee: [Sample selection and results paragraphs] The sample comprises only eight galaxies. Statements that “the majority exhibit” central drops or steep inner disks and that “most galaxies hosting nuclear disks are classifiable as classical bulges” therefore cannot yet be taken as representative of the intermediate-to-massive spiral population; selection biases and the limited dynamic range in mass and morphology are not quantified.

Authors: We concur that a sample of eight galaxies precludes statistical claims about the broader population. Although the manuscript already calls for larger IFS samples, the phrasing in the abstract and results sections can be read as implying greater generality than intended. In the revision we will (i) replace unqualified statements such as “the majority exhibit” with explicit references to “the galaxies in our sample”, (ii) add a dedicated paragraph describing the selection function, mass and morphological range of the eight objects, and (iii) quantify the covered dynamic range in stellar mass and bulge-to-total ratio to make selection biases transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper develops the GLANCE tool for orbit decomposition and applies it directly to MUSE kinematic and population data for 8 galaxies. Central claims about cold-component profiles (exponential, central drop, or steep inner disk) and bulge classifications follow from these data-driven decompositions without reducing to self-definitions, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The abstract and description present results as outputs of the analysis rather than tautological restatements of inputs. This is self-contained against external benchmarks and matches the expected non-circular case for observational papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard domain assumptions in astrophysics and likely some fitted parameters in the custom GLANCE tool, but details are not available from the abstract alone.

free parameters (1)

Parameters in GLANCE tool for orbit decomposition
Likely includes fitted parameters for stellar populations and orbital weights, but not specified in abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Assumptions underlying stellar population synthesis and dynamical modeling in IFS data analysis
Standard in the field for deriving ages, metallicities, and orbital types from MUSE spectra.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5652 in / 1360 out tokens · 86210 ms · 2026-05-10T18:23:16.254562+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

A spectroscopic map of the Galactic centre: Integrated light and dynamical modelling
astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Triaxial dynamical modelling of the Galactic centre recovers the known mass of Sgr A* and shows the nuclear structures are mildly triaxial with radially varying orbit populations dominated by hot/warm orbits inside a ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

P., D \' az R

Ag \"u ero M. P., D \' az R. J., Dottori H., 2016, IJAA, 6, 219

work page 2016
[2]

E., Hernquist L., 1996, ApJ, 471, 115

Barnes J. E., Hernquist L., 1996, ApJ, 471, 115

work page 1996
[3]

A., Heiderman A., Gebhardt K., Evans N

Blanc G. A., Heiderman A., Gebhardt K., Evans N. J., Adams J., 2009, ApJ, 704, 842

work page 2009
[4]

A., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., Neumann J., Coelho P., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., et al., 2021, A&A, 646, A42

Bittner A., de Lorenzo-C \'a ceres A., Gadotti D. A., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., Neumann J., Coelho P., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., et al., 2021, A&A, 646, A42

work page 2021
[5]

J., Combes F., 2005, A&A, 437, 69

Bournaud F., Jog C. J., Combes F., 2005, A&A, 437, 69

work page 2005
[6]

& Papaderos, P

Breda, I. & Papaderos, P. 2018, A&A, 614, 48

work page 2018
[7]

Breda I., Papaderos, P., Gomes, J.M., V\'ilchez, J.M., Ziegler, B.L., et al., 2020a, A&A, 635, A177

work page
[8]

M., 2020, A&A, 640, A20

Breda I., Papaderos P., Gomes J. M., 2020, A&A, 640, A20

work page 2020
[9]

Breda I., Papaderos P., 2023, A&A, 669, A70

work page 2023
[10]

A., Onodera M., et al., 2024, A&A, 692, L10

Breda I., van de Ven G., Thater S., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Jethwa P., Gadotti D. A., Onodera M., et al., 2024, A&A, 692, L10

work page 2024
[11]

Breda I., van de Ven G., Thater S., Mauro F., Amarantidis S., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Jethwa P., et al., 2026, arXiv, arXiv:2602.20389 (accepted for publication on MNRAS)

work page arXiv 2026
[12]

Burkert A., Hensler G., 1987, MNRAS, 225, 21P

work page 1987
[13]

Cappellari M., 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

work page 2017
[14]

Cappellari M., Copin Y., 2003, MNRAS, 342, 345

work page 2003
[15]

M., 2011, ascl.soft

Cid Fernandes R., Mateus A., Sodr \'e L., Stasinska G., Gomes J. M., 2011, ascl.soft. ascl:1108.006

work page 2011
[16]

& Fisher, D., 2007, ApJ, 664, 640

Drory, N. & Fisher, D., 2007, ApJ, 664, 640

work page 2007
[17]

C., Debattista V

Du M., Ho L. C., Debattista V. P., Pillepich A., Nelson D., Zhao D., Hernquist L., 2020, ApJ, 895, 139

work page 2020
[18]

C., Debattista V

Du M., Ho L. C., Debattista V. P., Pillepich A., Nelson D., Hernquist L., Weinberger R., 2021, ApJ, 919, 135. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e98

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e98 2021
[19]

P., Fabricius M., Thomas J., Nowak N., Rusli S., Bender R., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 446, 4039

Erwin P., Saglia R. P., Fabricius M., Thomas J., Nowak N., Rusli S., Bender R., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 446, 4039

work page 2015
[20]

H., Saglia R

Fabricius M. H., Saglia R. P., Fisher D. B., Drory N., Bender R., Hopp U., 2012, ApJ, 754, 67

work page 2012
[21]

A., et al., 2022, A&A, 659, A191

Emsellem E., Schinnerer E., Santoro F., Belfiore F., Pessa I., McElroy R., Blanc G. A., et al., 2022, A&A, 659, A191

work page 2022
[22]

Falc \'o n-Barroso J., 2016, ASSL, 418, 161

work page 2016
[23]

2014, ApJL, 788, L39

Fern\'andez Lorenzo, M., Sulentic, J., Verdes-Montenegro, L., et al. 2014, ApJL, 788, L39

work page 2014
[24]

& Drory, N., 2011, ApJ, 716, 942

Fisher, D. & Drory, N., 2011, ApJ, 716, 942

work page 2011
[25]

& Drory, N., 2011, ApJL, 733, L47

Fisher, D. & Drory, N., 2011, ApJL, 733, L47

work page 2011
[26]

B., Drory N., 2016, ASSL, 418, 41

Fisher D. B., Drory N., 2016, ASSL, 418, 41

work page 2016
[27]

A., 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1531

Gadotti, D. A., 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1531

work page 2009
[28]

A., 2011, ApJL, 743, L13

Coelho P., Gadotti D. A., 2011, ApJL, 743, L13

work page 2011
[29]

A., Bittner A., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., M \'e ndez-Abreu J., Kim T., Fragkoudi F., de Lorenzo-C \'a ceres A., et al., 2020, A&A, 643, A14

Gadotti D. A., Bittner A., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., M \'e ndez-Abreu J., Kim T., Fragkoudi F., de Lorenzo-C \'a ceres A., et al., 2020, A&A, 643, A14

work page 2020
[30]

A., de S \'a -Freitas C., 2025, MNRAS, 544, L58

Gadotti D. A., de S \'a -Freitas C., 2025, MNRAS, 544, L58

work page 2025
[31]

A., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Husemann B., Seidel M

Gadotti D. A., S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez P., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Husemann B., Seidel M. K., P \'e rez I., de Lorenzo-C \'a ceres A., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 482, 506

work page 2019
[32]

P., Rosales-Ortega F

Galbany L., Anderson J. P., Rosales-Ortega F. F., Kuncarayakti H., Kr \"u hler T., S \'a nchez S. F., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4087

work page 2016
[33]

C., Barth A

Gao H., Ho L. C., Barth A. J., Li Z.-Y., 2020, ApJS, 247, 20

work page 2020
[34]

Gomes, J. M. & Papaderos, P., 2016, A&A, 594, A49

work page 2016
[35]

Gomes, J. M. & Papaderos, P., 2017, A&A, 603, A63, ESA SP-402. European Space Agency , Noordwijk , p. 621

work page 2017
[36]

Hu J., Wang L., Ge J., Zhu K., Zeng G., 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4565

work page 2024
[37]

Hu J., Cui Q., Wang L., Pei W., Ge J., 2024, A&A, 691, A125

work page 2024
[38]

F., Niemi S.-M., den Brok M., et al., 2012, ApJL, 745, L24

Janz J., Laurikainen E., Lisker T., Salo H., Peletier R. F., Niemi S.-M., den Brok M., et al., 2012, ApJL, 745, L24

work page 2012
[39]

F., Niemi S.-M., Toloba E., et al., 2014, ApJ, 786, 105

Janz J., Laurikainen E., Lisker T., Salo H., Peletier R. F., Niemi S.-M., Toloba E., et al., 2014, ApJ, 786, 105

work page 2014
[40]

F., Emsellem E., Lisker T., van de Ven G., et al., 2015, ApJ, 799, 172

Toloba E., Guhathakurta P., Boselli A., Peletier R. F., Emsellem E., Lisker T., van de Ven G., et al., 2015, ApJ, 799, 172

work page 2015
[41]

Jin Y., Zhu L., Zibetti S., Costantin L., van de Ven G., Mao S., 2024, A&A, 681, A95

work page 2024
[42]

Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., & Guiderdoni, B.\ 1993, MNRAS, 264, 201

work page 1993
[43]

Kormendy, J., 1977, ApJ, 217, 406

work page 1977
[44]

Kormendy J., 2013, seg..book, 1

work page 2013
[45]

C., 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603

Kormendy J., Kennicutt R. C., 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603

work page 2004
[46]

S., Larson R., 1974, MNRAS, 166, 585

Lang P., Wuyts S., Somerville R. S., Larson R., 1974, MNRAS, 166, 585

work page 1974
[47]

Larson, R., 1974, MNRAS, 166, 585

work page 1974
[48]

Lin L., Li C., He Y., Xiao T., Wang E., 2017, ApJ, 838, 105

work page 2017
[49]

2016, MNRAS, 461, 2728

Margalef-Bentabol, B., Conselice, C., Mortlock, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2728

work page 2016
[50]

2018, , 473, 5370

Margalef-Bentabol, B., Conselice, C., Mortlock, A., et al. 2018, , 473, 5370

work page 2018
[51]

P., Corsini E

M \'e ndez-Abreu J., Debattista V. P., Corsini E. M., Aguerri J. A. L., 2014, A&A, 572, A25

work page 2014
[52]

Nogueras-Lara F., 2022, A&A, 668, L8

work page 2022
[53]

C., Gadotti D

Nogueras-Lara F., Schultheis M., Najarro F., Sormani M. C., Gadotti D. A., Rich R. M., 2023, A&A, 671, L10

work page 2023
[54]

Obreja, A., Dom\' i nguez-Tenreiro, R., Brook, C., Mart\' i nez-Serrano, F.J., Dom\' e nech-Moral, M., et al. 2013. ApJ 763, 26

work page 2013
[55]

L., Pappalardo C., 2022, A&A, 658, A74

Papaderos P., Breda I., Humphrey A., Michel Gomes J., Ziegler B. L., Pappalardo C., 2022, A&A, 658, A74

work page 2022
[56]

Quilley L., de Lapparent V., 2023, A&A, 680, A49

work page 2023
[57]

Reiter S., Jethwa P., van de Ven G., Thater S., Leaman R., 2025, A&A, 701, A12

work page 2025
[58]

Santucci G., Lagos C. D. P., Harborne K. E., Derkenne C., Poci A., Thater S., McDermid R. M., et al., 2024, MNRAS, 534, 502

work page 2024
[59]

F., Garc \' a-Benito R., Zibetti S., Walcher C

S \'a nchez S. F., Garc \' a-Benito R., Zibetti S., Walcher C. J., Husemann B., Mendoza M. A., Galbany L., et al., 2016, A&A, 594, A36

work page 2016
[60]

Schey L., Heidt J., Pramskiy A., Thompson D., Agapito G., Esposito S., Gredel R., et al., 2023, AN, 344, e20230094

work page 2023
[61]

C., Gadotti D

Schultheis M., Sormani M. C., Gadotti D. A., 2025, A&ARv, 33, 7

work page 2025
[62]

Schultheis M., Serrano L., Thorsbro B., Nogueras-Lara F., Feldmeier-Krause A., Nandakumar G., Fiteni K., et al., 2026, A&A, 705, A235

work page 2026
[63]

L., 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia, vol.6, p.41

S\' e rsic, J. L., 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia, vol.6, p.41

work page 1963
[64]

& Hernquist L., 2005, ApJ, 622, L9

Springel V. & Hernquist L., 2005, ApJ, 622, L9

work page 2005
[65]

Thater S., Jethwa P., Tahmasebzadeh B., Zhu L., den Brok M., Santucci G., Ding Y., et al., 2022, A&A, 667, A51

work page 2022
[66]

D., van de Ven G., 2023, A&A, 675, A18

Thater S., Lyubenova M., Fahrion K., Mart \' n-Navarro I., Jethwa P., Nguyen D. D., van de Ven G., 2023, A&A, 675, A18

work page 2023
[67]

Tempel E., Kipper R., Tamm A., Gramann M., Einasto M., Sepp T., Tuvikene T., 2016, A&A, 588, A14

work page 2016
[68]

& Davies, R., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 510

Thomas, D. & Davies, R., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 510

work page 2006
[69]

Wang L., Wang L., Li C., Hu J., Mo H., Wang H., 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3865

work page 2019
[70]

Zoccali, M., Lecureur, A., Barbuy, B., et al.\ 2006, A&A, 457, L1

work page 2006
[71]

E., Martig M., et al., 2018b, MNRAS, 473, 3000

Zhu L., van den Bosch R., van de Ven G., Lyubenova M., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Meidt S. E., Martig M., et al., 2018b, MNRAS, 473, 3000

work page