Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

This paper shows that apparently conflicting local estimates of the supermassive black hole mass function can be reconciled by correcting small galaxy-property calibration offsets, and that the same offsets shift the predicted gravitational

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Cross-catalog offsets in black hole mass proxies shift the predicted nHz gravitational wave background by factors comparable to PTA uncertainties; matching the observed amplitude requires a selection effect of about one sigma of the intrinsic scatter.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection A careful uncertainty-quantification paper; the claimed reconciliation of σ- and X_vir-based mass functions is conditional on extrapolated corrections that the authors themselves call coincidental. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08041 v1 pith:PIO62QW7 submitted 2025-09-09 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Uncertainties in the supermassive black hole abundance and implications for the GW background

Gabriela Sato-Polito , Matias Zaldarriaga This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords supermassive black hole mass functiongravitational wave backgroundpulsar timing arraysscaling relationsfundamental planevelocity dispersion functionsystematic calibration biasesnanohertz gravitational waves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper takes aim at a specific puzzle: why different ways of counting supermassive black holes in the local universe give different abundances, and whether that uncertainty changes the interpretation of the gravitational-wave background seen by pulsar timing arrays. It argues that the disagreement is mostly not about black holes at all but about how galaxy properties such as velocity dispersion, K-band luminosity, and effective radius are defined in the small black-hole sample versus the large galaxy catalog. Through overlapping measurements in the 6dFGS and 2MASS data, the three main proxies can be brought into reasonable agreement, with the remaining differences traced to surface-brightness selection and poorly calibrated photometric and aperture corrections. The quantitative core is a simple relation: a relative offset in a proxy changes the predicted strain by a factor that grows exponentially with the slope of the black-hole scaling relation, so for velocity dispersion a shift of about 0.07 dex is enough to double the predicted background. The paper concludes that reaching the pulsar-timing-array amplitude from the local M-sigma relation would require selection differences that make black holes about twice as massive at fixed sigma, a one-sigma shift in the intrinsic scatter.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that the scatter among estimates of the local supermassive black hole mass function is largely a story of how galaxy properties are measured in different catalogs, not a story about black holes themselves. Using the redundancy between the local black-hole sample, the fundamental-plane sample, and the full mass-function catalog, the paper establishes that three mass proxies—velocity dispersion sigma, K-band luminosity L, and the virial combination X_vir = log L + alpha log R—can be reconciled to some degree once differences in photometric calibration, aperture definition, and surface brightness are accounted for. The load-bearing relation is tha

What carries the argument

The central identity is the systematic-offset response h_{c,delta}/h_c = 10^{(5/6)b delta} (with an extra exponential factor if the mismatch also carries Gaussian scatter), which converts a relative calibration offset delta in a galaxy property X into a shift in the predicted gravitational-wave strain. The argument is carried by the fundamental-plane projection X_vir = log L + alpha log R, chosen so that it is the edge-on view of the fundamental plane; this projection minimizes the intrinsic scatter and explains why sigma-L disagrees between samples while sigma-X_vir agrees: the difference is mostly a surface-brightness difference. The numerical machinery is an end-to-end bootstrap that resa

Load-bearing premise

That the linear magnitude and radius corrections fitted on the bright, nearby local galaxies can be extrapolated to the fainter, smaller galaxies in the mass-function catalog; the paper itself stresses the arbitrariness of that extrapolation and calls the resulting consistency a possible coincidence.

What would settle it

Take the galaxies that dominate the gravitational-wave prediction (velocity dispersion near 260 km/s, K-band magnitudes near the survey limit) and measure each proxy twice: once with the local black-hole-sample conventions for total K-band luminosity, effective radius, and velocity dispersion at the effective radius, and once with the mass-function-sample conventions, including 2MASS photometry and velocity dispersion at R_e/8. If the mean relative offset delta is below about 0.03 dex for sigma or below about 0.06 for X_vir, the reconciliation and the factor-of-two shift used to reach the puls

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the offset formula is right, future pulsar-timing-array strain measurements constrain the relative calibration of galaxy catalogs as much as they constrain black hole demographics.
  • The velocity dispersion function measured from 6dFGS through the fundamental plane agrees with independent SDSS measurements, so a low predicted gravitational-wave background is not an artifact of the galaxy count.
  • The apparent sigma-versus-luminosity discrepancy is mostly a surface-brightness difference; looking at a fundamental-plane projection X_vir makes the local and mass-function samples consistent.
  • Matching the pulsar-timing-array amplitude from the local M-sigma relation requires a selection-induced factor-of-two increase in black hole mass at fixed sigma, equivalent to a one-sigma shift in the intrinsic scatter.
  • Because sigma-based predictions are so sensitive (b approximately 5), aperture corrections that lower sigma strictly reduce the predicted strain, whereas photometric corrections can partially cancel between catalogs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same sensitivity formula implies that quoted gravitational-wave-background constraints on black hole demographics are at least partly constraints on galaxy photometric calibration; as pulsar-timing-array precision improves, the background might be used in reverse to measure the relative offset delta.
  • A stellar-mass proxy M_star is formally more forgiving because its scaling slope is shallower, but the light-to-mass conversion is itself a place where systematic offsets can grow; the same redundancy test applied here to L and R could be repeated for M_star.
  • If the selection-difference explanation is correct, a volume-limited local sample with directly measured sphere-of-influence black hole masses at sigma above about 260 km/s would eliminate the need to infer p(x|X), directly testing the factor-of-two shift.
  • The paper's reconciliation treats the magnitude and radius corrections as partly canceling; a direct fainter-end calibration of the photometry would either confirm that cancellation or reveal it as coincidental, as the paper itself cautions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper quantifies how systematic offsets in galaxy properties (velocity dispersion, K-band luminosity, and a fundamental-plane virial parameter) between the small black-hole (BH) calibration sample and the larger mass-function (MF) catalog propagate into the predicted gravitational-wave background amplitude. It derives a simple sensitivity relation (Eq. 14), uses overlapping 6dFGS/2MASS data to compare SMBH mass functions from different proxies, and finds that the σ- and X_vir-based estimates can be reconciled only after applying local photometric corrections whose extrapolation is acknowledged to be uncertain. It concludes that matching PTA measurements would require selection effects corresponding to about a factor-of-two shift in BH mass at fixed σ.

Significance. The sensitivity relation (Eq. 14) is cleanly derived and provides a valuable, parameter-free diagnostic for the field: small offsets in galaxy properties can shift the predicted GWB by amounts comparable to current PTA uncertainties. The bootstrap pipeline includes Eddington-bias corrections and selection functions, and the velocity-dispersion function measured from 6dFGS agrees with the independent SDSS measurement. The authors are commendably explicit about the limitations of the photometric corrections. If the reconciliation of σ- and X_vir-based mass functions is robust, this is an important step in understanding the PTA GWB amplitude; if not, the paper still rigorously demonstrates the sensitivity of GWB predictions to catalog homogenization.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eq. (15), Table III; Figs. 7–8] The magnitude and radius corrections are fitted to local samples with m_K roughly 8–11 and log θ_e roughly 1.0–1.5 (Fig. 1), yet are applied to MF galaxies with m_K up to 12.55 and log θ_e down to 0.6. The two calibrations disagree in slope for the radius and in sign for the X_vir shift. The paper itself states that the consistency after applying these corrections 'appears to be a coincidence' (Sec. V A) and stresses 'the arbitrariness of the results inferred from extrapolating these linear relations' (Sec. III A). Since the X_vir-based mass functions and the red points in Figs. 7–8 directly depend on these extrapolated corrections, the reconciliation claim in the abstract is load-bearing on an assumption the authors themselves flag as unsupported. I ask for a robustness test: vary the correction parameters within their uncertainties, or apply an alternative 'no extrapolation' prescripti
  2. [Sec. V C, Eq. (26)] The VDF is built from p(log σ | X_vir) inferred in the FP sample (6dFGSv) and dn/dX_vir from the full 6dFGS MF sample. Agreement with the independent SDSS VDF (Bernardi et al. 2010) is good external support, but it does not fully resolve the concern that the FP sample is early-type selected while the MF catalog is not. If the σ–X_vir relation differs for non-early types, the assigned σ values for a large fraction of the MF sample, and hence the M–σ mass function and the dark blue points in Fig. 8, would be biased. The authors note this concern but only assert that the agreement with SDSS indicates the effect is 'likely minor.' A quantitative check—e.g., recomputing the VDF using only FP-like galaxies in the MF sample, or using a morphological split—would strengthen this load-bearing step.
  3. [Sec. IV A and Sec. V D] The likelihood treatment explicitly assumes no selection effects in the local BH sample, and the discussion of selection effects in Sec. V B is qualitative ('a natural magnitude for the shift from selection effects is of the order of the scatter'). The final quantitative conclusion—that matching PTA requires a factor-of-two BH mass offset, i.e., 1σ of the intrinsic scatter—depends entirely on this unmodeled selection term. While I agree the paper is careful to phrase this as a required assumption, the central message of the paper is that systematic uncertainties dominate PTA comparisons; leaving the dominant potential bias unquantified leaves the headline result less definitive than it could be. A more explicit propagation of possible selection shifts (e.g., varying the fraction of the scatter attributed to Y in the Appendix A model) would make the conclusion more robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2] The label Δ log h_c = (5/6) b ΔX omits the scatter contribution in Eq. (14). For clarity, state that the figure shows only the shift, not the σ_δ term.
  2. [Table I] The caption says 'width (±Δh_c) of the 90% confidence interval' but the formula uses Δh_c/h_c = 10^{(5/6)bδ}. Specify the adopted NANOGrav 15yr h_c value and central amplitude so readers can reproduce the numerical δ values.
  3. [Eq. (11)] The notation 'β ln 2(10)' is ambiguous; it should read β ln^2(10), and the square root should be displayed over the entire denominator to avoid confusion.
  4. [Sec. VI] There are typos in the conclusion: 'cause of this mismatch is unclar' and 'this this seem to imply' should be corrected.
  5. [Figs. 7 and 8] The red line labels 'M–X_vir (2MASS)' and 'M–X_vir (MASSIVE)' are not fully defined in the captions; specify which luminosity/radius corrections (if any) are applied in each case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the GWB sensitivity relation is derived, mass functions are anchored to external SDSS/PTA data, and the paper's own caveats flag its extrapolations as limitations rather than hidden fits.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation is not circular. The characteristic strain integral (Eq. 2) and the sensitivity relation (Eq. 14) follow analytically from the definition of h_c and a Gaussian offset model (Eq. 13); no parameter in Eq. 14 is fit to the mass functions or PTA amplitudes it is used to interpret. The VDF measured from 6dFGS (Eq. 26) is validated against the independent SDSS velocity dispersion function of Bernardi et al. 2010 (Fig. 6), providing an external anchor for the sigma route. The sigma- and X_vir-based mass functions are not forced to agree by construction: the sigma route uses the FP sample's sigma-X_vir relation plus the BH M-sigma relation, while the X_vir route uses the BH M-X_vir relation directly; these involve different fitted relations and agree only approximately (Figs. 7-8, residual discrepancy discussed in Sec. V D). The magnitude and radius corrections (Table III, Eq. 15) are calibrated on local samples and extrapolated to the MF catalog; the authors explicitly warn of 'the arbitrariness of the results inferred from extrapolating these linear relations beyond the local sample' (Sec. III A) and note that the agreement 'appears to be a coincidence' (Sec. V A). These are robustness limitations, not circular steps. The conclusion's factor-of-two statement is conditional ('one would need to assume'), not a fitted prediction, and no PTA measurement is used to adjust the mass-function parameters. Self-citations to Refs. [18,19] supply context and adopted redshift/mass-ratio parameters, but the relative strain ratios and external comparisons do not depend on those cited results as evidence for the new claims. Hence the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks and no circularity is found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on a set of modeling assumptions and adopted parameters. The scaling relations are assumed Gaussian-linear with constant scatter (Eq. 17); the local BH sample is assumed free of selection effects; the 2MASS-to-local magnitude and radius corrections are extrapolated beyond their calibrated range; the FP-derived sigma-X_vir relation is applied to the full 6dFGS including non-early-types; the aperture-correction slope gamma_ap is taken from the literature; and the virial parameter exponent alpha_vir is fixed at -0.8. The fitted scaling-relation coefficients and the adopted corrections are the free parameters that set the final strain predictions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha_vir (virial parameter exponent) = -0.8 (adopted from Refs. [39, 42]; fits give alpha_BH = -0.95, alpha_FP = -0.755)
    The definition X_vir = log L + alpha_vir log R is chosen to match the fundamental plane projection of the MF sample; the BH and FP samples require different values, and the paper discusses the impact of this choice (Sec. V B, Fig. 9).
  • aperture correction slope gamma_ap = -0.04 fiducial; range -0.07 to -0.03 from the literature
    Sets the sigma shift between BH (theta_e) and MF (theta_e/8) samples; reduces h_c by 0.5-0.75, a central systematic in the sigma-based estimates (Sec. III B).
  • magnitude correction fit parameters (a_mK, b_mK) = BH: a=-0.26+/-0.03, b=1.02+/-0.02; MASSIVE: a=-0.292+/-0.009, b=0.950+/-0.017 (Table III)
    These linear corrections map 2MASS magnitudes to local samples; they are applied to the MF catalog far beyond the fitted range, so the correction is effectively a free choice with large systematic error (Sec. III A).
  • radius correction fit parameters (a_logtheta, b_logtheta) = BH: a=0.17+/-0.01, b=1.13+/-0.04; MASSIVE: a=0.072+/-0.006, b=0.96+/-0.04 (Table III)
    Same as the magnitude correction; the two references give different slopes (one above and one below unity), producing substantially different effective radii and hence different X_vir values.
  • scaling relation parameters (a, b, epsilon) for M-sigma, M-X_vir, sigma-X_vir = Fitted within bootstrap; ranges shown in Figs. 12 and 13
    All mass-function estimates and the sensitivity analysis depend on these fitted slopes and scatters; the scatter is also used to set the size of the hypothetical selection effect (shift of 0.4 dex).
  • radiative efficiency epsilon_r = 0.1
    Used to convert the quasar luminosity function to a BH mass density for the comparison in Fig. 8 (right panel); explicitly a representative value.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Scaling relations between log BH mass and log galaxy properties are Gaussian with a linear mean and constant intrinsic scatter (Eq. 17).
    The likelihood in Eq. 18 and all subsequent estimates assume p(Y|X) is normal with linear mean and constant epsilon; the paper argues curvature is sub-dominant (App. B) but does not prove it.
  • domain assumption The local BH sample has no selection effects.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. IV A: 'We tentatively assume that there are no selection effects in the local sample.' The whole selection-effect analysis in Sec. V depends on this; if false, the scaling relations and the required factor-of-two shift change.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2MASS-to-local magnitude and radius corrections (Eq. 15, Table III) can be extrapolated linearly to the magnitude and size regime of the MF catalog.
    Sec. III A stresses 'the arbitrariness of the results inferred from extrapolating these linear relations beyond the local sample'; the corrections are nonetheless applied in Sec. V D.
  • domain assumption The sigma-X_vir relation measured in the FP sample applies to the full 6dFGS catalog, including galaxies of all morphological types.
    Sec. V C: 'the FP sample predominantly contains early-type galaxies, raising concerns about the universal applicability of the derived Xvir-sigma relation'; the paper argues agreement with the SDSS VDF makes any such effect minor.
  • domain assumption The velocity dispersion profile correction sigma(theta) = sigma_ap (theta/theta_ap)^(gamma_ap) with gamma_ap = -0.04 holds across the full sample.
    Eq. 16, Sec. III B; the uncertainty range -0.07 to -0.03 shifts h_c by 0.5-0.75, so the fiducial value is load-bearing.
  • standard math The Eddington-bias correction (step 5 of the bootstrap) is sufficient to de-bias the assigned masses; noise is added as n_i ~ N(0, sqrt(epsilon_Y^2 - b^2 sigma_X,i^2)).
    Standard propagation of intrinsic scatter, but assumes the intrinsic scatter is independent of X and that measurement errors are Gaussian and diagonal.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncertainties in the supermassive black hole abundance and implications for the GW background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIO62QW7

@misc{pith2026250908041,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncertainties in the supermassive black hole abundance and implications for the GW background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIO62QW7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08041}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

The present-day mass function of supermassive black holes is the most important observable quantity for the prediction and theoretical interpretation of the gravitational wave background (GWB) measured by pulsar timing arrays (PTAs). Due to the limited sample size of galaxies with dynamically inferred SMBH masses, more readily measurable galaxy properties $X$ that correlate with the black hole mass are used as labels (via scaling relations $M_{\bullet}-X$), which can then be counted in a larger galaxy catalog to produce a measurement of the mass function. Estimating the amplitude of the GWB from the local mass function is therefore simpler than general measurements of scaling relations and galaxy mass/luminosity functions for two reasons: the contribution to the characteristic strain is dominated by a narrow range of masses, and the mass proxy $X$ is always marginalized over. While consistent errors in $X$ in both catalogs are irrelevant, relatively small biases between them can produce significant shifts in the predicted SMBH abundance. In this work, we explore measurements of the SMBH mass function using different mass proxies through a set of catalogs with a number of redundant measurements between them. This enables us to investigate internal inconsistencies that lead to discrepancies in the final black hole abundance, while minimizing observational systematic biases induced by combining disparate sets of measurements. We focus on 3 proxies: the velocity dispersion $\sigma$, K-band luminosity $L$, and a combination of $L$ and radius $R$ defined by the fundamental plane. We show that all three can be reconciled to some degree, but highlight the remaining dependence on poorly-quantified systematic corrections between the scaling relation catalogs and the mass function catalogs, as well as the potential impact of selection effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08041 by Gabriela Sato-Polito, Matias Zaldarriaga.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Histograms of observed galaxy properties across the BH [41], MASSIVE [42], FP [38], and MF [37] catalogs for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Variation in the characteristic strain value from shifts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Relation between virial parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Relation between velocity dispersion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effect of differences in surface brightness across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Velocity dispersion function from Ref. [31] measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Black hole mass function on the left and characteristic strain values on the right. Blue and red lines correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Characteristic strain normalized by the fiducial value (combining mass function and scaling relation from Refs. [31] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Relation between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Impact of curvature in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Histogram of scaling relation coefficients for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Equivalent to Fig. 12, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Dark QCD Origin of the NANOGrav Signal and Self-Interacting Dark Matter

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A dark QCD model with a first-order phase transition at 5-6 MeV produces the NANOGrav SGWB amplitude while supplying self-interacting dark matter via a 40 GeV baryon and 20-50 MeV dilaton, linked by entropy dilution.

  2. Prospects of resolving and localising individual supermassive black hole binaries with pulsar timing arrays: the host ranking challenge

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Simulations forecast 21-51% probability of resolving individual SMBH binaries with PTAs in 0-10 years, with localization areas containing ~190k early-type galaxies on average and a ranking method that excludes roughly...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    that it is dominated by a fairly narrow range of (high) SMBH masses,

    work page

  2. [2]

    sphere of influence

    and, since the mass function is inferred via dn dlogM • = Z dX p(logM•|X) dn dX ,(1) wherep(logM •|X) is the scaling relation, this means that the mass proxyXis always marginal- ized over. Point (1) restricts the parameter range of galaxies that are of consequence and (2) clarifies possible sources of er- rors. The mass proxyXcan be thought of as a label ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Fit the black hole scaling relationM • −Xin the local sample

    work page

  4. [4]

    For each galaxy in the resampled 6dFGS catalog, a black hole mass ¯M•,i is assigned based on the scaling relation fit in item 3

    work page

  5. [5]

    When the velocity dispersion is used, the fundamental plane catalog is also resampled with replacement

    The local sample and full 6dFGS catalog are each resampled with replacement. When the velocity dispersion is used, the fundamental plane catalog is also resampled with replacement

    work page

  6. [6]

    Since the full 6dFGS does not have velocity dispersion, if that is used as the mass proxy, we first fit the relation betweenX vir andσin the FP sample

    Define mass proxy in local and full catalogs. Since the full 6dFGS does not have velocity dispersion, if that is used as the mass proxy, we first fit the relation betweenX vir andσin the FP sample. For each galaxy in the resampled 6dFGS catalog, we then assign a velocity dispersion ˆσ(Xvir,i) based on its virial parameter using the FP fit

    work page

  7. [7]

    The Astrophysics of Nanohertz Gravitational Waves,

    S. Burke-Spolaor et al., “The Astrophysics of Nanohertz Gravitational Waves,” Astron. Astrophys. Rev.27 no. 1, (2019) 5,arXiv:1811.08826 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Inward Bound—The Search For Supermassive Black Holes In Galactic Nuclei,

    J. Kormendy and D. Richstone, “Inward Bound—The Search For Supermassive Black Holes In Galactic Nuclei,” Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.33(Jan., 1995) 581

    work page 1995

  9. [9]

    A Gaussian random componentn i is added to the inferred massM •,i = ¯M•,i +n i value (and ˆσi, if used) to reproduce the intrinsic scatter found in the scaling relation. The additional noise term is calibrated such that, when combined with measure- ment uncertainties, the total dispersion matches the intrinsic scatter, resulting in a practical cor- rectio...

    work page

  10. [10]

    The black hole mass function (and velocity func- tion) are computed using the 1/V max method. For each galaxy, the maximum volumeV max out to which it could be observed is computed using its K-band magnitude, given that the survey limit is ofK <12.55 and choose a minimum effective ra- dius log 10 θe/arcsec>0.6. The minimum radius was imposed to reduce the...

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    the galaxy properties are consistently defined be- tween local and distant catalogs and

    work page

  12. [12]

    Accounting for sample differences in surface brightness

    the galaxy samples are consistent. Either because: a) all galaxies satisfy the same scaling relation or b) local and distant samples contain the same galaxy populations In Fig. 3, we compare the relation betweenσ, the virial parameterX vir, andLin the local and fundamental plane samples. For clarity, we only show the case for one choice of galaxy property...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  13. [13]

    Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,

    D. J. Reardon et al., “Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,” Astrophys. J. Lett.951no. 1, (2023) L6,arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,

    H. Xu et al., “Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,” Res. Astron. Astrophys.23no. 7, (2023) 075024,arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]. [5]International Pulsar Timing ArrayCollaboration, G. Agazie et al., “Comparing recent PTA results on the nanohertz stochastic gravitational...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: the 4.5-yr data release and the noise and stochastic signals of the millisecond pulsar population,

    M. T. Miles, R. M. Shannon, D. J. Reardon, M. Bailes, D. J. Champion, M. Geyer, et al., “The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: the 4.5-yr data release and the noise and stochastic signals of the millisecond pulsar population,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.536no. 2, (Jan., 2025) 1467–1488,arXiv:2412.01148 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Black hole demography: from scaling relations to models,

    F. Shankar, “Black hole demography: from scaling relations to models,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 30no. 24, (Dec., 2013) 244001,arXiv:1307.3289 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  17. [17]

    A Practical theorem on gravitational wave backgrounds,

    E. S. Phinney, “A Practical theorem on gravitational wave backgrounds,”arXiv:astro-ph/0108028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Supermassive black holes and the evolution of galaxies.,

    D. Richstone, E. A. Ajhar, R. Bender, G. Bower, A. Dressler, S. M. Faber, et al., “Supermassive black holes and the evolution of galaxies.,” Nature (London) 385no. 6701, (Oct., 1998) A14, arXiv:astro-ph/9810378 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  19. [19]

    Massive black hole binaries in active galactic nuclei,

    M. C. Begelman, R. D. Blandford, and M. J. Rees, “Massive black hole binaries in active galactic nuclei,” Nature (London)287no. 5780, (Sept., 1980) 307–309

    work page 1980

  20. [20]

    Coevolution (Or Not) of Supermassive Black Holes and Host Galaxies,

    J. Kormendy and L. C. Ho, “Coevolution (Or Not) of Supermassive Black Holes and Host Galaxies,” Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.51no. 1, (Aug., 2013) 511–653,arXiv:1304.7762 [astro-ph.CO]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Revisiting the Scaling Relations of Black Hole Masses and Host Galaxy Properties,

    N. J. McConnell and C.-P. Ma, “Revisiting the Scaling Relations of Black Hole Masses and Host Galaxy Properties,” Astrophys. J.764no. 2, (Feb., 2013) 184, arXiv:1211.2816 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    Local supermassive black holes, relics of active galactic nuclei and the X-ray background,

    A. Marconi, G. Risaliti, R. Gilli, L. K. Hunt, R. Maiolino, and M. Salvati, “Local supermassive black holes, relics of active galactic nuclei and the X-ray background,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.351no. 1, (June, 2004) 169–185,arXiv:astro-ph/0311619 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  23. [23]

    The Millennium Galaxy Catalogue: The $M_{bh}$--$L_{spheroid}$ derived supermassive black hole mass function

    M. Vika, S. P. Driver, A. W. Graham, and J. Liske, “The Millennium Galaxy Catalogue: the M bh-Lspheroid derived supermassive black hole mass function,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.400no. 3, (Dec., 2009) 1451–1460,arXiv:0908.2102 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  24. [24]

    Self-Consistent Models of the AGN and Black Hole Populations: Duty Cycles, Accretion Rates, and the Mean Radiative Efficiency,

    F. Shankar, D. H. Weinberg, and J. Miralda-Escud´ e, “Self-Consistent Models of the AGN and Black Hole Populations: Duty Cycles, Accretion Rates, and the Mean Radiative Efficiency,” Astrophys. J.690no. 1, (Jan., 2009) 20–41,arXiv:0710.4488 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  25. [25]

    Selection bias in dynamically measured supermassive black hole samples: its consequences and the quest for the most fundamental relation,

    F. Shankar, M. Bernardi, R. K. Sheth, L. Ferrarese, A. W. Graham, G. Savorgnan, et al., “Selection bias in dynamically measured supermassive black hole samples: its consequences and the quest for the most fundamental relation,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.460no. 3, (Aug.,

    work page

  26. [26]

    Probing the co-evolution of SMBHs and their hosts from scaling relations pairwise residuals: dominance of stellar velocity dispersion and host halo mass

    F. Shankar et al., “Probing the co-evolution of SMBHs and their hosts from scaling relations pairwise residuals: dominance of stellar velocity dispersion and host halo mass,”arXiv:2505.02920 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Where are the supermassive black holes measured by PTAs?,

    G. Sato-Polito, M. Zaldarriaga, and E. Quataert, “Where are the supermassive black holes measured by PTAs?,” Phys. Rev. D110no. 6, (2024) 063020, arXiv:2312.06756 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Distribution of the gravitational-wave background from supermassive black holes,

    G. Sato-Polito and M. Zaldarriaga, “Distribution of the gravitational-wave background from supermassive black holes,” Phys. Rev. D111no. 2, (2025) 023043, arXiv:2406.17010 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Evolution of SMBHs in light of PTA measurements: implications for growth by mergers and accretion,

    G. Sato-Polito, M. Zaldarriaga, and E. Quataert, “Evolution of SMBHs in light of PTA measurements: implications for growth by mergers and accretion,” arXiv:2501.09786 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Rapid refitting techniques for Bayesian spectral characterization of the gravitational wave background using pulsar timing arrays,

    W. G. Lamb, S. R. Taylor, and R. van Haasteren, “Rapid refitting techniques for Bayesian spectral characterization of the gravitational wave background using pulsar timing arrays,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 10, (2023) 103019,arXiv:2303.15442 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    The Masses of Nuclear Black Holes in Luminous Elliptical Galaxies and Implications for the Space Density of the Most Massive Black Holes,

    T. R. Lauer, S. M. Faber, D. Richstone, K. Gebhardt, S. Tremaine, M. Postman, et al., “The Masses of Nuclear Black Holes in Luminous Elliptical Galaxies and Implications for the Space Density of the Most Massive Black Holes,” Astrophys. J.662no. 2, (June,

    work page

  32. [32]

    The M-Sigma Relation Derived from Sphere of Influence Arguments

    D. Batcheldor, “The M -σ ∗ Relation Derived from Sphere of Influence Arguments,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 711no. 2, (Mar., 2010) L108–L111,arXiv:1002.1705 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [33]

    On the inconsistency between the black hole mass function inferred from M_bh-sigma and M_bh-L correlation

    E. Tundo, M. Bernardi, J. B. Hyde, R. K. Sheth, and A. Pizzella, “On the Inconsistency between the Black Hole Mass Function Inferred from M-σand M-L Correlations,” Astrophys. J.663no. 1, (July, 2007) 53–60,arXiv:astro-ph/0609297 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  34. [34]

    Selection Bias in the M-σand M-L Correlations and Its Consequences,

    M. Bernardi, R. K. Sheth, E. Tundo, and J. B. Hyde, “Selection Bias in the M-σand M-L Correlations and Its Consequences,” Astrophys. J.660no. 1, (May,

    work page

  35. [35]

    267–275,arXiv:astro-ph/0609300 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    The 6dF Galaxy Survey: samples, observational techniques and the first data release,

    D. H. Jones, W. Saunders, M. Colless, M. A. Read, Q. A. Parker, F. G. Watson, et al., “The 6dF Galaxy Survey: samples, observational techniques and the first data release,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.355no. 3, (Dec., 2004) 747–763,arXiv:astro-ph/0403501 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  37. [37]

    The 6dF Galaxy Survey: final redshift release (DR3) and southern large-scale structures,

    D. H. Jones, M. A. Read, W. Saunders, M. Colless, T. Jarrett, Q. A. Parker, et al., “The 6dF Galaxy Survey: final redshift release (DR3) and southern large-scale structures,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.399 no. 2, (Oct., 2009) 683–698,arXiv:0903.5451 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  38. [38]

    [43], and is com- monly adopted in the literature

    isγ ap =−0.04, derived from Ref. [43], and is com- monly adopted in the literature. There are a variety of more modern studies measuring the velocity dispersion profiles from different galaxy samples (see, e.g., [46–49]). A robust conclusion found by such studies is that the in- ner profile rises towards the center for the massive/bright galaxies that are...

    work page

  39. [39]

    The massive end of the luminosity and stellar mass functions: Dependence on the fit to the light profile,

    M. Bernardi, A. Meert, R. K. Sheth, V. Vikram, M. Huertas-Company, S. Mei, and F. Shankar, “The massive end of the luminosity and stellar mass functions: Dependence on the fit to the light profile,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.436(2013) 697, arXiv:1304.7778 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    The massive end of the stellar mass function,

    R. D’Souza, S. Vegetti, and G. Kauffmann, “The massive end of the stellar mass function,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.454no. 4, (Dec., 2015) 4027–4036,arXiv:1509.07418 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    A New Census of the 0.2 ¡ z ¡ 3.0 Universe. I. The Stellar Mass Function,

    J. Leja, J. S. Speagle, B. D. Johnson, C. Conroy, P. van Dokkum, and M. Franx, “A New Census of the 0.2 ¡ z ¡ 3.0 Universe. I. The Stellar Mass Function,” Astrophys. J.893no. 2, (Apr., 2020) 111,arXiv:1910.04168 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    We therefore correct the magnitude and size in 2MASS in order to match the properties measured in both references and compare the 3 properties to study this effect

    find that the correction does have some dependence on apparent magnitude and angular size. We therefore correct the magnitude and size in 2MASS in order to match the properties measured in both references and compare the 3 properties to study this effect. The relation between the 2MASS magnitudem K and angular effective radiusθ e and those found in Refs. ...

    work page

  43. [43]

    Big Galaxies and Big Black Holes: The Massive Ends of the Local Stellar and Black Hole Mass Functions and the Implications for Nanohertz Gravitational Waves,

    E. R. Liepold and C.-P. Ma, “Big Galaxies and Big Black Holes: The Massive Ends of the Local Stellar and Black Hole Mass Functions and the Implications for Nanohertz Gravitational Waves,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 971no. 2, (2024) L29,arXiv:2407.14595 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Galaxy luminosities, stellar masses, sizes, velocity dispersions as a function of morphological type,

    M. Bernardi, F. Shankar, J. B. Hyde, S. Mei, F. Marulli, and R. K. Sheth, “Galaxy luminosities, stellar masses, sizes, velocity dispersions as a function of morphological type,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.404no. 4, (June,

    work page

  45. [45]

    The Structure of Galaxies I: Surface Photometry Techniques,

    J. Schombert and A. K. Smith, “The Structure of Galaxies I: Surface Photometry Techniques,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 29no. 2, (2012) 174–192

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    Quashing a suspected selection bias in galaxy samples having dynamically-measured supermassive black holes

    N. Sahu, A. W. Graham, and D. S. H. Hon, “Quashing a suspected selection bias in galaxy samples having dynamically measured supermassive black holes,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.518no. 1, (Jan., 2023) 1352–1360,arXiv:2210.02641 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    The MASSIVE Survey. I. A Volume-limited Integral-field Spectroscopic Study of the Most Massive Early-type Galaxies within 108 Mpc,

    C.-P. Ma, J. E. Greene, N. McConnell, R. Janish, J. P. Blakeslee, J. Thomas, and J. D. Murphy, “The MASSIVE Survey. I. A Volume-limited Integral-field Spectroscopic Study of the Most Massive Early-type Galaxies within 108 Mpc,” Astrophys. J.795no. 2, (Nov., 2014) 158,arXiv:1407.1054 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  48. [48]

    The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS),

    M. F. Skrutskie, R. M. Cutri, R. Stiening, M. D. Weinberg, S. Schneider, J. M. Carpenter, et al., “The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS),” Astron. J.131 no. 2, (Feb., 2006) 1163–1183

    work page 2006

  49. [49]

    Velocity Dispersion $\sigma_{\rm aper}$ Aperture Corrections as a Function of Galaxy Properties from Integral-field Stellar Kinematics of 10,000 MaNGA Galaxies

    K. Zhu, R. Li, X. Cao, S. Lu, M. Cappellari, and S. Mao, “Velocity Dispersionσ aper Aperture Corrections as a Function of Galaxy Properties from Integral-field Stellar Kinematics of 10,000 MaNGA Galaxies,” Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics23 no. 8, (Aug., 2023) 085001,arXiv:2307.12251 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selection biases,

    I. Mandel, W. M. Farr, and J. R. Gair, “Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selection biases,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486no. 1, (2019) 1086–1093, arXiv:1809.02063 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Fundamental Plane Data,

    L. A. Campbell et al., “The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Fundamental Plane Data,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 19 443no. 2, (2014) 1231–1251,arXiv:1406.4867 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  52. [52]

    The 6dF Galaxy Survey: The Near-Infrared Fundamental Plane of Early-Type Galaxies

    C. Magoulas, C. M. Springob, M. Colless, D. H. Jones, L. A. Campbell, J. R. Lucey, et al., “The 6dF Galaxy Survey: the near-infrared Fundamental Plane of early-type galaxies,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.427 no. 1, (Nov., 2012) 245–273,arXiv:1206.0385 [astro-ph.CO]. [40]PlanckCollaboration, N. Aghanim et al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [53]

    Unification of the fundamental plane and Super Massive Black Hole Masses,

    R. C. E. van den Bosch, “Unification of the fundamental plane and Super Massive Black Hole Masses,” Astrophys. J.831no. 2, (Nov., 2016) 134, arXiv:1606.01246 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [54]

    The MASSIVE survey - XVIII. Deep wide-field K-band photometry and local scaling relations for massive early-type galaxies,

    M. E. Quenneville, J. P. Blakeslee, C.-P. Ma, J. E. Greene, S. D. J. Gwyn, S. Ciccone, and B. Nyiri, “The MASSIVE survey - XVIII. Deep wide-field K-band photometry and local scaling relations for massive early-type galaxies,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.527 no. 1, (Jan., 2024) 249–264,arXiv:2210.08043 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Spectroscopy for E and S0 galaxies in nine clusters,

    I. Jorgensen, M. Franx, and P. Kjaergaard, “Spectroscopy for E and S0 galaxies in nine clusters,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.276no. 4, (Oct., 1995) 1341–1364

    work page 1995

  56. [56]

    Analytical approximations of K-corrections in optical and near-infrared bands,

    I. V. Chilingarian, A.-L. Melchior, and I. Y. Zolotukhin, “Analytical approximations of K-corrections in optical and near-infrared bands,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 405no. 3, (July, 2010) 1409–1420,arXiv:1002.2360 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  57. [57]

    On the hunt for ultramassive black holes in brightest cluster galaxies,

    J. Hlavacek-Larrondo, A. C. Fabian, A. C. Edge, and M. T. Hogan, “On the hunt for ultramassive black holes in brightest cluster galaxies,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.424no. 1, (July, 2012) 224–231,arXiv:1204.5759 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  58. [58]

    The SAURON project - IV. The mass-to-light ratio, the virial mass estimator and the fundamental plane of elliptical and lenticular galaxies

    M. Cappellari, R. Bacon, M. Bureau, M. C. Damen, R. L. Davies, P. T. de Zeeuw, et al., “The SAURON project - IV. The mass-to-light ratio, the virial mass estimator and the Fundamental Plane of elliptical and lenticular galaxies,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.366 no. 4, (Mar., 2006) 1126–1150, arXiv:astro-ph/0505042 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  59. [59]

    Stellar kinematics across the Hubble sequence in the CALIFA survey: General properties and aperture corrections

    J. Falc´ on-Barroso, M. Lyubenova, G. van de Ven, J. Mendez-Abreu, J. A. L. Aguerri, B. Garc ´ ıa-Lorenzo, et al., “Stellar kinematics across the Hubble sequence in the CALIF A survey: general properties and aperture corrections,” Astron. Astrophys.597(Jan., 2017) A48, arXiv:1609.06446 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    The MASSIVE survey - VIII. Stellar velocity dispersion profiles and environmental dependence of early-type galaxies,

    M. Veale, C.-P. Ma, J. E. Greene, J. Thomas, J. P. Blakeslee, J. L. Walsh, and J. Ito, “The MASSIVE survey - VIII. Stellar velocity dispersion profiles and environmental dependence of early-type galaxies,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.473no. 4, (Feb., 2018) 5446–5467,arXiv:1708.00870 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [63]

    The Eighth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: First Data from SDSS-III,

    H. Aihara, C. Allende Prieto, D. An, S. F. Anderson, ´E. Aubourg, E. Balbinot, et al., “The Eighth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: First Data from SDSS-III,” Astrophys. J. Supp.193no. 2, (Apr.,

    work page

  62. [65]

    Near-infrared Imaging of Early-Type Galaxies. II. Global Photometric Parameters,

    M. A. Pahre, “Near-infrared Imaging of Early-Type Galaxies. II. Global Photometric Parameters,” Astrophys. J. Supp.124no. 1, (Sept., 1999) 127–169

    work page 1999

  63. [66]

    The Scaling of Stellar Mass and Central Stellar Velocity Dispersion for Quiescent Galaxies at z¡0.7,

    H. J. Zahid, M. J. Geller, D. G. Fabricant, and H. S. Hwang, “The Scaling of Stellar Mass and Central Stellar Velocity Dispersion for Quiescent Galaxies at z¡0.7,” Astrophys. J.832no. 2, (Dec., 2016) 203, arXiv:1607.04275 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  64. [67]

    The bolometric quasar luminosity function at z = 0–7,

    X. Shen, P. F. Hopkins, C.-A. Faucher-Gigu` ere, D. M. Alexander, G. T. Richards, N. P. Ross, and R. C. Hickox, “The bolometric quasar luminosity function at z = 0–7,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.495no. 3, (2020) 3252–3275,arXiv:2001.02696 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  65. [68]

    The Lvpropσ 8 Correlation for Elliptical Galaxies with Cores: Relation with Black Hole Mass,

    J. Kormendy and R. Bender, “The Lvpropσ 8 Correlation for Elliptical Galaxies with Cores: Relation with Black Hole Mass,” Astrophys. J. Lett.769no. 1, (May, 2013) L5

    work page 2013

  66. [69]

    The Dynamical Fingerprint of Core Scouring in Massive Elliptical Galaxies,

    J. Thomas, R. P. Saglia, R. Bender, P. Erwin, and M. Fabricius, “The Dynamical Fingerprint of Core Scouring in Massive Elliptical Galaxies,” Astrophys. J. 782no. 1, (2014) 39,arXiv:1311.3783 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  67. [71]

    A log-quadratic relation between the nuclear black hole masses and velocity dispersions of galaxies,

    J. S. B. Wyithe, “A log-quadratic relation between the nuclear black hole masses and velocity dispersions of galaxies,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.365no. 4, (Feb.,

    work page

  68. [73]

    The M-σand M-L Relations in Galactic Bulges, and Determinations of Their Intrinsic Scatter,

    K. G¨ ultekin, D. O. Richstone, K. Gebhardt, T. R. Lauer, S. Tremaine, M. C. Aller, et al., “The M-σand M-L Relations in Galactic Bulges, and Determinations of Their Intrinsic Scatter,” Astrophys. J.698no. 1, (June, 2009) 198–221,arXiv:0903.4897 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  69. [2006]

    1082–1098,arXiv:astro-ph/0503435 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  70. [2007]

    808–834,arXiv:astro-ph/0606739 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  71. [2010]

    2087–2122,arXiv:0910.1093 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2087

  72. [2011]

    29,arXiv:1101.1559 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [2016]

    3119–3142,arXiv:1603.01276 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.