Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Revealing Hidden Substructures in the $M_{BH}$-$\sigma$ Diagram, and Refining the Bend in the $L$-$\sigma$ Relation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Black hole mass and galaxy velocity dispersion do not follow one universal relation; Sersic and core-Sersic galaxies define separate laws with slopes 5.75 and 8.64.

desk verdict Careful, transparent re-analysis of MBH-sigma; the Sersic/core-Sersic split is plausible but needs a formal model comparison before it becomes definitive. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06838 v3 pith:O33JBKFI submitted 2019-08-19 astro-ph.GA

Nandini Sahu , Alister W. Graham , Benjamin L. Davis This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords blackholescalingrelationsM_BH–sigmarelationSersicgalaxiescore-Sersicgalaxymorphologystellarvelocitydispersionsupermassiveholesluminosity–velocity
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 argues that the well-known relation between supermassive black hole mass $M_{\rm BH}$ and the central stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma$ of the host galaxy is not a single universal scaling law. Using 137 galaxies with directly measured black hole masses, it splits the sample by light-profile shape: ordinary Sersic galaxies follow $M_{\rm BH}\propto\sigma^{5.75\pm0.34}$, while core-Sersic galaxies, which have a depleted stellar core from past dry mergers, follow the much steeper $M_{\rm BH}\propto\sigma^{8.64\pm1.10}$. A single regression over the whole sample gives $M_{\rm BH}\propto\sigma^{6.10\pm0.28}$, but the paper contends that this line is a deceptive blend of the two populations. If right, black hole mass estimators and galaxy-black hole co-evolution models should treat core-Sersic and Sersic galaxies as separate tracks rather than one population.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the classification of a galaxy as Sersic versus core-Sersic based on multi-component decomposition of its surface-brightness profile. A core-Sersic galaxy has a central deficit of starlight relative to the inward extrapolation of its outer Sersic profile, a signature left by binary black holes carving out stars during major dry mergers. That structural label, not galaxy type alone, is what separates the two $M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma$ tracks, and it also produces the analogous bend in the $L$-$\sigma$ diagram. The regressions use symmetric bisector fitting, which does not assume a causal direction between black hole mass and velocity dispersion.

What would settle it

Recompute the bisector regressions with all 143 galaxies that have velocity dispersions, comparing a single bent relation against two separate lines with an information criterion or a likelihood-ratio test; if the bend-only model fits as well as two lines, the claimed dichotomy is not needed. A direct observational check is to measure black hole masses in a magnitude-limited sample of galaxies with $M_{\rm BH}\lesssim10^6\,M_\odot$ and $\sigma\lesssim100$ km s$^{-1}$: if those points connect smoothly to the Sersic line with no separate track, the exclusion-based split fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the $M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma$ diagram contains hidden substructure: galaxies whose bulges have a partially depleted stellar core follow a steeper relation, $M_{\rm BH}\propto\sigma^{8.64\pm1.10}$, than galaxies with ordinary Sersic light profiles, $M_{\rm BH}\propto\sigma^{5.75\pm0.34}$, with the slopes differing by roughly $2.5\sigma$. The two lines cross near $\sigma\approx255$ km s$^{-1}$, meaning that at high velocity dispersions the core-Sersic population has systematically larger black hole masses than the Sersic relation would predict. The same structural divide produces a bend in the galaxy luminosity-velocity dispersion ($L$-$\sigma$) relation in both the V band and the 3.6 $\mu$m band, and the combined $M_{\rm BH}$-$L$-$\sigma$ relations are internally consistent. The paper further finds that barred and non-barred galaxies show no offset once bar classifications are updated, and that active galactic nuclei do not shift the relations.

Load-bearing premise

The two-line result depends on excluding eight galaxies, including the only four with $M_{\rm BH}\lesssim10^6\,M_\odot$; if those are a continuous low-mass population with a bend rather than outliers, the quoted Sersic slope and the dichotomy are artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The single $M_{\rm BH}\propto\sigma^{6.10}$ relation is a blend; at $\sigma\gtrsim255$ km s$^{-1}$ the core-Sersic line gives noticeably larger black hole masses than the Sersic line.
  • Galaxy-black hole co-evolution models should reproduce two channels: gas-rich growth for Sersic galaxies and dry-merger growth for core-Sersic galaxies, with dry mergers adding black hole mass without a commensurate rise in $\sigma$.
  • Black hole mass estimates for other galaxies become more accurate when the host is classified by light-profile shape, and virial $f$-factor calibrations for reverberation-mapped active galaxies may need to depend on core type.
  • The bend in the $L$-$\sigma$ relation and the break in the $M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma$ relation share a common structural origin, so the two scaling relations can be used together to check one another.
  • Corrected bar classifications remove the previously reported barred-galaxy offset, so bars should not be treated as a separate population in $M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma$ work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the dichotomy is real, black hole mass functions built from $\sigma$ surveys will be biased unless the core-Sersic fraction is accounted for, because the steep core-Sersic track assigns higher masses at fixed $\sigma$.
  • Editorial inference: an untested corollary is that residuals of core-Sersic galaxies above the Sersic relation should correlate with the measured size of their depleted cores, tying the slope difference directly to the number of dry mergers.
  • Editorial inference: the claimed absence of a bar offset would gain strength if tested with a larger sample of strongly barred early-type galaxies and with bars decomposed in the near-infrared rather than inherited from older catalogs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 145 galaxies with directly measured black hole masses and central velocity dispersions, using multi-component light-profile decompositions to classify hosts as Sersic or core-Sersic, with or without a disk, barred or unbarred, and with or without an AGN. The central claim is that Sersic and core-Sersic galaxies define two distinct MBH-sigma relations, MBH proportional to sigma^(5.75 +/- 0.34) for 102 Sersic galaxies and MBH proportional to sigma^(8.64 +/- 1.10) for 35 core-Sersic galaxies (Equations 5 and 6, with slopes inconsistent at roughly the 2.5-sigma level). The paper also reports that the L-sigma relation is bent because Sersic and core-Sersic galaxies follow different L-sigma relations, that barred/non-barred and AGN/non-AGN divisions do not produce offsets, and that the previously reported bar offset is partly due to misclassification. The authors argue the resulting morphology-dependent relations improve MBH estimation and bear on galaxy-black hole co-evolution.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the MBH-sigma relation is not a single universal power law but a superposition of two relations linked to galaxy assembly history, which would be an important result for black hole scaling relations and feedback models. The paper's empirical strengths include the large compiled sample, the use of updated homogeneous velocity dispersions, the presentation of BCES regressions in all three minimization directions, and the transparent appendix tables showing the effect of excluded galaxies. The secondary L-sigma analysis is also valuable as a consistency check. However, the distinct-relations claim is not yet statistically decisive: no model-selection test is reported, and the inferred slope difference depends on the regression direction chosen. The internal consistency checks in Section 4 are partly self-referential because they combine scaling relations fit to largely the same overlapping sample. The significance is therefore conditional on additional statistical testing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Table 3] The claim that Sersic and core-Sersic galaxies follow two distinct MBH-sigma relations rests on a slope difference of about 2.5 sigma using the preferred BCES(Bisector) slopes (5.75 +/- 0.34 vs 8.64 +/- 1.10), but Table 3 shows that the BCES(sigma|MBH) slopes, 7.02 +/- 0.52 vs 9.77 +/- 1.70, differ by only about 1.5 sigma. The paper reports no formal model-selection test, such as a permutation test, bootstrap test, BIC/AIC comparison, or an F-test, that would show a two-line model is preferred over a single relation. Because the two-line interpretation was selected after examining several partitions (core, disk, bar, AGN), the look-elsewhere effect should also be addressed. Please add a decisive statistical comparison of the single-line versus two-line model for the Sersic/core-Sersic split.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Appendix Table 4] The exclusion of eight galaxies, including all four galaxies with MBH below about 10^6 solar masses, is presented as necessary to obtain 'more stable relations,' but the selection is made after inspecting the same data. Appendix Table 4 shows that including the six excluded galaxies with reliable sigma measurements changes the Sersic bisector slope from 5.75 +/- 0.34 to 4.83 +/- 0.35 while the core-Sersic slope remains 8.50 +/- 1.10, so the low-mass exclusions do not erase the dichotomy; however, they do change the single all-galaxy slope from 6.10 +/- 0.28 to 5.29 +/- 0.32. The paper should provide an objective, pre-specified exclusion criterion, and should present the two-line comparison both with and without all excluded galaxies, including a discussion of whether a continuous bent relation is an alternative description.
  3. [Section 4] The internal consistency checks between MBH-sigma, MBH-M*_sph, and M*_sph-sigma relations are partly circular: the MBH-M*_sph relations from Sahu et al. (2019) and the MBH-sigma relations derived here are fit to samples that overlap by roughly 85%, and the predicted M*_sph-sigma relations are then compared to direct BCES fits to the same galaxies. This does not constitute an independent validation. The authors should state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, test consistency on a subsample not used to derive either relation.
  4. [Section 5.1 and 5.2] The claim of a bend in the L-sigma relation also lacks a formal statistical comparison between a single power law and a broken relation. The V-band slopes 2.44 +/- 0.18 and 4.86 +/- 0.54 and the 3.6 micron slopes 2.97 +/- 0.43 and 5.16 +/- 0.53 are presented after reclassifying several galaxies and excluding NGC 4482 and NGC 4291 as outliers; the bend-point is quoted without an uncertainty or a fitted break model. Please provide a model-selection test for the bend and quantify the sensitivity of the bend-point and slopes to the excluded and reclassified galaxies.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2 note] The table note contains a typo: 'Intercept of the line line obtained from the BCES(Bisector) regression' should read 'Intercept of the line obtained from the BCES(Bisector) regression.'
  2. [Section 3.5.1] The comparison with Graham & Scott (2013) uses updated black hole masses, velocity dispersions, and bar classifications simultaneously; the authors state that the updated velocity dispersions alone do not drive the change, but it would be helpful to state explicitly which galaxies have updated MBH values and whether the reduced offset persists when using the old MBH values with the new bar classifications.
  3. [Section 5.1] The sentence 'Using elliptical galaxies from the V-band data-set of Lauer et al. (2007), with several modifications, Kormendy & Bender (2013) reported...' is grammatically awkward and should be rewritten for clarity.
  4. [Section 3.3] The sentence 'Sersic and core-Sersic categorization reveals two different relations followed by the two sub-populations' is slightly repetitive; consider 'The Sersic/core-Sersic categorization reveals two different relations.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two MBH-sigma relations are direct BCES fits to measured black hole masses and velocity dispersions; the internal consistency checks are explicitly labeled as checks, not independent predictions.

full rationale

No material circularity found. Equations (5) and (6) are BCES-bisector regressions of directly measured MBH against central velocity dispersion for independently classified Sersic (102 galaxies) and core-Sersic (35 galaxies) subsamples; the slope difference is an empirical result, not an input. The core-Sersic classification is based on the authors' earlier multi-component light-profile decompositions, which do not use MBH or sigma values, so the classification is not defined in terms of the relation being predicted. The Section 4 'internal consistency' checks combine the authors' own MBH-sigma and MBH-M* relations fit to largely the same galaxies; however, the paper explicitly frames these as consistency checks rather than independent predictions, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction. The L-sigma bend is refit from the Lauer et al. (2007) V-band dataset and 3.6 micron data with updated core classifications, external to the MBH-sigma fits. The Section 3.1 galaxy exclusions are sample-selection choices that affect robustness, but they are not circularity. The main statistical weaknesses, such as the absence of a formal one-line versus two-line model comparison and the dependence of the slope difference on the chosen regression direction, are correctness risks rather than circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is an empirical fit, so the main ledger entries are fitted slopes and the hand-chosen exclusions and uncertainties. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The morphological classifications and velocity dispersion homogenization are domain assumptions carried from the authors' prior work and external databases.

free parameters (5)
  • Slope of Sersic MBH-sigma relation = 5.75 +/- 0.34
    Fitted by BCES bisector regression to 102 Sersic galaxies; the central claim that Sersic and core-Sersic differ depends on this fitted slope.
  • Slope of core-Sersic MBH-sigma relation = 8.64 +/- 1.10
    Fitted to 35 core-Sersic galaxies; the claimed steepness of this relation is the central result.
  • Intercepts of the MBH-sigma relations = 8.24 +/- 0.05 and 7.91 +/- 0.20
    Fitted intercepts in log(MBH/Msun) at sigma = 200 km/s, from Equations 5 and 6.
  • Velocity dispersion uncertainty = 10% constant
    Chosen constant uncertainty for all sigma values; tests at 5% and 15% are reported as consistent.
  • Low-mass exclusion threshold = MBH below 10^6 Msun excluded
    All four galaxies with MBH below 10^6 Msun are excluded to stabilize the fit; this is a hand-chosen selection that affects the fitted slopes.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Central velocity dispersion measured in a fixed physical aperture is comparable across all galaxy types and is a fair proxy for the spheroid velocity dispersion.
    Used throughout; Section 2 discusses aperture effects and adopts HyperLeda homogenized values, but disk contamination may persist in lenticulars and spirals.
  • domain assumption The Sersic/core-Sersic, disk, and bar classifications from the authors' multi-component decompositions are correct.
    All morphological classes are taken from Savorgnan & Graham (2016), Davis et al. (2019), and Sahu et al. (2019); misclassification would directly alter the fitted relations.
  • domain assumption Directly measured black hole masses in the sample are accurate and mutually consistent despite heterogeneous methods (stellar and gas dynamics, masers, proper motion).
    MBH values come from many literature sources with different systematics; no cross-calibration is performed.
  • ad hoc to paper The eight excluded galaxies are genuine outliers or unusable, not part of a continuous population.
    Exclusions in Section 3.1 are justified by influence on fits; Appendix Table 4 quantifies the effect, showing the all-sample slope drops from 6.10 to 5.29 when six of them are included.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revealing Hidden Substructures in the $M_{BH}$-$\sigma$ Diagram, and Refining the Bend in the $L$-$\sigma$ Relation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O33JBKFI

@misc{pith2026190806838,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revealing Hidden Substructures in the $M_BH$-$\sigma$ Diagram, and Refining the Bend in the $L$-$\sigma$ Relation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O33JBKFI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06838}
}
abstract

Using 145 early- and late-type galaxies (ETGs and LTGs) with directly-measured super-massive black hole masses, $M_{BH}$, we build upon our previous discoveries that: (i) LTGs, most of which have been alleged to contain a pseudobulge, follow the relation $M_{BH}\propto\,M_{*,sph}^{2.16\pm0.32}$; and (ii) the ETG relation $M_{BH}\propto\,M_{*,sph}^{1.27\pm0.07}$ is an artifact of ETGs with/without disks following parallel $M_{BH}\propto\,M_{*,sph}^{1.9\pm0.2}$ relations which are offset by an order of magnitude in the $M_{BH}$-direction. Here, we searched for substructure in the $M_{BH}$--(central velocity dispersion, $\sigma$) diagram using our recently published, multi-component, galaxy decompositions; investigating divisions based on the presence of a depleted stellar core (major dry-merger), a disk (minor wet/dry-merger, gas accretion), or a bar (evolved unstable disk). The S\'ersic and core-S\'ersic galaxies define two distinct relations: $M_{BH}\propto\sigma^{5.75\pm0.34}$ and $M_{BH}\propto\sigma^{8.64\pm1.10}$, with $\Delta_{rms|BH}=0.55$ and $0.46$~dex, respectively. We also report on the consistency with the slopes and bends in the galaxy luminosity ($L$)--$\sigma$ relation due to S\'ersic and core-S\'ersic ETGs, and LTGs which all have S\'ersic light-profiles. Two distinct relations (superficially) reappear in the $M_{BH}$--$\sigma$ diagram upon separating galaxies with/without a disk (primarily for the ETG sample), while we find no significant offset between barred and non-barred galaxies, nor between galaxies with/without active galactic nuclei. We also address selection biases purported to affect the scaling relations for dynamically-measured $M_{BH}$ samples. Our new, (morphological type)-dependent, $M_{BH}$--$\sigma$ relations more precisely estimate $M_{BH}$ in other galaxies, and hold implications for galaxy/black hole co-evolution theories, and simulations. (Abridged)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06838 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Black hole mass versus central velocity dispersion relation followed by 91 ETGs (red circles) and 46 LTGs (blue squares). Dark red and blue lines are the BCES(bisector) best-fit lines for ETGs and LTGs. The red and blue bands around these lines represent the ±1σ uncertainty limits in their slopes and the intercepts. Furthermore, the light red and light blue shaded regions depict the ±1σ scatter in the ETG and LTG sa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Black hole mass versus central velocity dispersion relation obtained from a single regression on the sample of 137 ETGs and LTGs. The dark green line is the best-fit BCES(bisector) regression line (Equation 3). The dark green band around the dark green line shows the ±1σ uncertainty in the slope and intercept of the best-fit line. The light green shaded region represents the ±1σ scatter in the data. This explanation… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Black hole mass versus central velocity dispersion relation for S´ersic (blue triangles) and core-S´ersic (red squares) ETGs. These two sub-populations follow two distinct relations (Equations 4 and 6), suggesting a broken MBH–σ relation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Black hole mass versus central velocity dispersion relations for ETGs with a disk (ES/S0-types) and ETGs without a disk (E-type). We find two slightly different relations for galaxies with and without a disk, which is similar (but less pronounced) to the separation in …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Black hole mass versus central velocity dispersion relation for barred and non-barred ETGs. Although we only have a small sample of 17 barred ETGs, the consistency of the two regression lines (blue and red lines) suggests no offset between barred (Equation 7) and non-b…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of our MBH–σ relations for barred and non-barred galaxies with the relations reported in Graham & Scott (2013, GS13). Their galaxy sample is a sub-set of our current sample, thus, for a comparison, we use our latest data for the galaxies in their sample, app…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Black hole mass versus velocity dispersion followed by galaxies hosting an AGN and galaxies without an AGN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: V-band absolute magnitude versus velocity dispersion diagram for S´ersic and core-S´ersic ETGs taken from the sample of Lauer et al. (2007). The BCES(bisector) regression provides the relations LV ∝ σ 2.44±0.18 (Equation 12) and LV ∝ σ 4.86±0.54 (Equation 11) for S´er…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: 3.6 µm absolute magnitude versus velocity dispersion for the S´ersic and core-S´ersic ETGs in our sample. We find the bend in the relation at M3.6µm ≈ −22.3 mag (AB) with S´ersic and core-S´ersic galaxies following the best-fit lines L3.6µm ∝ σ 2.97±0.43 (Equation 14)…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Velocity dispersion versus total galaxy stellar mass for S´ersic and core-S´ersic ETGs (left panel), and including LTGs, which are all S´ersic galaxies, in a separate panel for clarity. The mean σ–M∗,gal distribution for (i) SDSS early-type galaxies from Shankar et al…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. RABBITS IV: Stellar feedback and SMBH merging time-scales in the sub-Milky Way mass regime

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Stronger stellar feedback lowers central stellar densities in low-mass merger remnants and systematically lengthens SMBH merger delays, yielding a 30–500 Myr spread in post-hardening coalescence times.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    85bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 5

    86 0 . 85bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 5. 22 ± 0. 36 8 . 34 ± 0. 05 0 . 32 0 . 43 bces(σ |MBH) σ 6. 29 ± 0. 35 8 . 29 ± 0. 06 0 . 34 0 . 47 46 Late-Type Galaxies bces(Bisector) Symmetric 5. 82 ± 0. 75 8 . 17 ± 0. 14 0 . 57 0 . 63       

    work page

  2. [2]

    49bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 4

    59 0 . 49bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 4. 07 ± 0. 90 7 . 90 ± 0. 17 0 . 54 0 . 58 bces(σ |MBH) σ 10. 06 ± 1. 74 8 . 83 ± 0. 30 0 . 85 0 . 96 Single Regression on (137) Early and Late-Type Galaxies bces(Bisector) Symmetric 6. 10 ± 0. 28 8 . 27 ± 0. 04 0 . 43 0 . 53       

    work page

  3. [3]

    87bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 5

    86 0 . 87bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 5. 50 ± 0. 29 8 . 26 ± 0. 04 0 . 42 0 . 51 bces(σ |MBH) σ 6. 82 ± 0. 32 8 . 29 ± 0. 05 0 . 46 0 . 58 S´ ersic and Core-S´ ersic Galaxies 102 S´ ersic Galaxies bces(Bisector) Symmetric 5. 75 ± 0. 34 8 . 24 ± 0. 05 0 . 46 0 . 55       

    work page

  4. [4]

    78bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 4

    78 0 . 78bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 4. 86 ± 0. 34 8 . 16 ± 0. 05 0 . 45 0 . 52 bces(σ |MBH) σ 7. 02 ± 0. 52 8 . 34 ± 0. 07 0 . 54 0 . 64 35 Core-S´ ersic Galaxies bces(Bisector) Symmetric 8. 64 ± 1. 10 7 . 91 ± 0. 20 0 . 25 0 . 46       

    work page

  5. [5]

    65bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 7

    73 0 . 65bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 7. 74 ± 1. 15 8 . 04 ± 0. 18 0 . 25 0 . 43 bces(σ |MBH) σ 9. 77 ± 1. 70 7 . 74 ± 0. 31 0 . 27 0 . 52 Galaxies with and without a disk 93 ES, S0, Sp-Type Galaxies bces(Bisector) Symmetric 5. 72 ± 0. 34 8 . 22 ± 0. 06 0 . 47 0 . 56       

    work page

  6. [6]

    78bces(MBH|sigma) MBH 4

    79 0 . 78bces(MBH|sigma) MBH 4. 86 ± 0. 35 8 . 15 ± 0. 05 0 . 45 0 . 53 bces(σ |MBH) σ 6. 94 ± 0. 51 8 . 32 ± 0. 07 0 . 54 0 . 64 44 E-Type Galaxies bces(Bisector) Symmetric 6. 69 ± 0. 59 8 . 25 ± 0. 10 0 . 30 0 . 43       

    work page

  7. [7]

    80bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 6

    82 0 . 80bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 6. 05 ± 0. 67 8 . 32 ± 0. 10 0 . 29 0 . 41 bces(σ |MBH) σ 7. 47 ± 0. 69 8 . 16 ± 0. 12 0 . 32 0 . 47 Galaxies with and without a bar 50 Barred Galaxies bces(Bisector) Symmetric 5. 30 ± 0. 54 8 . 14 ± 0. 10 0 . 45 0 . 53       

    work page

  8. [8]

    61bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 3

    65 0 . 61bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 3. 97 ± 0. 59 7 . 97 ± 0. 10 0 . 43 0 . 49 bces(σ |MBH) σ 7. 86 ± 1. 30 8 . 48 ± 0. 19 0 . 61 0 . 71 87 Non-Barred Galaxies bces(Bisector) Symmetric 6. 16 ± 0. 42 8 . 28 ± 0. 06 0 . 40 0 . 51       

    work page

Show all 16 references
  1. [9]

    86bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 5

    86 0 . 86bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 5. 57 ± 0. 43 8 . 30 ± 0. 06 0 . 40 0 . 49 bces(σ |MBH) σ 6. 88 ± 0. 45 8 . 25 ± 0. 07 0 . 44 0 . 55 Table 3 continued 32 Sahu, Graham, and Davis Table 3 (continued) Regression Minimization α β ǫ ∆ rms|BH r r s (dex) (dex) (dex) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6...

  2. [10]

    79bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 5

    83 0 . 79bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 5. 37 ± 0. 51 8 . 16 ± 0. 09 0 . 53 0 . 60 bces(σ |MBH) σ 7. 48 ± 0. 66 8 . 28 ± 0. 10 0 . 63 0 . 72 96 Galaxies without AGN bces(Bisector) Symmetric 5. 92 ± 0. 31 8 . 30 ± 0. 05 0 . 37 0 . 48       

  3. [11]

    88bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 5

    87 0 . 88bces(MBH|σ ) MBH 5. 43 ± 0. 33 8 . 29 ± 0. 05 0 . 37 0 . 46 bces(σ |MBH) σ 6. 51 ± 0. 33 8 . 30 ± 0. 05 0 . 39 0 . 51 Note— Columns: (1) Type of regression performed. (2) The coordin ate direction in which the offsets from the regression line is minimized. (3) Slope of...

    2007

  4. [12]

    53bces(L|σ ) L 3

    52 0 . 53bces(L|σ ) L 3. 38 ± 0. 48 8 . 70 ± 0. 06 0 . 28 0 . 32 bces(σ |L) σ 8. 55 ± 1. 53 8 . 08 ± 0. 19 0 . 44 0 . 58 80 S´ ersic ETGs bces(Bisector) Symmetric 2. 44 ± 0. 18 8 . 41 ± 0. 04 0 . 28 0 . 31       

  5. [13]

    69bces(L|σ ) L 1

    73 0 . 69bces(L|σ ) L 1. 93 ± 0. 18 8 . 35 ± 0. 04 0 . 27 0 . 29 bces(σ |L) σ 3. 30 ± 0. 36 8 . 51 ± 0. 05 0 . 35 0 . 38 3.6 µ m 24 Core-S´ ersic ETGs bces(Bisector) Symmetric 5. 16 ± 0. 53 8 . 56 ± 0. 08 0 . 00 0 . 19       

  6. [14]

    76bces(L|σ ) L 5

    86 0 . 76bces(L|σ ) L 5. 48 ± 0. 70 8 . 51 ± 0. 11 0 . 00 0 . 20 bces(σ |L) σ 4. 86 ± 0. 47 8 . 60 ± 0. 07 0 . 00 0 . 18 42 S´ ersic ETGs bces(Bisector) Symmetric 2. 97 ± 0. 43 8 . 72 ± 0. 07 0 . 33 0 . 36       

  7. [15]

    61bces(L|σ ) L 2

    61 0 . 61bces(L|σ ) L 2. 10 ± 0. 40 8 . 68 ± 0. 06 0 . 32 0 . 33 bces(σ |L) σ 5. 04 ± 0. 92 8 . 81 ± 0. 09 0 . 49 0 . 53 24 LTGs (All S´ ersic) bces(Bisector) Symmetric 2. 10 ± 0. 41 8 . 90 ± 0. 09 0 . 17 0 . 20       

  8. [16]

    68bces(L|σ ) L 1

    70 0 . 68bces(L|σ ) L 1. 64 ± 0. 44 8 . 83 ± 0. 10 0 . 16 0 . 18 bces(σ |L) σ 2. 89 ± 0. 42 9 . 03 ± 0. 08 0 . 21 0 . 25 Note— Columns: (1) Type of regression performed. (2) The coordin ate direction in which the offsets from the regression line is minimized. (3) Slope of the r...

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.