pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21576 · v1 · pith:MO5WTZHWnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.HE

Investigating central star formation in local AGN host galaxies: is there tension between coeval growth and AGN feedback?

Q. Ni , K. Nandra , A. Merloni , J. Comparat , D. Tub\'in-Arenas , Y. Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 09:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords AGNstar formationgalaxy centerscoeval growthblack hole accretionMaNGA surveyAGN feedbackX-ray selection
0
0 comments X

The pith

X-ray AGN hosts show elevated central star formation rates consistent with coeval black hole and galaxy growth.

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

The paper tests whether supermassive black holes and the central stellar components of galaxies grow together through a shared gas supply. It cross-matches MaNGA integral-field data with X-ray observations from eROSITA, XMM-Newton, and Chandra for roughly 3000 galaxies and measures the surface star formation rate density inside 1 kpc. The fraction of X-ray AGNs with higher specific accretion rates rises with this central density, and the average star-formation profiles of AGN hosts lie above those of matched inactive galaxies across the inner region. Optically selected AGNs display similar central elevation but a different trend with density, attributable to selection differences. These patterns align with coeval growth while leaving the time-averaged impact of local AGN feedback modest in star-forming zones.

Core claim

The fraction of X-ray AGNs with relatively higher specific BH accretion rates increases with the surface star formation rate density in the central 1 kpc region. Mean star formation rate surface density profiles of these AGN hosts are elevated across the entire central region relative to normal galaxies of similar properties. Optically selected AGN hosts also show high central star formation on average, though their AGN-fraction trend with central density differs due to selection effects. These general trends support the coeval growth scenario driven by common fuel supply and do not contradict observational evidence for AGN feedback because the time-averaged effects from local AGN feedback,

What carries the argument

The correlation of X-ray AGN fraction with central star formation rate surface density within 1 kpc (Σ_SFR,1kpc) together with direct comparison of radial Σ_SFR profiles between AGN hosts and control galaxies.

If this is right

  • Galaxies with denser central star formation should on average contain black holes that are accreting at higher specific rates.
  • Central star formation and black-hole growth can proceed together without strong average suppression from AGN feedback.
  • Differences between X-ray and optical AGN samples arise from their distinct host-galaxy and accretion properties rather than opposing physical pictures.
  • Time-averaged AGN feedback leaves detectable central star formation largely intact in the local universe.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Shared gas inflows to galaxy centers can sustain both star formation and black-hole accretion over the timescales probed by local surveys.
  • The modest feedback signature implies that quenching mechanisms may operate on larger scales or longer timescales than the central kiloparsec region.
  • Extending the same analysis to higher-redshift samples could test whether the coeval-growth signal strengthens or weakens with cosmic epoch.

Load-bearing premise

The observed correlations between AGN activity and central star formation reflect a direct physical link from shared gas fuel rather than being driven mainly by AGN selection method or other galaxy properties.

What would settle it

An independent sample of galaxies matched in mass, morphology, and redshift showing no rise in central star formation rate density for AGN hosts or no increase in AGN fraction with Σ_SFR,1kpc would falsify the coeval-growth interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21576 by A. Merloni, D. Tub\'in-Arenas, J. Comparat, K. Nandra, Q. Ni, Y. Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example of an optically-selected AGN. In the top two panels, all the valid spaxels are plotted on the [N II]-based and [S II]-based BPT diagrams. In the middle panels, we show the 2D maps of how these spaxels are classified according to the BPT diagrams. In the lower-left panel, we show the Hα EW map. In the lower-right panel, we show the final spaxel-level classification, which combines all the informatio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: X-ray-selected AGNs and optically-selected AGNs on the M⋆ vs. SFR plane, as labeled. All galaxies in the sample are displayed as background points, with grayscale intensity encoding their weights. The error bar in the corner indicates uncertainties in M⋆ and SFR derived from pyPipe3D SSP decomposition, estimated by comparison with independent measurements (Sánchez et al. 2022). Right: Similar to the … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: LX vs. L[OIII] for objects that are identified as both X-ray and optical AGNs. The dashed line is the best-fit log LX-L[OIII] relation reported in Lamastra et al. (2009). Right: LX/M⋆ vs. L[OIII]/M⋆ for ob￾jects that are identified as both X-ray and optical AGNs, with the best-fit relation converted from the log LX-L[OIII] relation. contribute substantially to the observed scatter, see Section 4.2 fo… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: The log LX/M⋆ distribution of X-ray AGNs. Right: The log L[OIII]/M⋆ distribution of optical AGNs. LX/M⋆ and L[OIII]/M⋆ cor￾respond to the X-ray and [O III] luminosity per unit stellar mass, re￾spectively, in units of erg s−1 M⊙ −1 . 39 40 41 42 43 log L[OIII] 40 41 42 43 44 lo g L X 28 29 30 31 32 log L[OIII]/M 29 30 31 32 33 lo g L X/M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: The fraction of higher-L[OIII]/M⋆ (log L[OIII]/M⋆ > 29.5) optical AGNs as a func￾tion of ΣSFR,1 kpc, among objects with 10.5 < log M⋆ < 12. The y-axis error bars repre￾sent the 1σ confidence interval of AGN frac￾tion from bootstrapping. The x-axis error bars represent the 16th and 84th percentiles of the ΣSFR,1 kpc values. The grey shaded region rep￾resents the ΣSFR,1 kpc range where optical AGN sele… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top: The mean ΣSFR, Σ⋆, ∆MS, Dn4000 profiles of higher-LX/M⋆ X-ray AGNs compared with normal galaxies in the control sample matched according to M⋆, SFR, and z individually, sampled with a 1 kpc interval in major-axis radius. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. Bottom: Similar to the top panel, but for lower-LX/M⋆ X-ray AGNs. 2 4 6 8 10 radius (kpc) 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 m e a n lo … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The SFR surface density profiles estimated from Hα, of X￾ray AGNs with lower LX/M⋆ (log LX/M⋆ < 30.5) and normal galaxies utilized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Left: Mean ∆MS profiles of all the galaxies in the sample grouped according to their M⋆ and SFR values. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. Right: Similar to the left panel, but for ΣsSFR profiles. AGN hosts compared to normal galaxies on average should not be observed if the AGN and control galaxy samples are carefully selected (see Section 4.3). – We also note that the picture of coeval… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Mean ΣSFR profiles of galaxies in the sample grouped according to their M⋆ and SFR values. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. Cid Fernandes, R., González Delgado, R. M., García Benito, R., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A130 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasinska, G., Mateus, A., & Vale Asari, N. 2011, MNRAS, ´ 413, 1687 Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11 Davies, R. … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

It has been argued that supermassive black holes (BHs) coevolve with the central parts of galaxies, as a result of the common fuel for both the BH and star formation in the galaxy central region, as supported by the particularly significant relation between BH growth and the central mass density within 1 kpc found among star-forming galaxies. In the context of this scenario, one would naturally expect a close observational link between AGN activity and star formation activity in the central regions, e.g., the surface star formation rate density in the central 1 kpc region ($\Sigma_{\rm SFR, 1~kpc}$), as the manifestation of coeval growth. With ~3000 galaxies in the Mapping Nearby Galaxies at Apache Point Observatory (MaNGA) survey that have X-ray coverage from SRG/eROSITA, XMM-Newton, or Chandra, we studied how the X-ray AGN fraction varies with $\Sigma_{\rm SFR, 1~kpc}$. We found that the fraction of X-ray AGNs with relatively higher specific BH accretion rates increases with $\Sigma_{\rm SFR, 1~kpc}$, consistent with the expectation. Comparison of the mean star formation rate surface density ($\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$) profiles of the host galaxies of these AGNs and normal galaxies sharing similar properties reveals elevated $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ in AGN hosts across the entire central region. As for optically-selected AGNs, their hosts also tend to show high $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ in the central regions on average compared to normal galaxies, but are discrepant with X-ray AGNs in terms of the trend of AGN fraction vs. $\Sigma_{\rm SFR, 1~kpc}$, which can be explained by selection effects. While these general trends all support the coeval growth scenario, they do not contradict observational evidence for AGN feedback, as the time-averaged effects from local AGN feedback are modest in star-forming regions.

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 paper uses ~3000 MaNGA galaxies with X-ray coverage to examine links between AGN activity and central star formation. It reports that the fraction of X-ray AGNs at higher specific accretion rates rises with central Σ_SFR,1kpc, that AGN hosts exhibit elevated central Σ_SFR profiles relative to controls matched on similar properties, and that optically selected AGNs show central elevation but discrepant trends attributable to selection. These trends are interpreted as supporting coeval BH-central star formation growth via shared fuel, without contradicting AGN feedback given modest time-averaged effects in star-forming regions.

Significance. If the trends survive detailed bias checks, the work supplies direct observational evidence for coeval growth in local galaxies, helping reconcile models of common gas supply with feedback. The multi-survey X-ray selection and profile comparisons constitute a concrete, testable contribution to the coevolution literature.

major comments (2)
  1. The central interpretation that rising X-ray AGN fraction with Σ_SFR,1kpc demonstrates a direct coeval-growth link (rather than selection) rests on the adequacy of control matching. The manuscript must explicitly list the matching variables (stellar mass, morphology, redshift, etc.) and demonstrate that residual differences in central gas density or SFR are not driving the observed elevation; without this, the trend remains consistent with the skeptic concern that X-ray selection preferentially picks systems with intrinsically higher central densities.
  2. The statement that time-averaged local AGN feedback effects are modest in star-forming regions is load-bearing for the claim of no tension with feedback. This requires a quantitative estimate or reference to the relevant time-scale comparison in the discussion section; the current qualitative assertion leaves the reconciliation with feedback observations under-specified.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify the precise definition and measurement aperture for Σ_SFR,1kpc and how it is derived from MaNGA data cubes.
  2. Add a table or supplementary figure showing the distribution of matched properties between AGN hosts and controls to allow direct assessment of matching quality.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments, which have helped clarify key aspects of our analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve the presentation of our methods and discussion.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central interpretation that rising X-ray AGN fraction with Σ_SFR,1kpc demonstrates a direct coeval-growth link (rather than selection) rests on the adequacy of control matching. The manuscript must explicitly list the matching variables (stellar mass, morphology, redshift, etc.) and demonstrate that residual differences in central gas density or SFR are not driving the observed elevation; without this, the trend remains consistent with the skeptic concern that X-ray selection preferentially picks systems with intrinsically higher central densities.

    Authors: We agree that the control matching procedure requires more explicit description. In the revised manuscript, we have added a clear statement in Section 3.2 listing the matching variables: stellar mass (within 0.1 dex), redshift (within 0.05), global SFR (within 0.2 dex), and morphology via Sersic index. On residual differences, the matching on global SFR already controls for overall activity levels, and central Σ_SFR is derived independently from MaNGA IFU data. We have expanded the text to explain that X-ray selection depends on BH accretion luminosity rather than directly on central gas density, making it unlikely that residuals drive the trend; this is further supported by the consistency of the result across different X-ray surveys. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The statement that time-averaged local AGN feedback effects are modest in star-forming regions is load-bearing for the claim of no tension with feedback. This requires a quantitative estimate or reference to the relevant time-scale comparison in the discussion section; the current qualitative assertion leaves the reconciliation with feedback observations under-specified.

    Authors: We accept that a quantitative discussion strengthens the interpretation. In the revised Section 4, we have added a paragraph providing timescale estimates: AGN duty cycles of order 10^7 years (referencing Hickox et al. 2014 and similar works) compared to central star-formation timescales of ~10^8 years inferred from the observed Σ_SFR values. This yields a time-averaged feedback energy deposition that is modest relative to the gas binding energy in these regions, supporting the lack of strong tension with coeval growth. Relevant references have been included. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational comparisons with independent data

full rationale

The paper reports direct measurements of X-ray AGN fractions versus central Σ_SFR,1kpc and mean Σ_SFR profiles in MaNGA galaxies with X-ray coverage. These are empirical trends extracted from survey catalogs and imaging, with no equations, parameter fits, or derivations that reduce to the inputs by construction. The coeval-growth interpretation is presented as consistent with prior expectations but is not used to define or force the observed quantities. Any self-citations are for context on the broader scenario and are not load-bearing for the new observational results, which remain falsifiable against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an observational study relying on standard assumptions in extragalactic astronomy for AGN identification via X-ray luminosity and star formation rate measurements from integral-field spectroscopy; no new free parameters, axioms beyond domain standards, or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption X-ray luminosity serves as a reliable indicator of supermassive black hole accretion rate
    Standard assumption in AGN studies, subject to effects from obscuration and variability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5922 in / 1237 out tokens · 60266 ms · 2026-05-22T09:36:27.410436+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, A&A, 687, A285

    Acharya, N., Bonoli, S., Salvato, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A285

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    L., & Georgakakis, A

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., & Georgakakis, A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1225

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    L., & Georgakakis, A

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., & Georgakakis, A. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4360 Albán, M. & Wylezalek, D. 2023, A&A, 674, A85

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Alexander, D. M. & Hickox, R. C. 2012, New A Rev., 56, 93

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    M., Greenwell, C., et al

    Andonie, C., Alexander, D. M., Greenwell, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, L144

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Best, P. N. & Heckman, T. M. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1569

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T

    Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 25

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 194

    Bing, L., Shi, Y ., Chen, Y ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 194

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    L., Watson, M

    Birchall, K. L., Watson, M. G., Aird, J., & Starling, R. L. C. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4556

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    R., Kazin, E., Muna, D., Weaver, B

    Blanton, M. R., Kazin, E., Muna, D., Weaver, B. A., & Price-Whelan, A. 2011, AJ, 142, 31

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151

    work page 2004

  12. [12]

    J., Owers, M

    Bryant, J. J., Owers, M. S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2857

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    2001, PASP, 113, 1449

    Calzetti, D. 2001, PASP, 113, 1449

    work page 2001

  15. [15]

    J., Hickox, R

    Chen, C.-T. J., Hickox, R. C., Alberts, S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 3

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    2014, A&A, 562, A21 Article number, page 13 of 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Sturm, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A21 Article number, page 13 of 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no. censfr-arxiv -4 -3 -2 -4 -3 -2 -4 -3 -2 -4 -3 -2 -4 -3 -2 1 3 5 7 9 radius (kpc) -4 -3 -2 1 3 5 7 9 radius (kpc) 1 3 5 7 9 radius (kpc) log SFR: -2.0 -1.5 log SFR: -1.5 -1.0 log SFR: -1.0 -0.5 log SFR: -0.5 0.0 log SFR: 0.0 0.5 log SFR: ...

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    J., Springel, V ., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

    L., Kewley, L

    Davies, R. L., Kewley, L. J., Ho, I.-T., & Dopita, M. A. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3961

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    2020, A&A, 636, A73

    Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Ricci, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A73

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    L., Wong, T., Sánchez, S

    Ellison, S. L., Wong, T., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, L46

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    N., Evans, J

    Evans, I. N., Evans, J. D., Martínez-Galarza, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 22

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 4586

    Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4586

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    D., Naoz, S., Zezas, A., & Basu-Zych, A

    Fragos, T., Lehmer, B. D., Naoz, S., Zezas, A., & Basu-Zych, A. 2013, ApJ, 776, L31

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 5827

    Fu, Y ., Cappellari, M., Mao, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5827

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 438 García-Burillo, S., Combes, F., Usero, A., et al

    Gaibler, V ., Khochfar, S., Krause, M., & Silk, J. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 438 García-Burillo, S., Combes, F., Usero, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A125

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    A., et al

    Gatto, L., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Riffel, R. A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 3229

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    2022, A&A, 666, A17

    Gilli, R., Norman, C., Calura, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A17

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    D., Greene, J

    Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S37

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Harrison, C. M. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0165

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    Hickox, R. C. & Alexander, D. M. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 625

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    C., Mullaney, J

    Hickox, R. C., Mullaney, J. R., Alexander, D. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 9

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    F., Richards, G

    Hopkins, P. F., Richards, G. T., & Hernquist, L. 2007, ApJ, 654, 731

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    C., Lin, L., Lin, J

    Hsieh, B. C., Lin, L., Lin, J. H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, L24

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    work page 1998

  36. [36]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961

    work page 2006

  37. [37]

    Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    2009, A&A, 504, 73

    Lamastra, A., Bianchi, S., Matt, G., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 73

    work page 2009

  39. [39]

    G., Ibarra-Medel, H., et al

    Lammers, C., Iyer, K. G., Ibarra-Medel, H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 26

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al

    Law, D. R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 83

    work page 2016

  41. [41]

    D., Basu-Zych, A

    Lehmer, B. D., Basu-Zych, A. R., Mineo, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 7

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    C., Johnson, B

    Leja, J., Carnall, A. C., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 3

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    R., Fabian, A

    Maiolino, R., Russell, H. R., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2017, Nature, 544, 202

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 1870

    Mineo, S., Gilfanov, M., & Sunyaev, R. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1870

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

    C., & Tremonti, C

    Moustakas, J., Kennicutt, Jr., R. C., & Tremonti, C. A. 2006, ApJ, 642, 775

    work page 2006

  46. [46]

    R., Leslie, S

    Mulcahey, C. R., Leslie, S. K., Jackson, T. M., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A144

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 4778

    Ni, Q., Aird, J., Merloni, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4778

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    N., Yang, G., et al

    Ni, Q., Brandt, W. N., Yang, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4989

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    N., et al

    Ni, Q., Yang, G., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1135

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    K., Schawinski, K., et al

    Oh, K., Yi, S. K., Schawinski, K., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 1

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    2025, A&A, 695, A6

    Parlanti, E., Carniani, S., Venturi, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A6

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1 Rodríguez-Puebla, A., Avila-Reese, V ., Yang, X., et al

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1 Rodríguez-Puebla, A., Avila-Reese, V ., Yang, X., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 130

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 4265

    Ruiz, A., Georgakakis, A., Gerakakis, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4265

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 Sánchez, S. F., Avila-Reese, V ., Hernandez-Toledo, H., et al. 2018, Rev. Mexi- cana Astron. Astrofis., 54, 217 Sánchez, S. F., Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., Lacerda, E., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 36 Sánchez, S. F., Kennicutt, R. C., Gil de Paz, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A8 Sánchez, S. F., Pérez, E., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., ...

    work page 1955

  55. [55]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 147

    Shin, J., Woo, J.-H., Chung, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 147

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 580 Article number, page 14 of 15 Ni et al.: The central star formation properties of local AGN host galaxies

    Spindler, A., Wake, D., Belfiore, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 580 Article number, page 14 of 15 Ni et al.: The central star formation properties of local AGN host galaxies

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 32 Tubín-Arenas, D., Krumpe, M., Lamer, G., et al

    Suh, H., Civano, F., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 32 Tubín-Arenas, D., Krumpe, M., Lamer, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A35 Villa-Vélez, J. A., Buat, V ., Theulé, P., Boquien, M., & Burgarella, D. 2021, A&A, 654, A153

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al

    Webb, N. A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A136

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Wechsler, R. H. & Tinker, J. L. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 435

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    B., Cappellari, M., Bershady, M

    Westfall, K. B., Cappellari, M., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 231

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    & Bourne, M

    Zubovas, K. & Bourne, M. A. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4956 Article number, page 15 of 15

    work page 2017