Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 110 references

A Supermassive Black Hole Mass Measurement in NGC 5102 with Schwarzschild Orbit-superposition Modeling

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The central black hole of NGC 5102 has a mass of about 1.3 million solar masses, established by Schwarzschild orbit-superposition modeling of stellar kinematics.

desk verdict A solid new Schwarzschild mass for NGC 5102's black hole, with statistical-only error bars and an overreaching 'external validation' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26186 v1 pith:5TZQQPRC submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.GA

Thomas K. Waters , Kayhan Gultekin , Karl Gebhardt , Soch Foskic , Ahmad Kadri This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords NGC5102supermassiveblackholemassSchwarzschildorbit-superpositionstellardynamicsCaIItripletnuclearstarclusterM-sigmarelationlow-massholes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper sets out to measure the mass of the central black hole in the lenticular galaxy NGC 5102 using a stellar-dynamical method that builds thousands of stellar orbits inside a trial gravitational potential and compares their combined light to observed spectra. It claims that the inner stellar motions require a compact central mass of roughly 1.3 million solar masses, because a model with no black hole fits far worse. The result matters because NGC 5102 sits in the low-velocity-dispersion regime where direct black-hole mass measurements are sparse, so it is a test of whether the black-hole–velocity-dispersion relation holds there. It also provides an external check on simpler Jeans modeling, since the new mass agrees with an earlier independent estimate.

What carries the argument

The central tool is axisymmetric three-integral Schwarzschild orbit superposition: a library of roughly 10^3 to 10^4 stellar orbits is computed in a trial potential (stellar mass from deprojected surface brightness plus a central point mass), and non-negative orbital weights are found so the model reproduces both the surface brightness and the full non-parametric line-of-sight velocity distributions from STIS and MUSE. The companion mechanism is a radially varying stellar mass-to-light ratio built from a nuclear-star-cluster and bulge decomposition, parameterized by a bulge value and an NSC-to-bulge ratio, which prevents the blue nuclear cluster from being mis-assigned as black-hole mass.

What would settle it

Re-run the same STIS and MUSE data through a triaxial or bar-allowing orbit-superposition model with the black-hole mass forced to zero. If that model fits the central line-of-sight velocity distributions essentially as well as the axisymmetric black-hole model, within a few units of the reported Δχ² = 90, the central-mass claim would be falsified. An independent check would come from resolved gas or maser kinematics inside the central few parsecs, which would measure the potential without the axisymmetry assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using axisymmetric three-integral Schwarzschild orbit-superposition models of Hubble Space Telescope STIS and VLT MUSE Ca II triplet kinematics, the paper finds a black hole mass of (1.30 +0.19 -0.18) million solar masses at an assumed distance of 3.66 Mpc. Comparing the best model to a forced no-black-hole model gives Δχ² = 90, which the authors interpret as evidence that reallocating stellar mass among the galaxy's components cannot reproduce the observed nuclear velocity distributions without an additional compact central mass. The measurement is within 1.7σ of the earlier CO-band-head Jeans Anisotropic Modeling result (about 0.9 million solar masses) and lies about 0.4 dex above the lite

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that NGC 5102's gravitational potential is axisymmetric: the paper adopts this because the isophotes are concentric ellipses, but the galaxy contains a prominent dust lane and central dust clouds, and the paper states its credible intervals do not include geometric systematics; if the potential is triaxial or barred, the deprojection, orbit library, and black-hole mass could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the measurement is right, NGC 5102 becomes a secure low-velocity-dispersion anchor, directly showing that a compact central mass rather than a pure stellar cusp explains the nuclear kinematics.
  • Agreement with the earlier Jeans-based estimate within 1.7σ supports using Jeans methods for other low-mass galaxies while calibrating them with orbit-superposition results.
  • At a velocity dispersion of 46 km/s, the galaxy remains consistent with the extrapolated M-sigma relation within its intrinsic scatter, so the existing data do not require a break or turnover at low dispersions.
  • Galaxies with blue nuclear star clusters require a variable mass-to-light treatment, since fixed stellar M/L models would bias black-hole masses low in such systems.
  • The combination of high-resolution STIS nuclear data and wide-field MUSE integral-field data is a template for future low-mass black-hole measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the paper's models assume axisymmetry while the galaxy has a prominent dust lane and central dust clouds, a triaxial or barred potential with no black hole might also fit the data; testing with non-axisymmetric orbit models would either harden or weaken the mass claim.
  • Editorial inference: at 1.3 million solar masses, NGC 5102 sits near the boundary between intermediate-mass and supermassive black holes, so measuring more galaxies in this mass range could directly constrain black-hole seeding and occupation-fraction models.
  • Editorial inference: the measured difference between STIS and MUSE central velocity dispersions, which the paper attributes to beam smearing, could become a cheap independent diagnostic of black-hole sphere of influence in other nearby galaxies.
  • Editorial inference: the authors state that their credible intervals exclude systematic uncertainties, implying the true uncertainty on the black-hole mass is larger than quoted; re-runs with varied PSF widths, template libraries, and geometric assumptions would quantify that.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper measures the central black hole mass in the nearby lenticular galaxy NGC 5102 using axisymmetric three-integral Schwarzschild orbit-superposition models applied to HST/STIS long-slit and VLT/MUSE IFU stellar kinematics in the Ca II triplet region. The photometric model combines HST/WFPC2 F547M and Carnegie Galaxy Survey surface brightness profiles, decomposed into NSC, two bulge, and disk Sérsic components, and includes a radially varying M/L tied to the NSC-to-bulge ratio. The fiducial model yields M_bh = (1.30^{+0.19}_{-0.18})×10^6 M_sun, Υ_V = 0.48 ± 0.01, ξ = 0.025^{+0.021}_{-0.016}, i = 88.5^{+0.4}_{-0.5} deg; a no-black-hole model is disfavored by Δχ² = 90. The result is compared with a previous JAM measurement and with the Kormendy & Ho M–σ relation.

Significance. If correct, the measurement adds a rare direct dynamical anchor at σ_e ≈ 46 km/s, where the M–σ relation is sparsely populated, and provides a cross-check between Schwarzschild and JAM modeling in the low-mass regime. The paper's strengths include the use of full non-parametric LOSVDs rather than Gauss-Hermite moments; a variable M/L prescription that addresses the blue NSC; broad parameter bounds that include M_bh = 0; a large model grid (~3.2×10^4 models); and a public data release DOI. The detection of a compact central mass appears robust within the adopted model, as reflected by Δχ² = 90. However, the headline precision is statistical-only, and several acknowledged systematics are not propagated; this limits the strength of the mass-scale and JAM-comparison conclusions until quantified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3, Eq. (8)] The quoted central value and credible intervals are obtained from the interpolated χ² surface over the four parameters in Eq. (9), with flat priors. The text explicitly notes that systematics 'can be comparable to, or larger than, the formal statistical errors.' Since the headline claim is a specific mass scale with 68.3% uncertainties, the paper should either propagate the acknowledged systematics (fixed distance at 3.66 Mpc, Gaussian PSF approximations, axisymmetry, no dark halo, dust) into the final uncertainty or clearly present the result as model-dependent and quote a systematic envelope. The comparison with JAM at 1.7σ and the 0.40 dex offset from the KH13 relation use only the statistical intervals, so those conclusions are not yet robust.
  2. [§4, §5.2, Figure 2] Axisymmetry is a structural assumption, justified by 'uniform concentric elliptical isophotes.' However, Figure 1 shows a prominent dust lane and Figure 2's two-dimensional residuals are dust-dominated at 16%; the dust is masked in the photometric profile but not modeled. The paper does not quantify how residual dust or a modest non-axisymmetric component would affect the deprojected luminosity density, orbit library, and M_bh. Because the entire model potential is axisymmetric by construction and the dust is visible on the scale of the STIS kinematics, this is a load-bearing systematic. Please test sensitivity to the dust-masked sectors or to a triaxial/barred potential and report the resulting shift in M_bh.
  3. [§5.2] The trial potential includes only the stellar mass distribution (with variable M/L) plus a central point mass; no dark-matter halo is included. For an SA0 galaxy with MUSE kinematics reaching ~1 kpc, the omitted dark halo can trade against Υ_V and, via the reported M_bh–Υ_V anti-correlation (r = −0.52), against M_bh. A test with a plausible NFW or isothermal halo is needed to show that the inferred black-hole mass is unaffected at the quoted precision.
  4. [§6.3, Abstract] The statement that the 1.7σ agreement with Nguyen et al. 'provides external validation of the JAM framework' is too strong. Both analyses assume axisymmetric mass models, and the quoted errors are statistical only; the systematic shifts flagged in §5.3 could materially change the apparent agreement. I recommend softening this to a consistency check and noting that it does not independently validate the JAM framework until systematics are included.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (3)] The global regularization strength λ is said to be selected by trial, but no numerical value is given. Please report the adopted λ and how it was validated; the notation also switches between λ_j and λ without an explicit statement of their relation.
  2. [§5.2] The orbit-library size is quoted as '~10^3–10^4 orbits'. This is a wide range; please state the exact number of orbits, the number of spatial apertures, and any convergence tests showing that the results are stable to library size.
  3. [References] The reference for Kormendy & Gebhardt (2001) appears malformed ('Martel (Melville, NY: AIP), 363'); please correct the bibliographic entry.
  4. [Figure 5] The radial axis appears to extend to ±101 arcsec, which is larger than the MUSE FoV of 1′×1′ and the STIS slit length. Please check the coordinate units or the plotted radial range.
  5. [§2.1] The 2.78 variance scaling factor is justified by reference to earlier work, but the statement that 'resampling tests yielded negligible differences' is not quantified. A sentence describing the test would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: M_bh is kinematically constrained; prior JAM and M-sigma enter only post hoc.

full rationale

The derivation of M_bh is self-contained. In Sections 5.2 and 5.3, the authors evaluate ~3.2e4 Schwarzschild orbit-superposition models on a four-parameter grid (Y_V, xi, M_bh, i) and compare predicted LOSVDs and surface brightness against STIS and MUSE observations via the likelihood ln L = -0.5 chi^2_interp (Eq. 8). M_bh = 0 is an explicit model, and the free-M_bh model is preferred by Delta chi^2 = 90, so the central-mass inference is driven by the observed nuclear LOSVD widths rather than by any fitted prior or scaling relation. The previous JAM value (Nguyen et al. 2018, 2019) is used only to motivate deliberately broad parameter bounds (Section 5.3) and as a comparison point (Section 6.3); it does not enter the chi^2. The M_bh-sigma_e relation (Eq. 11) is applied only after the fit to interpret the result and is explicitly not used to predict or steer M_bh. The axisymmetry and dust-masking assumptions are modeling assumptions, explicitly acknowledged in Section 5.3 as possible sources of systematic uncertainty; an unquantified assumption is a correctness risk, not a circular definition. Self-citations such as Gebhardt et al. (2000, 2003) and Waters et al. (2024) describe standard, data-comparison-based machinery, and no claim in the paper reduces to any of these citations. No equation reproduces its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis uses four fitted model parameters plus several adopted calibration/nuisance values (distance, PSF FWHMs, regularization strength, sky offset). No new physical entities are introduced. The main burden is carried by standard-but-unverifiable assumptions: axisymmetry, no dark halo, constant M/L per component, and Gaussian PSFs.

free parameters (10)
  • M_bh (central black hole mass) = 1.30e6 M_sun
    The target parameter, fitted by the orbit-superposition models.
  • Υ_V (bulge V-band mass-to-light ratio) = 0.48±0.01 M_sun/L_sun,V
    Fitted in the SCO modeling; sets the overall stellar mass normalization.
  • ξ (NSC-to-bulge M/L ratio) = 0.025+0.021−0.016
    Fitted in the SCO modeling; controls the central stellar mass partition.
  • i (inclination) = 88.5+0.4−0.5 deg
    Fitted in the SCO modeling; affects deprojection.
  • Distance = 3.66 Mpc
    Adopted from literature TRGB distances, not fitted; all physical radii and masses scale with D, and its uncertainty is not propagated.
  • PSF FWHM (MUSE) = 0.42 arcsec
    Adopted Gaussian approximation to the empirical PSF; affects convolution of model LOSVDs.
  • PSF FWHM (STIS) = 0.09 arcsec
    Adopted Gaussian approximation to the empirical PSF; directly affects the central kinematic constraints that drive the black-hole detection.
  • MUSE variance correction factor = 2.78
    Empirical rescaling of MUSE variance arrays from Bacon et al. (2017)/Sanderson et al. (2021); affects error weighting and Δχ².
  • LOSVD regularization strength λ = chosen manually
    Selected as the smallest λ that yields smooth LOSVDs without degrading spectral residuals; influences the extracted kinematics.
  • Sky subtraction offset = ~1.6 mag
    HST/WFPC2 profile matched to CGS profile via a magnitude offset; affects the adopted surface brightness model.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The galaxy is axisymmetric.
    Stated in Section 4: 'we assume an axisymmetric system' based on uniform concentric elliptical isophotes.
  • domain assumption Schwarzschild orbit-superposition with a non-negative orbit weight solution recovers the true potential.
    The framework of Gebhardt et al. (2000, 2003) and Siopis et al. (2009) is assumed to be unbiased for this low-mass system.
  • domain assumption The gravitational potential includes only stellar mass plus a central point mass (no dark matter halo).
    Section 5.2 computes the potential from the stellar mass distribution augmented only by M_bh; a dark halo is omitted.
  • domain assumption Each stellar component (bulge and NSC) has a constant intrinsic mass-to-light ratio, with radial variation only through the superposition of the two.
    Equations (4)–(7) in Section 5.1 assume constant Υ_B and Υ_NSC within each component.
  • domain assumption The NSC mass-to-light ratio is less than or equal to the bulge value (ξ ∈ [0,1]).
    Motivated by the blue nuclear stellar population, this prior bounds the stellar mass that can be assigned to the nucleus.
  • domain assumption STIS spectra can be reflected across the kinematic major axis and combined in the assumed symmetric geometry.
    Section 4 assigns STIS data to angular bins and reflects them across the kinematic major axis.
  • domain assumption Circular Gaussian PSFs with empirically measured FWHM adequately represent the instrument response.
    Section 5.2 adopts FWHM = 0.42″ for MUSE and 0.09″ for STIS; PSF mismatch is a known systematic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Supermassive Black Hole Mass Measurement in NGC 5102 with Schwarzschild Orbit-superposition Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TZQQPRC

@misc{pith2026260726186,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Supermassive Black Hole Mass Measurement in NGC 5102 with Schwarzschild Orbit-superposition Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TZQQPRC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26186}
}
abstract

We present a stellar-dynamical mass measurement of the central black hole in the lenticular galaxy NGC~5102 (SA0$^-$). Our analysis combines high-quality integral-field spectroscopy from the VLT Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer with high-spatial- and high-spectral-resolution Hubble Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph observations, using the Ca II triplet as a stellar kinematic tracer. We constrain the black hole mass with axisymmetric, three-integral Schwarzschild orbit-superposition models, incorporating surface brightness measurements from HST F547M WFPC2 imaging. Assuming a distance of $3.66\,\mathrm{Mpc}$, we find a black hole mass of $(1.30^{+0.19}_{-0.18})\times10^6\,\mathrm{M_{\scriptscriptstyle\odot}}$, which is within $1.7\sigma$ of a previous CO band-head-based Jeans Anisotropic Modeling result ($M_{\bullet}=(9.1^{+1.8}_{-1.5})\times10^5\,\mathrm{M_{\scriptscriptstyle\odot}}$). Our measurement is also consistent with literature extrapolations of the $M_{\bullet}$-$\sigma_e$ relation into the currently under-sampled low-mass regime. The close agreement between these independent dynamical approaches provides external validation of the Jeans Anisotropic Modeling framework and supports the robustness of our Schwarzschild orbit-superposition result, bolstering confidence in future black hole mass measurements with this framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26186 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Image of NGC 5102 from HST/WFPC2 in the F547M filter (left) and an optical white-light image from VLT/MUSE in the WFM (right). Both images have surface brightness contours (dotted lines) overplotted. The HST/WFPC2 image, with a FoV of 28. ′′5 × 28. ′′5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Summary of the stellar surface-brightness profile of NGC 5102 measured with the XVISTA software package (see Section 3). The upper left panel shows the one-dimensional, azimuthally averaged stellar surface brightness profile measured from F547M HST imaging data (black squares) concatenated with CGS data (black diamonds). Also shown are the best-fit S´ersic profile components fitted to the NSC (blue dotted line), the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectra from the innermost bin for both the STIS data (left column) and MUSE data (right column). The top row shows the binned spectra in the Ca II triplet range (8375–8775 ˚A) with an AsLS continuum fit (blue line). The masked regions (brown filled bands) were excluded from the continuum fit. The second row shows the continuum-normalized spectra overlaid with spectral fits (blue line) using the penalized-likelihood… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Six example LOSVDs (f; the fraction of line-of-sight stellar velocities between v and v + ∆v, where ∆v is 50 km s−1 ) for the three innermost radial bins (as annotated on the plot) along the kinematic major axis extracted from the normalized STIS spectra (top row) and …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Velocity v (top) and velocity dispersion σ (bottom) profiles for MUSE (left, squares) and STIS (right, circles). Blue symbols show bins along the KMA; black points show data in the remaining angular bins. Gray shaded regions indicate RSOI calculated from Menc (dotted) …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profile of the stellar M/L implied by our best-fit bulge V -band M/L (ΥV = 0.48±0.01 M⊙ L −1 ⊙,V) and NSC-to-bulge M/L ratio (ξ = 0.025+0.021 −0.016). The blue line shows the median profile with 1σ uncertainty band (shaded region). Gray shaded regions indicate R…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plot showing the marginalized posterior distributions for the four free parameters in our SCO modeling framework: bulge dynamical M/L ΥV , NSC-to-bulge M/L ξ, black hole mass M•, and inclination i. Contours enclose the 68.3%, 95.4%, and 99.7% posterior credible …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Velocity dispersion radial profiles from our best-fit SCO model decomposed into the radial component σr, the polar component σθ, and the azimuthal component σϕ. Gray shaded regions mark RSOI inferred from Menc (dotted) and σe (dashed). The right panel shows the orbital…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Position of NGC 5102 on the Kormendy & Ho (2013) M•–σe relation (blue dotted line). The uncertainties of the M•–σe relation, plotted as the blue filled band, include both the individual parameter uncertainties (where α = 0.309+0.037 −0.033, β = 4.38 ± 0.29; see Equatio…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 Ba˜ n...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 773508, doi: 10.1117/12.856027

    doi:10.1117/12.856027 2010

  3. [3]

    2017, A&A, 608, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730833

    Bacon, R., Conseil, S., Mary, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730833

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730833 2017

  4. [5]

    M., & Zhu, Y

    Beifiori, A., Courteau, S., Corsini, E. M., & Zhu, Y. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2497, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19903.x

    arXiv 2012

  5. [6]

    Bekenstein, J. D. 1971, PhRvD, 4, 2185, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.4.2185

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.4.2185 1971

  6. [7]

    Bekenstein, J. D. 1972a, PhRvL, 28, 452, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.452

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.28.452

  7. [8]

    Bekenstein, J. D. 1972b, PhRvD, 5, 1239, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.5.1239

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.5.1239

  8. [9]

    Bekenstein, J. D. 1972c, PhRvD, 5, 2403, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.5.2403

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.5.2403

Show all 110 references
  1. [10]

    Bekenstein, J. D. 1973, PhRvD, 7, 2333, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333

    1973 doi

  2. [11]

    C., Walsh, J

    Bentz, M. C., Walsh, J. L., Barth, A. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 993, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/993

    2010 doi

  3. [12]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    1977 doi

  4. [13]

    W., & Reynolds, C

    Brenneman, L. W., & Reynolds, C. S. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1028, doi: 10.1086/508146

    2006 doi

  5. [14]

    2003, Nature, 425, 812, doi: 10.1038/nature02071

    Bromm, V., & Loeb, A. 2003, Nature, 425, 812, doi: 10.1038/nature02071

    2003 doi

  6. [15]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 1432, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1726

    Cappellari, M. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 1432, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1726

    2025 doi

  7. [16]

    2003, MNRAS, 342, 345, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x

    Cappellari, M., & Copin, Y. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 345, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06541.x

    2003

  8. [17]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1196

    Chantavat, T., Chongchitnan, S., & Silk, J. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1196

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    Daly, R. A. 2019, ApJ, 886, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab35e6

    2019 doi

  10. [19]

    Daly, R. A. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2976

    2022 doi

  11. [20]

    L., More, S., Jin, Z., et al

    Davis, B. L., More, S., Jin, Z., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae47ef Di Matteo, T., Colberg, J., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., &

    2026 doi

  12. [21]

    2008, ApJ, 676, 33, doi: 10.1086/524921

    Sijacki, D. 2008, ApJ, 676, 33, doi: 10.1086/524921

    2008 doi

  13. [22]

    1989, in Active Galactic Nuclei, ed

    Dressler, A. 1989, in Active Galactic Nuclei, ed. D. E. Osterbrock & J. S. Miller, Vol. 134, 217

    1989

  14. [23]

    Eilers, P. H. C. 2003, Analytical Chemistry, 75, 3631, doi: 10.1021/ac034173t

    2003 doi

  15. [24]

    Eilers, P. H. C., & Marx, B. D. 1996, Statistical Science, 11, 89 , doi: 10.1214/ss/1038425655 European Southern Observatory. 2017, MUSE reduced data obtained by standard ESO pipeline processing, co-added across multiple observations, doi: 10.18727/archive/42 European Southern...

    1996

  16. [25]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    2012 doi

  17. [26]

    2002, ApJ, 578, 90, doi: 10.1086/342308 Stellar-Dynamical SMBH Mass Measurement in NGC 510221

    Ferrarese, L. 2002, ApJ, 578, 90, doi: 10.1086/342308 Stellar-Dynamical SMBH Mass Measurement in NGC 510221

    2002 doi

  18. [27]

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

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

    2000 doi

  19. [28]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  20. [29]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  21. [30]

    L., Woosley, S

    Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2001, ApJ, 550, 372, doi: 10.1086/319719

    2001 doi

  22. [31]

    2019, ApJL, 883, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab40c6

    Gallo, E., & Sesana, A. 2019, ApJL, 883, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab40c6

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c5d

    Gaspari, M., Eckert, D., Ettori, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c5d

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/119

    Gebhardt, K., Adams, J., Richstone, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/119

    2011 doi

  25. [34]

    2009, ApJ, 700, 1690, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1690

    Gebhardt, K., & Thomas, J. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1690, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1690

    2009 doi

  26. [35]

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

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

    2000 doi

  27. [36]

    2003, ApJ, 583, 92, doi: 10.1086/345081

    Gebhardt, K., Richstone, D., Tremaine, S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 583, 92, doi: 10.1086/345081

    2003 doi

  28. [37]

    Gerhard, O. E. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/265.1.213

    1993 doi

  29. [38]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, L24, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00716.x

    Ghisellini, G., Foschini, L., Volonteri, M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, L24, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00716.x

    2009

  30. [39]

    2011, ApJ, 735, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/16

    Gliozzi, M., Titarchuk, L., Satyapal, S., Price, D., & Jang, I. 2011, ApJ, 735, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/16

    2011 doi

  31. [40]

    K., Akylas, A., et al

    Gliozzi, M., Williams, J. K., Akylas, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3974

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook (Baltimore: STScI)

    Gonzaga, S., Hack, W., Fruchter, A., & Mack, J. 2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook (Baltimore: STScI)

    2012

  33. [42]

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

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

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    E., Seth, A., Kim, M., et al

    Greene, J. E., Seth, A., Kim, M., et al. 2016, ApJL, 826, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/826/2/L32 G¨ ultekin, K., King, A. L., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b9 G¨ ultekin, K., Richstone, D. O., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 198, doi...

    2016 doi

  35. [44]

    2001, ApJ, 552, 459, doi: 10.1086/320586 H¨ aring, N., & Rix, H.-W

    Haiman, Z., & Loeb, A. 2001, ApJ, 552, 459, doi: 10.1086/320586 H¨ aring, N., & Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJL, 604, L89, doi: 10.1086/383567

    2001 doi

  36. [45]

    C., Li, Z.-Y., Barth, A

    Ho, L. C., Li, Z.-Y., Barth, A. J., Seigar, M. S., & Peng, C. Y. 2011, ApJS, 197, 21, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/21

    2011 doi

  37. [46]

    A., Hester, J

    Holtzman, J. A., Hester, J. J., Casertano, S., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 156, doi: 10.1086/133533

    1995 doi

  38. [47]

    2007, ApJ, 669, 45, doi: 10.1086/521590

    Krause, E. 2007, ApJ, 669, 45, doi: 10.1086/521590

    2007 doi

  39. [48]

    D., Coccato, L., Neeser, M

    Ivanov, V. D., Coccato, L., Neeser, M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936178

    2019 doi

  40. [49]

    A., Rizzi, L., Tully, R

    Jacobs, B. A., Rizzi, L., Tully, R. B., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 332, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/332

    2009 doi

  41. [50]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00134, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.00134

    Jin, Z., Lu, Y., Ting, Y.-S., Zheng, Y., & Buck, T. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00134, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.00134

    doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14775

    Hezaveh, Y. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14775

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [52]

    A., & Mandel, E

    Joye, W. A., & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E

    2003

  44. [53]

    A., Woodgate, B

    Kimble, R. A., Woodgate, B. E., Bowers, C. W., et al. 1998, ApJL, 492, L83, doi: 10.1086/311102

    1998 doi

  45. [54]

    1993, in The Nearest Active Galaxies, ed

    Kormendy, J. 1993, in The Nearest Active Galaxies, ed. J. Beckman, L. Colina, & H. Netzer, 197–218

    1993

  46. [55]

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

    2011 doi

  47. [56]

    2001, Martel (Melville, NY: AIP), 363

    Kormendy, J., & Gebhardt, K. 2001, Martel (Melville, NY: AIP), 363

    2001

  48. [57]

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

    2013 doi

  49. [58]

    1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 Krajnovi´ c, D., Cappellari, M., de Zeeuw, P

    Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 Krajnovi´ c, D., Cappellari, M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Copin, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 787, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09902.x L¨ asker, R., Greene, J. E., Seth, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825,...

    1995

  50. [59]

    Lo, K. Y. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 625, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094927

    2005 arXiv

  51. [60]

    2006, MNRAS, 371, 1813, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10801.x

    Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1813, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10801.x

    2006

  52. [61]

    Loeb, A., & Rasio, F. A. 1994, ApJ, 432, 52, doi: 10.1086/174548

    1994 doi

  53. [62]

    2025, ApJL, 992, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b4f

    Lujan, N., Gebhardt, K., Anantua, R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 992, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b4f

    2025 doi

  54. [63]

    J., et al

    Macchetto, F., Marconi, A., Axon, D. J., et al. 1997, ApJ, 489, 579, doi: 10.1086/304823

    1997 doi

  55. [64]

    1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353 22W aters et al

    Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353 22W aters et al

    1998 doi

  56. [65]

    Marconi, A., & Hunt, L. K. 2003, ApJL, 589, L21, doi: 10.1086/375804

    2003 doi

  57. [66]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/184

    2013 doi

  58. [67]

    2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x

    Merloni, A., Heinz, S., & di Matteo, T. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x

    2003

  59. [68]

    1997, AJ, 114, 228, doi: 10.1086/118467

    Merritt, D. 1997, AJ, 114, 228, doi: 10.1086/118467

    1997 doi

  60. [69]

    W., Thorne, K

    Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., & Wheeler, J. A. 1973, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman and Company), 872–915. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973grav.book.....M

    1973

  61. [70]

    2015, ARA&A, 53, 365, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    Netzer, H. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 365, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    2015 doi

  62. [71]

    D., Seth, A

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

    2018 doi

  63. [72]

    D., Seth, A

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

    2019 doi

  64. [73]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 10, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.58

    2007 doi

  65. [74]

    L., & Macci` o, A

    Pasquato, M., Jin, Z., Lemos, P., Davis, B. L., & Macci` o, A. V. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.15160, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.15160

    2023 doi arXiv

  66. [75]

    M., Ferrarese, L., Gilbert, K

    Peterson, B. M., Ferrarese, L., Gilbert, K. M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 682, doi: 10.1086/423269 Portegies Zwart, S. F., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2002, ApJ, 576, 899, doi: 10.1086/341798

    2004 doi

  67. [76]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    2015 doi

  68. [77]

    Reynolds, C. S. 2014, SSRv, 183, 277, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-0006-6

    2014 doi

  69. [78]

    S., & Nowak, M

    Reynolds, C. S., & Nowak, M. A. 2003, PhR, 377, 389, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00584-7

    2003 doi

  70. [79]

    J., et al

    Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, Nature, 549, 488, doi: 10.1038/nature23906

    2017 doi

  71. [80]

    A., Bender, R., et al

    Richstone, D., Ajhar, E. A., Bender, R., et al. 1998, Nature, 385, A14, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9810378

    1998 doi arXiv

  72. [81]

    Ruffini, R., & Wheeler, J. A. 1971, Physics Today, 24, 30, doi: 10.1063/1.3022513

    1971 doi

  73. [82]

    P., Opitsch, M., Erwin, P., et al

    Saglia, R. P., Opitsch, M., Erwin, P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 47, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/47

    2016 doi

  74. [83]

    Saha, P., & Williams, T. B. 1994, AJ, 107, 1295, doi: 10.1086/116942

    1994 doi

  75. [84]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 252, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3077

    Fynbo, J., & Møller, P. 2021, ApJ, 923, 252, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3077

    2021 doi

  76. [85]

    Savorgnan, G. A. D., Graham, A. W., Marconi, A., & Sani, E. 2016, ApJ, 817, 21, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/21

    2016 doi

  77. [86]

    2007, MNRAS, 382, 1415, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x

    Schawinski, K., Thomas, D., Sarzi, M., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1415, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x

    2007

  78. [87]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/21

    Schulze, A., & Gebhardt, K. 2011, ApJ, 729, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/21

    2011 doi

  79. [88]

    1979, ApJ, 232, 236, doi: 10.1086/157282

    Schwarzschild, M. 1979, ApJ, 232, 236, doi: 10.1086/157282

    1979 doi

  80. [89]

    W., & Schombert, J

    Scott, N., Graham, A. W., & Schombert, J. 2013, ApJ, 768, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/76

    2013 doi

  81. [90]

    D., & Gebhardt, K

    Silge, J. D., & Gebhardt, K. 2003, AJ, 125, 2809, doi: 10.1086/375324

    2003 doi

  82. [91]

    Silk, J., & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013

    1998 doi arXiv

  83. [92]

    R., et al

    Siopis, C., Gebhardt, K., Lauer, T. R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 946, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/946

    2009 doi

  84. [93]

    Stover, R. J. 1988, in Instrumentation for Ground-Based Optical Astronomy, ed. L. B. Robinson, 443

    1988

  85. [94]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  86. [95]

    B., Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., & Sorce, J. G. 2016, AJ, 152, 50, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/50

    2016 doi

  87. [96]

    B., Kourkchi, E., Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., Kourkchi, E., Courtois, H. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d8

    2023 doi

  88. [97]

    2004, ApJ, 602, 66, doi: 10.1086/380896 van den Bosch, R

    Valluri, M., Merritt, D., & Emsellem, E. 2004, ApJ, 602, 66, doi: 10.1086/380896 van den Bosch, R. C. E., & de Zeeuw, P. T. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1770, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15832.x van der Marel, R. P., Cretton, N., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Rix, H.-W. 1998, ApJ, 493, 613, doi: ...

    2004

  89. [98]

    M., Oppenheimer, B

    Voit, G. M., Oppenheimer, B. D., Bell, E. F., Terrazas, B., & Donahue, M. 2024, ApJ, 960, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0039

    2024 doi

  90. [99]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/50

    Volonteri, M., Natarajan, P., & G¨ ultekin, K. 2011, ApJ, 737, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/50

    2011 doi

  91. [100]

    L., Barth, A

    Walsh, J. L., Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., & Sarzi, M. 2013, ApJ, 770, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/86

    2013 doi

  92. [101]

    Waters, T. K. 2026, HST WFPC2 and STIS Observations of NGC 5102 for Stellar-Dynamical Black Hole Mass

    2026

  93. [102]

    Modeling, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/1KDP-S611

    doi

  94. [103]

    K., G¨ ultekin, K., Gebhardt, K., Nagar, N., & ´Avila, V

    Waters, T. K., G¨ ultekin, K., Gebhardt, K., Nagar, N., & ´Avila, V. 2024, ApJ, 971, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a91

    2024 doi

  95. [104]

    M., Streicher, O., Urrutia, T., et al

    Weilbacher, P. M., Streicher, O., Urrutia, T., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8451, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy II, ed. N. M. Radziwill & G. Chiozzi, 84510B, doi: 10.1117/12.925114

    2012 doi

  96. [105]

    M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al

    Weilbacher, P. M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037855

    2020 doi

  97. [106]

    K., Gliozzi, M., Bockwoldt, K

    Williams, J. K., Gliozzi, M., Bockwoldt, K. A., & Shuvo, O. I. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad718

    2023 doi

  98. [107]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/49 Stellar-Dynamical SMBH Mass Measurement in NGC 510223

    Woo, J.-H., Schulze, A., Park, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/49 Stellar-Dynamical SMBH Mass Measurement in NGC 510223

    2013 doi

  99. [108]

    E., Kimble, R

    Woodgate, B. E., Kimble, R. A., Bowers, C. W., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 1183, doi: 10.1086/316243

    1998 doi

  100. [109]

    D., et al

    Zhang, H., Bureau, M., Smith, M. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3240, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1106

    2024 doi

  101. [110]

    S., Henkel, C., Guo, Q., Wang, H

    Zhang, J. S., Henkel, C., Guo, Q., Wang, H. G., & Fan, J. H. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1528, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1528

    2010 doi

  102. [111]

    C., et al

    Zou, F., Gallo, E., Seth, A. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae06a1

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.