Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 96 references

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

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

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

desk verdict A careful, transparent study that delivers the first 50 pc view of SNL-1; the IMF tension finding is persuasive but the PSF systematic and missing spectral M/L uncertainty need attention before publication. read the letter →

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

Adriano Poci , Russell J. Smith This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords massiveearly-typegalaxiesstellarinitialmassfunctionstronggravitationallensingsupermassiveblackholeSchwarzschilddynamicalmodelspopulationsadaptive-opticsintegral-fieldspectroscopySNL-1
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

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

What carries the argument

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

What would settle it

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

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

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

Load-bearing premise

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

Editorial extensions

If this is right

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

Reading between the lines

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

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

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

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

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

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

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

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

full rationale

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

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

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

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

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

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

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

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

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01732 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HST F814W image of SNL–1. Isophotes are shown as thin black lines. The solid black box shows the FoV of the MUSE NFM. The dashed white circle has a diameter of 1.25′′ , which is the region explored in this work. The blue and green dashed arcs demarcate REin and Re, respectively. SNL–1 exhibits flattened isophotes, though the effect of the dust lane is visible in the inner-most contour. as a strong-lens to a backgrou… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. One-dimensional azimuthally-averaged brightness pro￾file of the model PSF. Black points show the PSF ‘image’ (the model provided by the MUSE ETC). The red solid line shows the MGE model fit to that image. The green points show the residuals of the fit (image − model/image), arbitrarily offset for presenta￾tion. The grey solid and dashed lines show the 0 and ±10% (on a linear axis) of the residuals, respectively. f¯ … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Synthetic HST F814W-band image of SNL–1. Multiple dusty structures are visible on the near side SNL–1. Bot￾tom: Identical image as above, but with the derived mask overlaid in green showing where dust has been detected, and subsequently removed. Overlaid in white is the circular FoV over which the spectroscopy is analysed in this work. of interesting and still-debated astrophysical processes. The central region… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pseudo-slit profiles of the stellar velocity (star sym￾bols) and velocity dispersion (cross symbols) for SNL–1. The pro￾files are extracted within pseudo-slits laid on the binned kinematic FoV (S/N = 40) with a width of ±0.2 ′′. Profiles are shown for major- (red) and …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Subset of the parameter exploration for the Schwarzschild model of SNL–1. Points are coloured by relative goodness-of-fit as given by Eq. (1). Best-fit parameters are demarcated by solid brown lines. The panels show a subset of the total parameter-space explored, focus…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of changing the SMBH mass on the predicted stellar velocity dispersion. From left to right are the measured kinematics, the best-fit model, a model with an over-massive M•, and a model with an under-massive M•, given by adjacent steps in the parameter-space. The…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Minor-to-major axis ratio q against intermediate-to￾major axis ratio p, as a function of radius. The left and right extrema of the colourbar denote the FWHM of the PSF and max￾imum extent of the kinematics, respectively. The model extends beyond these bounds, but is un…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Orbital circularity λz as a function of time-averaged mean orbital radius, for the best-fit Schwarzschild model. Darker colours indicate higher contributions to the model. Horizontal dashed lines demarcate the orbital categories defined in Zhu et al. (2018), with corre…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: SSP-equivalent mean stellar age (top) and mean stellar metallicity [Fe/H] (bottom) from alf. Right: The corre￾sponding 1σ uncertainties derived from the posteriors of the alf fit to each Voronoi bin. spatial location. The SSP-equivalent mean stellar age and mean…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Elemental abundances as measured in alf. linearly from 0.05 − 0.30′′, according to distance from the galaxy centre. We then mask the wavelength regions corre￾sponding to the Hβ, [Oiii]5007+4959, Hα, and [Nii]6548+ 6584 emission lines, regardless of whether emission is…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Radial profiles of a number of stellar-population prop￾erties measured from alf; from top to bottom, SSP-equivalent mean stellar age, stellar metallicity [Fe/H], the individual ele￾mental abundances which were left free to vary, the low-mass IMF slope, and the M⋆/LF 8…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Gas velocities derived from the WFM and NFM observations. The left-most panel shows the WFM velocities as contours overlaid on the HST F814W image, while the colour map in the next shows more clearly the extent of the gas measurements. The third and fourth panels show…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Left: Collapsed [Nii] emission line image (approxi￾mately corrected for Hα contamination), with velocity contours overlaid. Both fields have been smoothed to enhance visibility of the main structures. Right: the same after subtracting a simple elliptically-symmetric m…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Smith R

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1242 2018

  2. [2]

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

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

    doi:10.1117/12.790359 2008

  3. [3]

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  4. [4]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/307677 1999

  5. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.1117/12.856027 2010

  6. [6]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1727 2013

  7. [7]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3481 2023

  8. [8]

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

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2010.118 2011

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

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

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

    2012

  2. [10]

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

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

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

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

    2002

  4. [12]

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

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

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

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

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

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

    2003

  7. [15]

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

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

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

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Villaume A., Balogh M

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    P., Smith R

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

    doi

  11. [19]

    P., Smith R

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

    doi

  12. [20]

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

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

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

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

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

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    A., McDermid R

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

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

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

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

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

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

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Macci \`o A

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

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Mendel J

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

    2012

  20. [28]

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

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

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

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

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

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

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Seidel M

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

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    E., Newman A

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

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

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

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

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

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

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

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

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

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

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

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

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

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

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

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

    2013 doi

  31. [40]

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

    2001

  32. [41]

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

    2002 doi

  33. [42]

    S., Peletier R

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

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

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

    2019 doi

  35. [44]

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

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

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

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

    2021 doi

  37. [46]

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

    doi arXiv

  38. [47]

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

    doi arXiv

  39. [48]

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [49]

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

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

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

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

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

    2015 doi

  43. [52]

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

    2019 doi

  44. [53]

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

    2021 doi

  45. [54]

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

    2010

  46. [55]

    J., Williams T

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

    2015 doi

  47. [56]

    H., Ostriker J

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

    2009 doi

  48. [57]

    F., Frenk C

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

    1996 doi

  49. [58]

    B., Smith R

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

    2017 doi

  50. [59]

    P., Naab T., Johansson P

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

    2010 doi

  51. [60]

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  52. [61]

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

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

    2007 doi

  53. [62]

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

    2004 doi

  54. [63]

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

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

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

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

    2022 doi

  56. [65]

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

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

    2019 doi

  57. [66]

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

    2022 doi

  58. [67]

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

  59. [68]

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

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

    1955 doi

  60. [69]

    232, Aug

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

    1979 doi

  61. [70]

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

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

    2010 doi

  62. [71]

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

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

    2014 doi

  63. [72]

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

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

    2020 doi

  64. [73]

    J., Lucey J

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

    doi

  65. [74]

    J., Alton P., Lucey J

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

    doi

  66. [75]

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

    2019 doi

  67. [76]

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

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

    2007 doi

  68. [77]

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

    2011

  69. [78]

    A Catalogue of Ultra-Compact Massive Galaxies Outside the Local Universe and Their Degree of Relicness, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2309.12966

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  70. [79]

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

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

    2012 doi

  71. [80]

    P., Davies R

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

    2018 doi

  72. [81]

    F., Beckman J

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

    1996 doi

  73. [82]

    Vazdekis A., Koleva M., Ricciardelli E., R \"o ck B., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw2231 , 463, 3409

    2016 doi

  74. [83]

    Verro K., et al., 2022, arXiv:2110.10188 [astro-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  75. [84]

    W., van Dokkum P., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa72ed , 230, 23

    Villaume A., Conroy C., Johnson B., Rayner J., Mann A. W., van Dokkum P., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa72ed , 230, 23

    2017 doi

  76. [85]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , 17, 261

    2020 doi

  77. [86]

    L., 2021, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.03021 , 6, 3021

    Waskom M. L., 2021, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.03021 , 6, 3021

    2021 doi

  78. [87]

    M., et al., 2020, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037855 , 641, A28

    Weilbacher P. M., et al., 2020, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037855 , 641, A28

    2020 doi

  79. [88]

    Wirth H., Kroupa P., Haas J., Jerabkova T., Yan Z., S ubr L., 2022, The Giants That Were Born Swiftly -- Implications of the Top-Heavy Stellar Initial Mass Function on the Birth Conditions of Globular Clusters, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2209.00045

    2022 doi arXiv

  80. [89]

    Yan Z., Jerabkova T., Kroupa P., 2022, The Most Massive Stars in Very Young Star Clusters with a Limited Mass: Evidence Favours Significant Self-Regulation in the Star Formation Processes, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2211.13244

    2022 doi arXiv

  81. [90]

    Zhu L., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2409 , 473, 3000

    2018 doi

  82. [91]

    Zibetti S., Gallazzi A. R., Hirschmann M., Consolandi G., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., van de Ven G., Lyubenova M., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3205 , 491, 3562

    2020 doi

  83. [92]

    de S \'a -Freitas C., et al., 2023, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244667 , 671, A8

    2023 doi

  84. [93]

    de Zeeuw T., Franx M., 1991, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.001323 , 29, 239

    1991

  85. [94]

    M., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae912 , 530, 3278

    den Brok M., Krajnovi \'c D., Emsellem E., Mercier W., Steinmetz M., Weilbacher P. M., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae912 , 530, 3278

    2024 doi

  86. [95]

    J., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7135 , 841, 68

    van Dokkum P., Conroy C., Villaume A., Brodie J., Romanowsky A. J., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7135 , 841, 68

    2017 doi

  87. [96]

    van den Bosch R. C. E., van de Ven G., Verolme E. K., Cappellari M., De Zeeuw P. T., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12874.x , 385, 647

    2008

  88. [97]

    P., Franx M., 1993, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/172534 , 407, 525

    van der Marel R. P., Franx M., 1993, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/172534 , 407, 525

    1993 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.