Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 93 references

Dual-component stellar assembly histories in local elliptical galaxies via MUSE

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three local ellipticals show a two-phase, inside-out assembly history in their stellar populations.

desk verdict The component-resolved data are new and the qualitative picture is plausible, but the paper's central ~50% inner-mass claim is asserted rather than derived, and the tabulated light fractions do not support it. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09827 v2 pith:Q6Q6B7NI submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.GA

Keerthana Jegatheesan , Evelyn J. Johnston , Boris Häu{ss}ler , Augusto E. Lassen , Rogério Riffel , Ana L. Chies-Santos This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords ellipticalgalaxiesstellarpopulationsstarformationhistoriesintegralfieldspectroscopygalaxydecompositiontwo-phaseSersicprofilesMUSE
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 tries to show that the formation of elliptical galaxies can be read as two distinct phases, visible in the stars themselves. Using integral-field spectroscopy of three isolated, roughly $10^{11} M_\odot$ ellipticals at $z<0.06$, the authors decompose each galaxy into an inner and an outer component and extract each component's spectrum separately. They find that the inner component formed early and rapidly, is old and metal-rich, and contains roughly half of the galaxy's stellar mass. The outer component assembled most of its mass shortly afterward, through dry mergers and possible gas accretion, and hosts a mix of old and intermediate-age stars with lower metallicities. The result supports the two-phase scenario of elliptical assembly and demonstrates a method for separating in-situ from ex-situ stellar populations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a spectro-photometric decomposition code, BUDDI, that fits two Sérsic profiles to every wavelength slice of the MUSE datacube, thereby separating the integrated light into a clean one-dimensional spectrum for each component. These component spectra are then fitted with a full spectral fitting routine (pPXF) that combines simple stellar population templates to return mass-weighted and light-weighted ages, metallicities, and the full distribution of stellar populations on an age–metallicity grid, from which cumulative star formation histories and $\tau_{50}$/$\tau_{90}$ formation and quenching timescales are derived. Voronoi-binned 2D maps provide a consistency check of the radial trends. The key identity is the decomposition itself: the two Sérsic components are interpreted as the in-situ and ex-situ phases, so the physical conclusions depend on the decomposition being faithful.

What would settle it

Re-observing the galaxy with the strongest lunar contamination and repeating the decomposition under dark-sky conditions would settle whether its outer component's young, metal-poor population is real, since the paper itself flags this component as less robust. More generally, if a single-Sérsic fit or a three-component fit with a formal model comparison outperforms the two-component fit on the same datacubes, the inside-out two-phase interpretation would lose its structural basis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that in all three galaxies the stellar populations separate cleanly into two structurally distinct components with different assembly histories. The inner component (Sérsic half-light radius $\sim 1.4\text{--}2.8$ kpc) is composed entirely of stars older than about 8 Gyr, is metal-rich, and built up half of its mass by a look-back time of roughly 13 Gyr, implying a rapid, early dissipative collapse or gas-rich major merger. The outer component ($R_e \sim 6.7\text{--}19$ kpc) contributes about 50% of the total stellar mass, but assembled its mass more slowly, reaching $\tau_{90}$ several gigayears later, with a substantial intermediate-age population and sub-solar metallicities, consistent with accretion of smaller systems via dry mergers. The reconstructed star formation histories show both components quiescent over the last several gigayears, with the inner core quenched first. The authors interpret this as inside-out mass growth under the two-phase scenario, where the inner component is in-situ and the outer component is largely ex-situ.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim collapses if the two-Sérsic decomposition does not yield physically clean, uncontaminated spectra for each component, since all stellar population and star formation history results are derived from those spectra.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the two-phase picture holds, the inner component of a local elliptical is the surviving high-redshift core, so its stellar population should match the compact red nuggets seen at $z \gtrsim 1.5$.
  • The outer component carrying roughly half of the stellar mass means that dry merging after quenching is not a minor addition but a co-dominant channel of mass growth.
  • The short $\tau_{50}$–$\tau_{90}$ interval in the inner component implies that star formation was intense and quenched early, so later gas accretion did not reignite star formation.
  • The negative metallicity gradient between components (metal-rich inner, metal-poor outer) traces the in-situ/ex-situ transition rather than a continuous disk-like gradient.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to apply the same two-component decomposition to a larger, mass- and environment-matched sample; if the roughly 50% inner-mass fraction is universal, it would set a strong constraint on merger histories.
  • The interpretation of the outer component as ex-situ rests on matching stellar populations to merger simulations; a direct check would be to search for tidal streams or shells around these galaxies, which should be present if dry mergers built the envelope.
  • Because the fossil record cannot distinguish stars formed in situ from those accreted, the same data could be reinterpreted with a single, radially continuous star formation history; the two-phase claim would be strengthened by showing a real discontinuity in mass-weighted age and metallicity at the component boundary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a pilot study of three isolated local elliptical galaxies (J020536, J205050, J225546; z<0.06, M* ~ 10^11 M_sun) observed with MUSE. The authors decompose each datacube into two Sérsic components (inner and outer) using BUDDI, a spectro-photometric decomposition code, and fit the extracted component spectra with pPXF to derive mass- and light-weighted ages, metallicities, and star formation histories, including cumulative SFHs and tau50/tau90 assembly timescales. The central claims are that (i) the inner components are old and metal-rich, assembled rapidly at early epochs via dissipative collapse or gas-rich major mergers; (ii) the outer components are co-dominant, contributing approximately 50% of the total stellar mass, and assembled their mass a few gigayears later via dry mergers and possible gas accretion; and (iii) these results support the two-phase formation scenario with inside-out growth. The paper also compares the BUDDI-based results with Voronoi-binned 2D stellar population maps and Lick indices as consistency checks.

Significance. If supported, the paper's qualitative results--metal-rich old inner components, more extended and less enriched outer components, inside-out growth--would add an IFS-based, spectro-photometric decomposition perspective to the two-phase formation scenario at intermediate mass scales. The methodology is clearly described, and the paper is honest about its caveats: lunar contamination for J205050's outer component (Sect. 3.2), the old-age degeneracy (Sect. 4.2), and the statement in Sect. 5.3 that the fossil-record method does not directly identify in-situ versus ex-situ populations. Strengths include the tabulated structural parameters, the decomposed spectra in the appendix, and the qualitative agreement across all three galaxies and with the Voronoi-binned maps. However, the quantitative backbone of the paper--the approximately 50% inner stellar mass fraction and the 1-5 Gyr assembly delays--rests on an undocumented mass calculation and on the least reliable component in the sample, so the significance is currently conditional on a revised, fully derived mass analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 4.4.2; Table 3; Abstract] The central claim of the Abstract and Section 6, that the inner component 'contributes to ~50% of the galaxy stellar mass' and that the outer component is therefore 'co-dominant', is asserted in Sect. 4.4.2 ('The relative contribution of the inner component to the total stellar mass was found to be 50% for all three galaxies') without any derivation. The only tabulated quantity bearing on this is the r-band (6166 Å) flux ratio F_inner/F_total in Table 3, which is 0.34, 0.45, and 0.34 for J020536, J205050, and J225546; these are light fractions, not mass fractions. Converting them to a mass fraction requires a mass-to-light ratio for each component, and Table 4 shows the components differ by up to ~5 Gyr in age and ~0.7 dex in metallicity (e.g., J205050: inner age 13.80 Gyr at [M/H]=0.245 versus outer 8.83 Gyr at [M/H]=-0.426), under which a constant M/L cannot be assumed without explicit justification. Table 5 cannot supply the inter-component ratio because the pPXF weights are normalized within each component. The authors should state the M/L conversion, present the resulting inner mass fractions with uncertainties, and either support or temper the 'co-dominant' wording in the Abstract.
  2. [Sect. 3.1, Sect. 4.1] The two-component Sérsic model is the foundation of the entire analysis, since all stellar population and SFH results derive from the BUDDI-decomposed component spectra, yet its selection over single- and three-component alternatives is justified only by 'visual inspection of the fit residuals and the estimated structural parameters, along with the extracted spectra' (Sect. 4.1), and the Chebyshev polynomial orders in Table 2 are likewise chosen by visual inspection. BUDDI/GalfitM computes goodness-of-fit statistics, so the authors should report a quantitative model comparison (e.g., delta-chi^2 or BIC between one-, two-, and three-component fits) or otherwise demonstrate that the decomposition is not driven by the polynomial-order choices, sky model, and mask geometry. Without this, the physical separation into 'inner' and 'outer' components, and hence the in-situ/ex-situ interpretation, rests on an unquantified modelling assumption.
  3. [Sect. 3.2; Table 4; Table 5] The quantitative assembly-delay result depends most heavily on the object the authors themselves caution against. Sect. 3.2 warns that the outer component of J205050 has the strongest lunar contamination and that 'we caution the direct interpretation of the fits and the resulting stellar populations for this component'. Yet this is the component that produces the largest inner-outer tau50 delay in Table 4 (4.74 Gyr versus 2.09 Gyr and 0.67 Gyr for the other two galaxies) and the largest intermediate-age mass fraction in Table 5 (35.8%), and it drives the 'delay of several gigayears' narrative in Sect. 4.4.2. With a sample of only three galaxies, the paper should either demonstrate through a sky-subtraction sensitivity test that the lunar contamination does not bias the derived ages and metallicities, or down-weight or exclude this component when stating the quantitative delays.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sect. 4.1] The final sentence of Sect. 4.1 is grammatically incomplete and contains an unmatched parenthesis: 'the 1D profiles rarely capture mismatches with the surface brightness models (depending on the choice of sampling rate and that are clearly visible spatially in the 2D profiles.'; it should be reworded.
  2. [Sect. 4.4.2] The phrase 'the inner component had already formed half of their mass by ~13 Gyr ago' has a singular/plural agreement error, and 'a delay of several gigayears' is broader than the tabulated tau50 delays, which range from 0.67 Gyr (J225546) to 4.74 Gyr (J205050); please rephrase to match Table 4.
  3. [Sect. 4.2; Table 4] Several tau50 and tau90 values in Table 4 exceed the age of the Universe under the adopted Planck 2016 cosmology (e.g., J205050 inner tau50 = 14.00 Gyr and single-component tau50 = 13.96 Gyr versus ~13.8 Gyr), consistent with the old-age degeneracy noted in Sect. 4.2; this caveat should be restated in Sect. 4.4.2 where the assembly timescales are used quantitatively.
  4. [Sect. 4.1; Fig. 1; Sect. 5.1] The 1D surface brightness profiles are extracted along the position angle of the single-Sérsic model, but Table 3 gives appreciably different PAs for the two components (e.g., J020536: inner 6.05 deg versus outer -8.47 deg); the authors should state whether the conclusions drawn from the 1D profiles (e.g., the ~3.5-4 kpc inflection discussed in Sect. 5.1) are robust to this choice.
  5. [Sect. 4.4; Figs. 7-9] The colour scales of the 2D SFH grids differ between sub-panels and between galaxies (e.g., the inner-component mass-fraction scale reaches 0.4 for J205050 but only 0.1 for J020536), making visual cross-comparison of absolute mass fractions difficult; consider using a common colour scale or stating explicitly that each panel is individually normalized.
  6. [Sect. 5.3; Abstract] The identification of the inner component with in-situ star formation and the outer component with ex-situ accretion is an interpretive step; the authors themselves note in Sect. 5.3 that the fossil-record method does not directly characterise a stellar population as formed in situ or ex situ, so this caveat should be restated in the Abstract or Conclusions to avoid overclaiming the two-phase framing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: stellar-population results are reconstructions of pPXF fits and the in-situ/ex-situ mapping is openly a surmise; the unsupported 50% mass fraction is a correctness gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

No circular step is present in the claimed derivation chain. The chain is: BUDDI decomposes each datacube into two Sérsic components (Sect. 3.1); pPXF fits SSP weights to the resulting component spectra (Sect. 3.2); the reconstructed SFHs in Sect. 4.4 are cumulative sums of those same fitted weights, so they are readouts of the fit rather than independent predictions, and the paper does not claim otherwise. The identification of the inner component with in-situ and the outer component with ex-situ star formation is explicitly a surmise (Sect. 5.3: 'We surmise that the inner and outer components represent the in situ and ex situ components, respectively'), and Sect. 5.3 also acknowledges that the fossil-record method does not directly characterize a stellar population as having formed in situ or ex situ. The self-citations—Johnston et al. (2017, 2022a) for BUDDI and Jegatheesan et al. (2024) for the REGUL choice—are methodological references to the tools used, not load-bearing arguments that assume the conclusions. The central quantitative claim in Sect. 4.4.2 that 'the relative contribution of the inner component to the total stellar mass was found to be 50% for all three galaxies' is not supported by the tables: Table 3 gives r-band flux fractions of 0.34, 0.45, and 0.34 for the inner components, and Table 5 normalizes the pPXF weights within each component, so no inter-component mass ratio is shown and no mass-to-light conversion is provided. That is a substantive missing-derivation/correctness issue, not a circularity, because no equation in the paper reduces the 50% value to the inputs by construction. The minor self-citations are not load-bearing, so the circularity score is low.

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

The paper's central claim depends on the chosen two-component decomposition and on the interpretive mapping of those components to formation channels. The main free parameters are the structural parameters fitted by BUDDI and the regularization of the pPXF fits. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Two-component Sersic structural parameters (Re, n, b/a, PA) = Table 3: inner Re=1.41-2.84 kpc, n=1.21-1.95; outer Re=6.67-18.98 kpc, n=1.34-1.55
    Fitted by BUDDI/GalfitM; determine the component light profiles and the decomposition that underlies all stellar population measurements.
  • Chebyshev polynomial orders for wavelength-dependent structural parameters = Orders 1 or 2 per parameter per galaxy (Table 2)
    Chosen manually after visual inspection; set the flexibility of the narrow-band fits and affect the extracted component spectra.
  • pPXF regularization parameter REGUL = Not quantified in paper; set following Shetty & Cappellari (2015) and Jegatheesan et al. (2024)
    Controls smoothness of the SFH weights; the paper notes potential model-dependent uncertainties and trade-offs due to this choice (Sect. 3.3).
  • Voronoi binning S/N threshold = S/N = 50 per bin (Sect. 3.4)
    User-defined threshold chosen to balance spatial resolution against reliable stellar population extraction; affects the 2D maps, though these are a complementary analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Two Sersic components are the correct model for these galaxies (inner + outer)
    Adopted after visual inspection of one-, two-, and three-component fits (Sect. 4.1); no statistical model comparison is provided, yet all stellar population results depend on this decomposition.
  • domain assumption The inner and outer Sersic components correspond to the in-situ and ex-situ components of the two-phase scenario
    Interpretive mapping from Huang et al. 2013a,b and Spavone et al. 2017; the paper calls the inner component 'in situ' and outer 'ex situ' throughout, but the fossil record cannot directly identify the origin of stars (paper notes this in Sect. 5.3).
  • domain assumption Full spectral fitting with pPXF yields reliable mass- and light-weighted stellar ages and metallicities for old populations
    Assumes the SSP template library and regularisation prescription are adequate; the paper acknowledges age degeneracy for t>8 Gyr (Sect. 4.2) and the limited blue spectral coverage (Sect. 4.2).
  • domain assumption The MUSE sky subtraction and BUDDI decomposition cleanly separate component spectra despite bright-moon observations
    The sky background is modelled with an arbitrary lunar spectrum; the outer component of J205050 is explicitly cautioned as less robust (Sect. 3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dual-component stellar assembly histories in local elliptical galaxies via MUSE." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q6Q6B7NI

@misc{pith2026250109827,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dual-component stellar assembly histories in local elliptical galaxies via MUSE},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q6Q6B7NI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09827}
}
abstract

Elliptical galaxies often exhibit complex assembly histories, and are presumed to typically form through a combination of rapid, early star formation and subsequent accretion of material, often resulting from mergers with other galaxies. To investigate theories of spheroidal galaxy formation, the objective of this work is to analyse the star formation histories (SFHs) of a sample of three isolated elliptical galaxies in the local Universe observed with MUSE at $z<0.06$. With BUDDI, we decompose the integral field unit (IFU) datacubes into two components with S\'ersic profiles, which roughly correspond to the two phases of in-situ and ex-situ star formation. To constrain the mode of growth in these galaxies, we derived the mass and light-weighted stellar ages and metallicities, and created the 2D stellar population maps of each component using pPXF. We reconstructed the mass and light-weighted SFHs to constrain the contribution of different stellar populations to the mass and luminosity of the components through cosmic time. Our results show that the ellipticals in this sample have experienced an early and rapid phase of star formation either through a rapid dissipative collapse or gas-rich major mergers concentrated in the inner component, which contributes to $\sim50$% of the galaxy stellar mass. The co-dominant outer component, however, had assembled the bulk of its stellar mass shortly after the inner component did, through accretion via dry mergers and possible gas accretion. This premise is supported by our observations of the inner component being primarily composed of old and metal-rich stars. The outer component has a combination of old and intermediate-age stars, with a moderate spread in metallicities. These results are analysed through the lens of the two-phase scenario, a framework developed over the years to explain the formation histories of elliptical galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09827 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fit to the median-stacked white-light image of the three ellipti￾cals, J020536, J205050, and J225546, from top to bottom. Left column: Observed input image, best-fit model, and residual image. The images have all been scaled to the same flux for comparison. Upper right panel: 1D light profile of the galaxy for the white-light image along the major axis (black points), the Sérsic profiles of the inner (red line) and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Decomposed spectra of the different components in J020536 extracted by BUDDI, for the MUSE wavelength range from the optical to near￾infrared. The galaxy spectrum integrated directly from the datacube is shown in black. The spectra of the inner component and outer component are displayed in red and blue, respectively, while the thick brown curve represents the sky spectrum from BUDDI. The scattered moonlight modelle… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. pPXF fits to the inner and outer component spectra derived from BUDDI. The component spectra are shown in red and blue for the inner and outer components, respectively, while the best spectral fits are shown in black. The grey points show the residuals, defined as the difference between the spectrum and the best fit. The brown stripe marks the location of the [OI] sky line, which is masked out during the fits. mass-… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stellar populations derived from the single and two-component models using pPXF. Upper panel: Mass-weighted stellar populations showing the logarithmic stellar ages in years (lower x axis) and their corresponding values in gigayears (upper x axis), against stellar meta…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Absorption line strengths and associated error bars of the age and metallicity indicators: Hβ, Mgb, and Fe, measured with PyLick. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Voronoi-binned stellar populations for galaxies J020536, J205050, and J225546 from left to right. From top to bottom, the rows indicate the logarithmic mass-weighted stellar ages, the light-weighted ages, the mass-weighted metallicities, and the light-weighted metallic…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stellar populations in metallicity-age grids and their subsequent assembly histories for galaxy J020536. 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 log Age (yr) -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 [M/H] Mass fractions (inner) 0.000 0.200 0.400 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 log Age (yr) -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 [M/H] Mass fractions (o…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stellar populations in metallicity-age grids and their subsequent assembly histories for galaxy J205050. 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 log Age (yr) -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 [M/H] Mass fractions (inner) 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 log Age (yr) -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 [M/H] Mass …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Stellar populations in metallicity-age grids and their SFHs for galaxy J225546. Article number, page 15 of 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2022

  2. [2]

    & Bosma, A

    Athanassoula, E. & Bosma, A. 1985, ARA&A, 23, 147

    1985

  3. [3]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 417

    Avila-Reese, V ., Zavala, J., & Lacerna, I. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 417

    2014

  4. [4]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ram- say, & H. Takami, 773508

    2010

  5. [5]

    E., Spiniello, C., Arnaboldi, M., et al

    Barbosa, C. E., Spiniello, C., Arnaboldi, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A93

    2021

  6. [6]

    Benedetti, J. P. V ., Riffel, R., Ricci, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2570 Bílek, M., Cuillandre, J. C., Gwyn, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A77

    2023

  7. [7]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 164

    Borghi, N., Moresco, M., Cimatti, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 164

    2022

  8. [8]

    2015, A&A, 581, A10

    Capaccioli, M., Spavone, M., Grado, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A10

    2015

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    2017

  2. [10]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273

    Cappellari, M. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3273

    2023

  3. [11]

    & Copin, Y

    Cappellari, M. & Copin, Y . 2003, MNRAS, 342, 345

    2003

  4. [12]

    & Emsellem, E

    Cappellari, M. & Emsellem, E. 2004, PASP, 116, 138

    2004

  5. [13]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 813

    Cappellari, M., Emsellem, E., Krajnovi´c, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 813

    2011

  6. [14]

    Cardiel, N., Gorgas, J., Cenarro, J., & Gonzalez, J. J. 1998, A&AS, 127, 597

    1998

  7. [15]

    & Carraro, G

    Chiosi, C. & Carraro, G. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 335

    2002

  8. [16]

    S., Ostriker, J

    Choi, E., Somerville, R. S., Ostriker, J. P., Hirschmann, M., & Naab, T. 2024, ApJ, 964, 54 Cid Fernandes, R., Mateus, A., Sodré, L., Stasi ´nska, G., & Gomes, J. M. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 363

    2024

  9. [17]

    2004, The Messenger, 118, 51

    Cimatti, A., Daddi, E., Renzini, A., et al. 2004, The Messenger, 118, 51

    2004

  10. [18]

    W., Mulchaey, J

    Colbert, J. W., Mulchaey, J. S., & Zabludoff, A. I. 2001, AJ, 121, 808

    2001

  11. [19]

    G., Baugh, C

    Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 168

    2000

  12. [20]

    2005, ApJ, 626, 680

    Daddi, E., Renzini, A., Pirzkal, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 680

    2005

  13. [21]

    J., Abraham, R

    Damjanov, I., McCarthy, P. J., Abraham, R. G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 101

    2009

  14. [22]

    A., Norris, M

    Davison, T. A., Norris, M. A., Leaman, R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3089 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948, Annales d’Astrophysique, 11, 247

    2021

  15. [23]

    J., Sweet, S

    Deeley, S., Drinkwater, M. J., Sweet, S. M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1192 Domínguez Sánchez, H., Bernardi, M., Brownstein, J. R., Drory, N., & Sheth, R. K. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5612

    2023

  16. [24]

    T., Knapen, J

    Dullo, B. T., Knapen, J. H., Williams, D. R. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4670 ESO CPL Development Team. 2015, EsoRex: ESO Recipe Execution Tool, As- trophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.003 Ferré-Mateu, A., Alabi, A., Forbes, D. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4891 F...

    2018

  17. [25]

    Geha, M., Guhathakurta, P., & van der Marel, R. P. 2003, AJ, 126, 1794

    2003

  18. [26]

    2015, ApJ, 811, 114

    Geha, M., Weisz, D., Grocholski, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 114

    2015

  19. [27]

    2000, A&AS, 141, 371

    Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 2000, A&AS, 141, 371

    2000

  20. [28]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4731 González Delgado, R

    Goddard, D., Thomas, D., Maraston, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4731 González Delgado, R. M., García-Benito, R., Pérez, E., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A103 González Delgado, R. M., Pérez, E., Cid Fernandes, R., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A128

    2017

  21. [29]

    W., Ciambur, B

    Graham, A. W., Ciambur, B. C., & Savorgnan, G. A. D. 2016, ApJ, 831, 132 Häußler, B., Bamford, S. P., Vika, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 330 Häussler, B., McIntosh, D. H., Barden, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 615 Häußler, B., Vika, M., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A92

    2016

  22. [30]

    Hopkins, A. M. 2018, PASA, 35, e039

    2018

  23. [31]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 419, Galaxy Evolution: Emerging Insights and Future Challenges, ed. S. Jogee, I. Marinova, L. Hao, & G. A. Blanc, 228

    2009

  24. [32]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereš, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356

    2008

  25. [33]

    J., Avila-Reese, V ., Sánchez, S

    Ibarra-Medel, H. J., Avila-Reese, V ., Sánchez, S. F., González-Samaniego, A., & Rodríguez-Puebla, A. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4525

    2019

  26. [34]

    J., Häußler, B., & Nedkova, K

    Jegatheesan, K., Johnston, E. J., Häußler, B., & Nedkova, K. V . 2024, A&A, 684, A32

    2024

  27. [35]

    H., Naab, T., & Ostriker, J

    Johansson, P. H., Naab, T., & Ostriker, J. P. 2012, ApJ, 754, 115

    2012

  28. [36]

    J., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Fraser-McKelvie, A., et al

    Johnston, E. J., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Fraser-McKelvie, A., et al. 2021, MN- RAS, 500, 4193

    2021

  29. [37]

    J., Häußler, B., Aragón-Salamanca, A., et al

    Johnston, E. J., Häußler, B., Aragón-Salamanca, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2317

    2017

  30. [38]

    J., Merrifield, M., & Aragón-Salamanca, A

    Johnston, E. J., Merrifield, M., & Aragón-Salamanca, A. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4255

    2018

  31. [39]

    2013, A&A, 560, A91

    Jones, A., Noll, S., Kausch, W., Szyszka, C., & Kimeswenger, S. 2013, A&A, 560, A91

    2013

  32. [40]

    2004, MNRAS, 347, 740

    Kobayashi, C. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 740

    2004

  33. [41]

    1977, ApJ, 217, 406

    Kormendy, J. 1977, ApJ, 217, 406

    1977

  34. [42]

    1989, ApJ, 342, L63 Krajnovi´c, D., Weilbacher, P

    Kormendy, J. 1989, ApJ, 342, L63 Krajnovi´c, D., Weilbacher, P. M., Urrutia, T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2 Article number, page 20 of 22 Keerthana Jegatheesan ID et al.: Dual-component stellar assembly histories in local elliptical galaxies via MUSE

    1989

  35. [43]

    & Boily, C

    Kroupa, P. & Boily, C. M. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 1188

    2002

  36. [44]

    2020, A&A, 644, A117

    Lacerna, I., Ibarra-Medel, H., Avila-Reese, V ., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A117

    2020

  37. [45]

    Lagos, C. d. P., Padilla, N. D., Davis, T. A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1271

    2015

  38. [46]

    Larson, R. B. 1974, MNRAS, 166, 585

    1974

  39. [47]

    E., Riffel, R., Chies-Santos, A

    Lassen, A. E., Riffel, R., Chies-Santos, A. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3527

    2021

  40. [48]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2109 Lima Neto, G

    Lazar, I., Kaviraj, S., Martin, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2109 Lima Neto, G. B., Durret, F., Laganá, T. F., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A95

    2023

  41. [49]

    A., Ellis, R

    MacArthur, L. A., Ellis, R. S., Treu, T., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 70

    2008

  42. [50]

    Malin, D. F. & Carter, D. 1980, Nature, 285, 643

    1980

  43. [51]

    M., Alatalo, K., Blitz, L., et al

    McDermid, R. M., Alatalo, K., Blitz, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3484

    2015

  44. [52]

    J., et al

    Michielsen, D., Boselli, A., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1374

    2008

  45. [53]

    Miller, R. H. & Smith, B. F. 1980, ApJ, 235, 421

    1980

  46. [54]

    Gosteinski, M. A. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 353

    2024

  47. [55]

    H., & Ostriker, J

    Naab, T., Johansson, P. H., & Ostriker, J. P. 2009, ApJ, 699, L178

    2009

  48. [56]

    2006, ApJ, 636, L81

    Naab, T., Khochfar, S., & Burkert, A. 2006, ApJ, 636, L81

    2006

  49. [57]

    Nair, P. B. & Abraham, R. G. 2010, ApJS, 186, 427

    2010

  50. [58]

    2012, A&A, 543, A92

    Noll, S., Kausch, W., Barden, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A92

    2012

  51. [59]

    Ogando, R. L. C., Maia, M. A. G., Chiappini, C., et al. 2005, ApJ, 632, L61

    2005

  52. [60]

    P., & Johansson, P

    Oser, L., Naab, T., Ostriker, J. P., & Johansson, P. H. 2012, ApJ, 744, 63

    2012

  53. [61]

    P., Naab, T., Johansson, P

    Oser, L., Ostriker, J. P., Naab, T., Johansson, P. H., & Burkert, A. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2312 Oyarzún, G. A., Bundy, K., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 111

    2010

  54. [62]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 3420

    Parikh, T., Thomas, D., Maraston, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3420

    2019

  55. [63]

    Y ., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266

    2002

  56. [64]

    Y ., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2011, GALFIT: Detailed Structural Decomposition of Galaxy Images, Astrophysics Source Code Li- brary, record ascl:1104.010

    2011

  57. [65]

    2004, ApJ, 612, 168

    Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., & Castelli, F. 2004, ApJ, 612, 168

    2004

  58. [66]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.03554 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Piqueras, L., Conseil, S., Shepherd, M., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.03554 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Plauchu-Frayn, I., Del Olmo, A., Coziol, R., & Torres-Papaqui, J. P. 2012, A&A, 546, A48

    2012

  60. [68]

    G., Vazdekis, A., et al

    Riffel, R., Dahmer-Hahn, L. G., Vazdekis, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 554

    2024

  61. [69]

    D., Rembold, S

    Riffel, R., Mallmann, N. D., Rembold, S. B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5640

    2023

  62. [70]

    G., Rodríguez-Ardila, A., & Bonatto, C

    Riffel, R., Pastoriza, M. G., Rodríguez-Ardila, A., & Bonatto, C. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 273 Romero-Gómez, J., Peletier, R. F., Aguerri, J. A. L., & Smith, R. 2024, A&A, 689, A40 Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Peletier, R. F., Jiménez-Vicente, J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 703

    2009

  63. [71]

    Sersic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    1968

  64. [72]

    & Cappellari, M

    Shetty, S. & Cappellari, M. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1332

    2015

  65. [73]

    T., Patton, D

    Simard, L., Mendel, J. T., Patton, D. R., Ellison, S. L., & McConnachie, A. W. 2011, ApJS, 196, 11

    2011

  66. [74]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 4294

    Siudek, M., Lisiecki, K., Krywult, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4294

    2023

  67. [75]

    T., Lilly, S

    Soto, K. T., Lilly, S. J., Bacon, R., Richard, J., & Conseil, S. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3210

    2016

  68. [76]

    R., et al

    Spavone, M., Capaccioli, M., Napolitano, N. R., et al. 2017, Galaxies, 5, 31

    2017

  69. [77]

    2021, A&A, 649, A161

    Spavone, M., Krajnovi ´c, D., Emsellem, E., Iodice, E., & den Brok, M. 2021, A&A, 649, A161

    2021

  70. [78]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 8793

    Spiniello, C., D’Ago, G., Coccato, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8793

    2024

  71. [79]

    G., Nelan, J., & Bezanson, R

    Tal, T., van Dokkum, P. G., Nelan, J., & Bezanson, R. 2009, AJ, 138, 1417

    2009

  72. [80]

    & Kobayashi, C

    Taylor, P. & Kobayashi, C. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3856

    2017

  73. [81]

    2007, ApJ, 671, 285

    Toft, S., van Dokkum, P., Franx, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 285

    2007

  74. [82]

    1977, in Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Populations, ed

    Toomre, A. 1977, in Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Populations, ed. B. M. Tinsley & D. C. Larson, Richard B. Gehret, 401

    1977

  75. [83]

    & Toomre, J

    Toomre, A. & Toomre, J. 1972, ApJ, 178, 623

    1972

  76. [84]

    J., Bundy, K., et al

    Trujillo, I., Conselice, C. J., Bundy, K., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 109 van Dokkum, P. G. 2005, AJ, 130, 2647 van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M., Kriek, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 677, L5

    2007

  77. [85]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 1177

    Vazdekis, A., Coelho, P., Cassisi, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1177

    2015

  78. [86]

    2010, MNRAS, 404, 1639

    Vazdekis, A., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1639

    2010

  79. [87]

    P., Häußler, B., & Rojas, A

    Vika, M., Bamford, S. P., Häußler, B., & Rojas, A. L. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3603

    2014

  80. [88]

    P., Häußler, B., et al

    Vika, M., Bamford, S. P., Häußler, B., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 623

    2013

  81. [89]

    2014, ApJ, 797, 62

    Vulcani, B., Bundy, K., Lackner, C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 62

    2014

  82. [90]

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

    Weilbacher, P. M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A28

    2020

  83. [91]

    1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Worthey, G. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 192, Spectrophotometric Dating of Stars and Galaxies, ed. I. Hubeny, S. Heap, & R. Cornett, 283

    1999

  84. [92]

    R., Hirschmann, M., et al

    Zibetti, S., Gallazzi, A. R., Hirschmann, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3562

    2020

  85. [93]

    Zibetti, S., Rossi, E., & Gallazzi, A. R. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stae178 Article number, page 21 of 22 A&A proofs: manuscript no. revision_v2 Appendix A: Decomposed spectra from BUDDI This appendix shows the observed spectra and the decomposed...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.