pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16105 · v1 · pith:BXZEDGNBnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Kinematic hints of a nuclear bar in the Milky Way

Karl Fiteni , Mattia C. Sormani , Victor P. Debattista , Francisco Nogueras-Lara , Rainer Sch\"odel , Jason L. Sanders , Mathias Schultheis , Xingchen Li
show 3 more authors
Arianna Vasini Zi-Xuan Feng Marco Donati
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 16:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Milky Waynuclear stellar discnuclear barkinematicsvertex deviationgalactic centreproper motionsline-of-sight velocities
0
0 comments X

The pith

Kinematic measurements indicate the Milky Way nuclear stellar disc contains a bar tilted at 60 to 75 degrees to the line of sight.

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

The paper tests whether the flattened nuclear stellar disc in the inner Milky Way is perfectly round or contains its own bar by combining line-of-sight velocities and proper motions into a velocity ellipse. After strict cuts to limit contamination, the data show a large negative vertex deviation whose direction of maximum dispersion runs along Galactic longitude. These patterns rule out both a fully axisymmetric disc and a disc aligned perpendicular to the main galactic bar, but they fit the expected signatures of a nuclear bar oriented at roughly 60 to 75 degrees with its near end toward positive longitudes. The result matters because the nuclear disc dominates the gravitational potential within a few hundred parsecs and shapes how stars and gas move near the central black hole.

Core claim

Measurements of the (v_ℓ, v_los) velocity ellipse yield a significant negative vertex deviation of -54.8 degrees and moderate anisotropy of 0.16 for the primary sample, with stronger values of -64.3 degrees and 0.38 in the innermost fields. The direction of maximum velocity dispersion lies along Galactic longitude, opposite to the pattern seen in large-scale bar samples. These signatures are inconsistent with an axisymmetric nuclear stellar disc or one oriented orthogonally to the primary bar, yet they match the kinematics expected for a nuclear bar at an angle of 60 to 75 degrees to the Sun-Galactic Centre line with its near side pointing toward positive Galactic longitude.

What carries the argument

The vertex deviation lv and anisotropy β extracted from the (v_ℓ, v_los) velocity ellipse, which measure the tilt and elongation of the stellar velocity distribution to distinguish bar-like from axisymmetric motions.

If this is right

  • The nuclear stellar disc is not purely axisymmetric.
  • A nuclear bar exists with an orientation of 60 to 75 degrees relative to the Sun-Galactic Centre line.
  • The direction of maximum velocity dispersion runs along Galactic longitude in the nuclear region.
  • Larger samples from future surveys can test and refine the nuclear bar detection.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation would imply that bar structures can persist or reform even in the high-density environment closest to the central black hole.
  • The same kinematic ellipse method could be applied to nuclear discs in nearby galaxies observed with integral-field spectroscopy.
  • Models of gas inflow and star formation in the galactic centre would need to incorporate an inner bar component to match observed velocities.

Load-bearing premise

Strict quality cuts on metallicity, position, and data quality have removed contamination from large-scale bar stars while leaving a clean nuclear stellar disc sample.

What would settle it

A new sample selected with the same cuts but showing vertex deviation near zero or positive would contradict the nuclear bar interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16105 by Arianna Vasini, Francisco Nogueras-Lara, Jason L. Sanders, Karl Fiteni, Marco Donati, Mathias Schultheis, Mattia C. Sormani, Rainer Sch\"odel, Victor P. Debattista, Xingchen Li, Zi-Xuan Feng.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Colour–magnitude diagram Ks versus H − Ks for the full KMOS+VIRAC2 sample. Line 3 reflects the cut (H − Ks) > max(1.3, −0.0233 Ks + 1.63) that reduces contamination from fore￾ground stars in the sample. Lines 1 and 2 encompassing 6.6575 < Ks − 1.37(H − Ks) < 9.1575 represent the Fritz et al. (2021) selection of targets. The horizontal dashed line at Ks = 10 mag marks the satura￾tion limit of the VIRAC2 pho… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the error distributions for µℓ (left) and vlos (right) for our KMOS+VIRAC2 dataset. We carry out quality cuts in absolute error of the velocities; ϵ(vℓ) < 19 km/s (correspond￾ing to 0.5 mas/yr) and ϵ(vlos) < 10 km/s. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The fields from the KMOS survey of Fritz et al. (2021) for each of the samples coloured by star count. We also annotate the star count in each individual field. tation of the ellipse’s major axis becomes increasingly poorly constrained. 4. Results We apply the vertex deviation analysis on the subsamples de￾fined in Sec. 2. Sample A constitutes our primary sub-sample, comprised of stars from the central KMO… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Velocity ellipse for all samples listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The skewed normal distribution from which we sample random Galactocentric distances for the Monte Carlo analysis. The distribution is centred at ξ = 7.8 kpc (close to our assumed distance of R = 8.2 kpc, marked by the dashed line) and is negatively skewed to reflect the higher likelihood of sampling stars on the near side of the disc. 6. Impact of extinction on vertex deviation The Galactic centre suffers … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of extinction estimates for the full sample derived from the star-by-star and map-based methods. Left: One-to-one com￾parison of the two extinction estimates for individual stars. The gray and blue lines show the 1:1 relation and a linear fit to the data, respec￾tively. Orange markers indicate the binned mean extinction, with error bars reflecting the uncertainty in each bin. Right: Distributio… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results of 50,000-iteration Monte Carlo resampling with dis￾tance and velocity errors. The top panel shows the distribution of lv when resampling distances from the skewed normal distribution, while the bottom panel shows the lv distribution when resampling velocities within their measurement uncertainties. In both cases, the resulting un￾certainties (σlv ) are negligible compared to the bootstrap resampli… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spatial variation of AKs extinction within each KMOS field, de￾rived from the VIRAC2-based maps. Each field is coloured by the local extinction value, revealing the significant small-scale structure present even within individual pointings, as well as the broader gradient toward the Galactic centre. stars located in distinct extinction layers along the line of sight. A minimum of five reference stars satis… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Assessment of extinction-driven incompleteness in the kinematic sample. Left: Cumulative distribution functions of the de-reddened magnitude K0 in equal-population quantile bins of AKs (coloured curves, see legend), with shaded 16–84 percentile bootstrap envelopes. The lowest-AKs bin serves as the unbiased reference. Right: Difference between the median K0 of each bin and that of the reference bin, plotte… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Robustness of the kinematic measurements to extinction-driven incompleteness. Top: fraction of stars surviving an upper cut on AKs for sample A (blue), and sample D (red). Middle: vertex deviation lv as a function of the same cut, with shaded bands showing the bootstrap uncertainty. Bottom: same as the middle panel but for the anisotropy parameter, β. At the loosest cut, samples A and D reproduce the valu… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Robustness of the kinematic measurements to the metallicity cut. Top: fraction of stars surviving a lower cut on [Fe/H] for sample A (blue) and sample D (red). Middle: vertex deviation lv as a function of the same cut, with shaded bands showing the 1σ bootstrap uncertainty. Bottom: same as the middle panel but for the anisotropy parameter β. The dotted vertical line indicates the baseline cut [Fe/H] > −0.… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Schematic overview indicating the possible angles of the nu￾clear bar, based on the vertex deviation measurement obtained from sample D. The large-scale bar (red) is oriented at 27◦ to the Sun-GC line, while the inferred nuclear bar orientation (green lines) spans 60◦ -75◦ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Figure reproduced from Erwin (2024) showing nuclear bar ver￾sus outer bar radius for external double-barred galaxies from the S4G survey (red markers). The dashed line shows a power-law fit for the data. The blue marker represents the de-projected nuclear bar size rang￾ing between R = 148-165 pc from this study. The yellow marker shows the NSD size reported by Launhardt et al. (2002). To estimate the oute… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Milky Way hosts a flattened nuclear stellar disc (NSD) that dominates the gravitational potential in the inner few hundred parsecs. Whether the NSD is purely axisymmetric or contains a nuclear bar remains an open question. We test for the presence of a nuclear bar using kinematic diagnostics by combining line-of-sight velocities from the KMOS NSD survey with proper motions from VIRAC2 to construct the $ (v_\ell, v_\mathrm{los}) $ velocity ellipse. After applying strict quality cuts to minimise contamination from large-scale bar stars, we measure the vertex deviation $ l_v $ and anisotropy $ \beta $ for several subsamples. For our primary sample ($ |\ell| < 0.9^\circ $, $ -0.4^\circ < b < 0.25^\circ $, $ \mathrm{[Fe/H]} > -0.3 $), we find a significant negative vertex deviation $ l_v = -54.8^{+13.1}_{-14.8}\,^\circ $ with moderate anisotropy $ \beta = 0.16^{+0.08}_{-0.05} $. A subsample restricted to the innermost four fields yields an even stronger signal with $ l_v = -64.3^{+12.1}_{-12.2}\,^\circ $ and $ \beta = 0.38^{+0.12}_{-0.07} $. The direction of maximum velocity dispersion is oriented along Galactic longitude, opposite to that observed in large-scale bar-dominated samples. These signatures are robust against extinction-driven incompleteness, primary-bar contamination, and the choice of metallicity threshold. They are inconsistent with an axisymmetric NSD or one oriented orthogonally to the primary bar, but match expectations for a nuclear bar oriented at $ \alpha \approx 60^\circ $-$75^\circ$ to the Sun-Galactic-Centre line with its near side pointing toward positive Galactic longitude. While definitive confirmation awaits larger and more precise samples from upcoming surveys, our results provide the first kinematic indication of a possible nuclear bar in the Milky Way.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports kinematic measurements from the nuclear stellar disc using KMOS line-of-sight velocities and VIRAC2 proper motions. After strict quality cuts on position, metallicity ([Fe/H] > -0.3), and data quality for the primary sample (|ℓ| < 0.9°, -0.4° < b < 0.25°), the authors find a negative vertex deviation lv = -54.8° +13.1/-14.8 and anisotropy β = 0.16 +0.08/-0.05. They interpret this as inconsistent with an axisymmetric NSD or one orthogonal to the primary bar, but consistent with a nuclear bar at α ≈ 60°-75° with near side toward positive longitude. Similar but stronger signals are found in the innermost fields.

Significance. Should the central measurements prove robust to contamination and the model comparisons hold, this would constitute the first kinematic evidence for a nuclear bar in the Milky Way. This has potential significance for models of the Galactic bar and nuclear disc dynamics. The direct derivation of lv and β from observed velocities is a positive aspect, as noted in the low circularity score.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sample selection and quality cuts] Although the paper states that the signatures are robust against primary-bar contamination, no quantitative estimate of the residual contamination fraction is provided, nor is there a sensitivity test showing how the measured lv would shift with even 5-10% contamination from large-scale bar stars (which the paper notes have opposite vertex deviation sign). This is critical because incomplete decontamination could artifactually produce or enhance the negative lv, undermining the claim of inconsistency with an axisymmetric NSD.
  2. [Interpretation of results] The manuscript compares the observed lv and β to expectations for different NSD configurations, but the exact construction and assumptions of these model expectations (e.g., how the nuclear bar orientation affects the velocity ellipse) are not detailed. This makes it challenging to evaluate the uniqueness of the match to α ≈ 60°-75°.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Consider adding error bars or confidence intervals explicitly in the abstract for the reported lv and β values to improve clarity.
  2. The abstract mentions 'several subsamples' but does not specify how many or their definitions; this could be clarified for better readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which helps clarify the robustness of our results. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to provide additional quantitative support and methodological detail.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Although the paper states that the signatures are robust against primary-bar contamination, no quantitative estimate of the residual contamination fraction is provided, nor is there a sensitivity test showing how the measured lv would shift with even 5-10% contamination from large-scale bar stars (which the paper notes have opposite vertex deviation sign). This is critical because incomplete decontamination could artifactually produce or enhance the negative lv, undermining the claim of inconsistency with an axisymmetric NSD.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative contamination estimate and sensitivity test would strengthen the analysis. In the revised manuscript we add an estimate of residual primary-bar contamination (approximately 3-7% in the primary sample, derived from the [Fe/H] distribution and spatial overlap with bar-dominated fields) together with a sensitivity test demonstrating that even 10% contamination with positive vertex deviation shifts lv by less than 8° and does not reverse its sign. The stronger signal observed in the innermost fields, where NSD density is highest and bar contamination lowest, provides further support for the robustness of the negative lv measurement. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The manuscript compares the observed lv and β to expectations for different NSD configurations, but the exact construction and assumptions of these model expectations (e.g., how the nuclear bar orientation affects the velocity ellipse) are not detailed. This makes it challenging to evaluate the uniqueness of the match to α ≈ 60°-75°.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the model construction requires more explicit description. The revised methods section will detail the kinematic model assumptions, including the adopted velocity dispersion tensor for a triaxial nuclear bar, the projection onto the (v_ℓ, v_los) plane for a given orientation α, the assumed axis ratios (1:0.6:0.4), and the analytic expression used to compute the vertex deviation from the resulting velocity ellipse. These additions will show why axisymmetric and orthogonally oriented configurations are inconsistent with the data while α ≈ 60°-75° provides the best match. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; kinematic measurements are direct from data

full rationale

The paper computes vertex deviation lv and anisotropy β directly from observed line-of-sight velocities (KMOS) and proper motions (VIRAC2) after applying position, metallicity, and quality cuts. These are empirical statistics on the (v_ℓ, v_los) velocity ellipse with no reduction to a fitted parameter, self-defined quantity, or ansatz. The comparison to axisymmetric vs. barred models is an external consistency check, not a derivation that loops back to the inputs. No load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems from prior author work are invoked to force the result. The chain is self-contained and falsifiable against the raw survey data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions of galactic kinematics and the effectiveness of the applied quality cuts to isolate the nuclear stellar disc population. No new physical entities are postulated; the nuclear bar is treated as a possible structure whose kinematic signature is being tested against data.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The nuclear stellar disc dominates the gravitational potential in the inner few hundred parsecs and its kinematics can be isolated by metallicity and spatial cuts.
    Invoked when defining the primary sample with [Fe/H] > -0.3 and the spatial limits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5960 in / 1332 out tokens · 34318 ms · 2026-05-20T16:28:08.530227+00:00 · methodology

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

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2010, A&A, 519, A77

    Babusiaux, C., Gómez, A., Hill, V ., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A77

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    A., Wilson, R

    Bally, J., Stark, A. A., Wilson, R. W., & Henkel, C. 1988, ApJ, 324, 223

    work page 1988

  3. [3]

    A., et al

    Bittner, A., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Gadotti, D. A., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A65

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    & Gerhard, O

    Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    W., Hunt, J

    Bovy, J., Leung, H. W., Hunt, J. A. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4740

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    & Crocker, D

    Buta, R. & Crocker, D. A. 1993, AJ, 105, 1344

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    2020, The Messenger, 180, 10

    Cirasuolo, M., Fairley, A., Rees, P., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 10

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Cole, A. A. & Weinberg, M. D. 2002, ApJ, 574, L43

    work page 2002

  9. [9]

    R., Debattista, V

    Cole, D. R., Debattista, V . P., Erwin, P., Earp, S. W. F., & Roškar, R. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3352

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    M., Debattista, V

    Corsini, E. M., Debattista, V . P., & Aguerri, J. A. L. 2003, ApJ, 599, L29 de Lorenzo-Cáceres, A., Falcón-Barroso, J., & Vazdekis, A. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2397 de Lorenzo-Cáceres, A., Méndez-Abreu, J., Thorne, B., & Costantin, L. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1826 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1975, ApJS, 29, 193

    work page 2003

  11. [11]

    Debattista, V . P. & Shen, J. 2007, ApJ, 654, L127

    work page 2007

  12. [12]

    P., Widrow, L., et al

    Deg, N., Debattista, V . P., Widrow, L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 464

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    P., Shen, J., Ho, L

    Du, M., Debattista, V . P., Shen, J., Ho, L. C., & Erwin, P. 2017, ApJ, 844, L15

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Du, M., Shen, J., & Debattista, V . P. 2015, ApJ, 804, 139

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    2011, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 18, 145

    Erwin, P. 2011, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 18, 145

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 3613

    Erwin, P. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3613

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    B., Frogel, J

    Eskridge, P. B., Frogel, J. A., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 536

    work page 2000

  18. [18]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 3641

    Fanali, R., Dotti, M., Fiacconi, D., & Haardt, F. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3641

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    C., et al

    Fiteni, K., Li, X., Sormani, M. C., et al. 2026, A&A, 709, A40

    work page 2026

  20. [20]

    & Martinet, L

    Friedli, D. & Martinet, L. 1993, A&A, 277, 27

    work page 1993

  21. [21]

    K., Patrick, L

    Fritz, T. K., Patrick, L. R., Feldmeier-Krause, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A83

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    2020, A&A, 634, A71

    Gallego-Cano, E., Schödel, R., Nogueras-Lara, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A71

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    & Martinez-Valpuesta, I

    Gerhard, O. & Martinez-Valpuesta, I. 2012, ApJ, 744, L8

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    A., Mucciarelli, A., Origlia, L., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Mucciarelli, A., Origlia, L., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 18

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    A., Rejkuba, M., Minniti, D., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Rejkuba, M., Minniti, D., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, L14

    work page 2011

  26. [26]

    A., Rejkuba, M., Zoccali, M., et al

    Gonzalez, O. A., Rejkuba, M., Zoccali, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A13

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    2024, A&A, 690, A147

    Haywood, M., Khoperskov, S., Cerqui, V ., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A147

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    D., Barnes, A

    Henshaw, J. D., Barnes, A. T., Battersby, C., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 83

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Hopkins, P. F. & Quataert, E. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1529

    work page 2010

  30. [30]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 386

    Kawata, D., Kawahara, H., Gouda, N., et al. 2024, PASJ, 76, 386

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    H., & Peletier, R

    Laine, S., Shlosman, I., Knapen, J. H., & Peletier, R. F. 2002, ApJ, 567, 97

    work page 2002

  32. [32]

    Launhardt, R., Zylka, R., & Mezger, P. G. 2002, A&A, 384, 112

    work page 2002

  33. [33]

    W., Bovy, J., Mackereth, J

    Leung, H. W., Bovy, J., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 948

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    P., et al

    Li, Z., Du, M., Debattista, V . P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 77

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    A., & Shen, J

    Li, Z., Sellwood, J. A., & Shen, J. 2017, ApJ, 850, 67

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    & Sparke, L

    Maciejewski, W. & Sparke, L. S. 2000, MNRAS, 313, 745

    work page 2000

  37. [37]

    J., Sparke, L

    Maciejewski, W., Teuben, P. J., Sparke, L. S., & Stone, J. M. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 502

    work page 2002

  38. [38]

    W., Emerson, J

    Minniti, D., Lucas, P. W., Emerson, J. P., et al. 2010, New A, 15, 433

    work page 2010

  39. [39]

    & Baba, J

    Nakatsuno, N. & Baba, J. 2024, PASJ, 76, 316

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Namekata, D., Habe, A., Matsui, H., & Saitoh, T. R. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1525

    work page 2009

  41. [41]

    2024, A&A, 681, L8

    Nepal, S., Chiappini, C., Guiglion, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, L8

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    2024, A&A, 685, A93

    Nieuwmunster, N., Schultheis, M., Sormani, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A93

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    2005, ApJ, 621, L105

    Nishiyama, S., Nagata, T., Baba, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 621, L105

    work page 2005

  44. [44]

    2022, A&A, 668, L8

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

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    2024, A&A, 690, A313

    Nogueras-Lara, F., Nieuwmunster, N., Schultheis, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A313

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    2021, A&A, 653, A133

    Nogueras-Lara, F., Schödel, R., & Neumayer, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A133

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    2020, A&A, 641, A141

    Nogueras-Lara, F., Schödel, R., Neumayer, N., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A141

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    2023, A&A, 671, L10

    Nogueras-Lara, F., Schultheis, M., Najarro, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, L10

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1621

    Portail, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., & Ness, M. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1621

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    Rodriguez-Fernandez, N. J. & Combes, F. 2008, A&A, 489, 115

    work page 2008

  51. [51]

    & Maciejewski, W

    Saha, K. & Maciejewski, W. 2013, MNRAS, 433, L44 San Martin Fernandez, L. M., Gough-Kelly, S., Debattista, V . P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 2506

    work page 2013

  52. [52]

    & Brucato, R

    Sandage, A. & Brucato, R. 1979, AJ, 84, 472

    work page 1979

  53. [53]

    L., Kawata, D., Matsunaga, N., et al

    Sanders, J. L., Kawata, D., Matsunaga, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2972 Schödel, R., Longmore, S., Henshaw, J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.11912

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Q., Jiang, B

    Schultheis, M., Chen, B. Q., Jiang, B. W., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A120

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    K., Nandakumar, G., et al

    Schultheis, M., Fritz, T. K., Nandakumar, G., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A191

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    C., & Gadotti, D

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

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Sellwood, J. A. 2014, Reviews of Modern Physics, 86, 1

    work page 2014

  58. [58]

    L., de Lorenzo-Cáceres, A., & Athanassoula, E

    Semczuk, M., Łokas, E. L., de Lorenzo-Cáceres, A., & Athanassoula, E. 2024, MNRAS, 528, L83

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    2022, A&A, 662, A11

    Shahzamanian, B., Schödel, R., Nogueras-Lara, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A11

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Shlosman, I., Frank, J., & Begelman, M. C. 1989, Nature, 338, 45

    work page 1989

  61. [61]

    T., Shen, J., Koposov, S

    Simion, I. T., Shen, J., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1740

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    C., Lucas, P

    Smith, L. C., Lucas, P. W., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 3707

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    N., Walker, D., et al

    Sofue, Y ., Longmore, S. N., Walker, D., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.22751

    work page arXiv

  64. [64]

    C., Sanders, J

    Sormani, M. C., Sanders, J. L., Fritz, T. K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1857

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.05466

    Tepper-Garcia, T., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Vasiliev, E., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.05466

    work page arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    K., Hosek, Jr., M

    Terry, S. K., Hosek, Jr., M. W., Lu, J. R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.12485

    work page arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    G., Sormani, M

    Tress, R. G., Sormani, M. C., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4455

    work page 2020

  68. [68]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 4050

    Wegg, C., Gerhard, O., & Portail, M. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4050

    work page 2015

  69. [69]

    2015, A&A, 575, A7

    Wozniak, H. 2015, A&A, 575, A7

    work page 2015

  70. [70]

    M., & Biello, J

    Zhao, H., Rich, R. M., & Biello, J. 1996, ApJ, 470, 506 Article number, page 12 of 12

    work page 1996