Secularly powered outflows from AGN: the dominance of non-merger driven supermassive black hole growth

Brooke Simmons; Chris Lintott; Jesse Shanahan; Rebecca Smethurst

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 104 references

Secularly powered outflows from AGN: the dominance of non-merger driven supermassive black hole growth

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 This paper shows that disk galaxies with no merger history can fuel their supermassive black holes entirely through secular processes, with measured outflows implying inflow rates of about one solar mass per year.

desk verdict New outflow measurements for 12 disk-dominated AGN, but the secular-vs-merger claim is undermined by a selection effect the authors never test. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01355 v1 pith:YET6HVXQ submitted 2019-09-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Rebecca Smethurst , Brooke Simmons , Chris Lintott , Jesse Shanahan This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

keywords AGNoutflowssupermassiveblackholegrowthsecularevolutiondiskgalaxiesnarrowbandimaging[OIII]emissionaccretiongalaxymergers

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

The paper sets out to test whether supermassive black holes in galaxies that have never undergone a major merger can still grow at the rates observed, fuelled entirely by internal processes such as bars and spiral arms. Using narrowband imaging of the [O III] 5007 Å line in 12 disk-dominated AGN, the authors detect outflows in 10 of them and measure a mean outflow rate of $0.95\pm0.14\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, about 18 times the mean black hole accretion rate of $0.054\pm0.039\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. From energy conservation this implies an average inflow rate of roughly $1.01\pm0.14\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, a level that simulations show bars, spiral arms, and cold accretion can supply. The paper also reports that these secularly fuelled AGN accrete about five times faster, yet drive outflows about five times weaker, than a comparison sample of AGN with merger-dominated histories, attributing the difference to smoother planar inflow spinning up the black hole and a biconical outflow geometry.

What carries the argument

The machinery is narrowband [O III] $\lambda5007$ imaging: continuum subtraction removes starlight, PSF subtraction removes the AGN's own narrow-line emission, and the remaining flux inside the Petrosian radius is summed as the outflow. The [O III] luminosity is converted to an outflowing gas mass via the Carniani et al. (2015) scaling, assuming solar metallicity and $n_e=500\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, and dividing by the outflow timescale, set by the blueshifted velocity and the maximum spatial extent of the emission, gives the mass outflow rate. Adding the black hole accretion rate, taken from SSL17 as $\dot m=L_{\rm bol}/\eta c^2$ with $\eta=0.15$, yields the inflow rate, with an energy-coupling factor $f=1$ so the quoted inflow rates are upper limits. The comparison claim rests on two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests between this sample and the Bae et al. (2017) merger-dominated sample.

What would settle it

Take the same 12 galaxies with an integral-field spectrograph and map the kinematics of the residual [O III] emission: if most of the flux outside the AGN PSF has narrow line widths and [O III]/H$\beta$ ratios typical of star formation rather than a broad, blueshifted AGN-driven component, then the measured outflow masses and derived inflow rates would not stand.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that merger-free, disk-dominated hosts can supply all the gas needed to power both an AGN and its outflow: the combined inflow rate needed is about $1\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, within the range produced by bars, spiral arms, and cold accretion in simulations. The mean outflow rate in the 12-source disk-dominated sample, $0.95\pm0.14\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, exceeds the mean SMBH accretion rate, $0.054\pm0.039\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, by a factor of roughly 18, so the galaxy must feed its centre at least this fast. In a direct comparison, the disk-dominated sample shows about 5 times higher black hole accretion rates ($4.2\sigma$) and about 5 times lower outflow rates ($2.6\sigma$) than a sample of 20 AGN with merger-dominated histories. The authors interpret this as evidence that smooth, coplanar secular inflow both spins the black hole up, raising accretion efficiency, and suffers less feedback interception from a biconical outflow than does the chaotic quasi-spherical inflow in merger-fuelled systems.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's numbers rely on the assumption that the [O III] flux left after subtracting the continuum and the AGN's point-spread function comes only from outflowing gas; if star-forming regions also contribute ionized flux, the outflow gas masses, outflow rates, and inferred inflow rates would be overestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Secular processes alone can fuel SMBH growth: the required inflow of roughly $1\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ is within the range of bars, spiral arms, and cold accretion and can last longer than the longest outflow timescale of about 920 Myr.
The outflow rate exceeds the accretion rate by a factor of about 18, so most inflowing gas is blown back out rather than consumed; galaxy gas budgets must therefore account for ejected material, not just accreted mass.
The higher accretion rates and lower outflow rates of the disk-dominated sample imply that black hole spin and accretion geometry, not just gas supply, determine how much inflowing gas is consumed versus ejected.
Barred galaxies in the sample host the brightest outflows at a marginally significant excess over the parent sample, suggesting bars are a plausible but not yet confirmed fuel-delivery mechanism.
The observed outflow velocities lie below the galaxy escape velocity, so these outflows redistribute gas within the galaxy rather than ejecting it into the intergalactic medium.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: because the paper assumes $f=1$ in the energy-balance inflow equation, the quoted inflow rates are upper limits; directly measuring the unseen driving wind velocity with X-ray or UV absorption lines would tighten the true rate that secular mechanisms must supply.
Inference: the comparison with Bae et al. (2017) mixes narrowband imaging with integral-field spectroscopy and uses different black-hole mass and bolometric calibrations, so part of the 5x/5x accretion/outflow contrast could be methodological; a same-method comparison would be needed to confirm the spin and geometry story.
Inference: if planar inflow indeed spins black holes up, then within disk-dominated samples the highest-accretion objects should show the highest spin indicators, while merger-fuelled AGN should be preferentially low-spin; X-ray reflection spectroscopy could test this directly.
Inference: the marginal 2.1$\sigma$ bar excess suggests that a larger sample of disk-dominated AGN, controlling for stellar mass, colour, and environment, could turn the bar-outflow connection into a definitive result.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a useful observational paper with a central comparison that is not yet trustworthy. The new data are real: narrowband [OIII] imaging of 12 disk-dominated AGN, with outflow rates from 0.007 to 2.92 Msun/yr, and an inference that these systems need about 1 Msun/yr of inflow. That is worth having.

What the paper does well: it is transparent about its own limitations. It flags PSF over-subtraction, star formation contamination, and it assigns upper or lower limits to five of the twelve sources rather than hiding them. It also does not overclaim the bar result, noting the bar excess is only 2.1 sigma. The interpretation in terms of spin and geometry is clearly labeled as speculative and follows Nayakshin et al. (2012), which is fine. The inflow rate is simply outflow plus accretion, so no circularity there.

The soft spots are real but not all equal. The biggest issue is sample selection. The 12 targets are the 12 brightest [OIII] outflows from the 58 detected in the parent sample of 101. Since [OIII] luminosity tracks bolometric luminosity, this selects for high accretion rate. The paper then compares those 12 to Bae et al.'s merger sample and finds a 4.2 sigma excess in accretion rate. That excess could just be the bright tail of the secular population, not a secular-vs-merger difference. The authors have the mdot values for all 101 and all 58; running the same KS test against B17 with those larger samples would settle it. They don't. That is a fixable but important gap.

The outflow-rate deficit at 2.6 sigma is less vulnerable to this selection, because picking bright outflows would bias the disk rates upward, so the deficit might actually be larger in an unbiased sample. But 2.6 sigma is not a strong claim.

The other issues are smaller. The mean outflow rate treats upper and lower limits as point values; that should be redone with a survival analysis or at least stated clearly. The B17 comparison uses different methods (IFS vs narrowband imaging, Type 2 vs Type 1) and the paper acknowledges but doesn't quantify the impact. The systematic uncertainties in ne, C, f, and metallicity are not propagated, but those affect all such measurements and are not a reason to reject.

Bottom line: the paper deserves a serious referee. The outflow measurements are new and the inflow rate estimate is a useful benchmark. But the headline claim about the dominance of secular growth needs the parent-sample comparison and a more careful treatment of limits before I'd believe it. I'd send it to review, and the review should push on those two points.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents narrow-band [OIII] 5007 Å imaging of 12 disk-dominated (presumed merger-free) AGN selected as the brightest blueshifted [OIII] components among 58 outflow detections in the Simmons, Smethurst and Lintott (2017) sample, plus 7 disk-dominated AGN without detected spectral outflows. The authors measure outflow rates from residual [OIII] flux after continuum and PSF subtraction, derive a mean outflow rate of 0.95 ± 0.14 M⊙ yr−1, compare it with SSL17 black hole accretion rates (mean 0.054 ± 0.039 M⊙ yr−1), and infer a mean lower limit on the inflow rate of ~1.01 ± 0.14 M⊙ yr−1 via Equation (4). They compare the disk sample with Bae et al. (2017) merger-dominated AGN and report significantly higher accretion rates (4.2σ) and lower outflow rates (2.6σ), interpreting this as evidence that secular processes can dominate SMBH growth.

Significance. If the central measurements are correct, the paper provides one of the first direct estimates of the gas supply rates required to sustain AGN activity in disk-dominated systems and a concrete observational contrast between secularly and merger-fed AGN. The new narrow-band imaging data are an independent contribution, and the authors are careful to mark contaminated or non-detected sources as limits in Table 2 and to acknowledge the main systematics (PSF subtraction and star-formation contamination) in Section 5.4. However, the statistical comparison that underpins the 'dominance' claim is weakened by sample selection and by method heterogeneity, and the mean outflow rate is derived without a stated treatment of the upper and lower limits; these issues need to be addressed before the comparative conclusions are robust.

major comments (4)

[§2.1, §5.3] The disk-dom-outflow sample is defined as the 12 brightest blueshifted [OIII] 5007 Å components among the 58 outflow detections in the SSL17 sample (§2.1). Because [OIII] luminosity is a tracer of AGN bolometric luminosity, this selection will plausibly bias the sample toward high Lbol and hence high mdot = Lbol/(ηc²). The 4.2σ difference in mdot between this sample and B17 (§5.3, Fig. 10) may therefore be a selection effect rather than a physical difference between secularly and merger-fed systems. The bootstrap test in the §5.3 footnote propagates only the mdot measurement uncertainties; it does not address this selection. Since the mdot values for all 101 SSL17 galaxies and for the 58 with detected outflows are already available, I request a direct comparison of these parent-sample distributions with B17; if the parent sample shows the same elevation, the claim is robust, and if not, the central comparative conclusion (item iv in Section 6) is unsupported.
[§4, Table 2] The mean outflow rate of 0.95 ± 0.14 M⊙ yr−1 is presented without stating how the five non-detections and limits in Table 2 are handled: Neville, Hermione and Cho are lower limits, while Snape and Crabbe are upper limits. Treating these bracketing values as point measurements biases both the mean and its standard error in a sample of only 12 objects. This is load-bearing because the factor-of-18 comparison with mdot and the inflow-rate estimate (Eq. 4) are derived from this mean. Please repeat the analysis using a survival-analysis estimator or a sensitivity test in which limits are set to their extreme values, and report the median and its uncertainty as well.
[§3.1, §5.4] For all sources except Hermione, Neville and Cho, the flux remaining after continuum and PSF subtraction is assumed to be entirely outflow-ionized gas. The authors themselves identify star-formation contamination as the 'greatest limitation' (Section 5.4). Because Mgas and Mdot_outflow scale linearly with L[OIII] (Eq. 1), unrecognized star-formation ionization would directly inflate the mean outflow rate and the inferred inflow rate. I ask for a quantitative upper bound on this contamination, for example using the gas masses measured in the disk-dom-none sample (Section 4) as templates, and a statement of how the factor-of-18 result changes under a conservative subtraction of this contamination.
[§5.3, Fig. 10] The B17 comparison compounds several methodological differences: Type 2 vs Type 1 AGN, M-sigma vs virial H-alpha black hole masses, [OIII]-based vs WISE-based bolometric luminosities, IFS vs narrow-band imaging, and B17's lack of quoted uncertainties. The two-sample KS tests in Fig. 10 treat each sample's scalar values as exact and directly comparable, so the reported p-values (0.00003 and 0.009) do not include systematic uncertainties. At minimum, the authors should quantify how each known systematic (e.g., the η correction already discussed, and the different Lbol calibrations) shifts the distributions, and ideally restrict the comparison to a matched subset in Lbol or MBH before concluding that the mdot and outflow-rate differences are driven by merger vs secular history.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] There is an unmatched closing parenthesis in 'SMBHs $0.054\pm0.039~\rm{M}_{\odot}~\rm{yr}^{-1}$)'.
[§3.2, Eq. (2)] The velocity units in Equation (2) are written as 'km yr−1'; the conventional unit for outflow velocities is km s−1, and the conversion from rmax/v to years should be stated explicitly.
[§3.2, Eq. (1)] The value of the clumping factor C is not specified in the text; since Mgas is proportional to C, please state explicitly that C = 1 (or the adopted value) and indicate how its uncertainty enters the error budget.
[Table 2] The notation for limits such as '> 0.07 ± 0.22' and '< 0.007 ± 0.004' is ambiguous; please clarify whether the quoted uncertainty refers to the limit value itself and whether these uncertainties were used in computing the sample mean.
[§2.1] The text states that no cuts were made on signal-to-noise ratio, but the selection of the '12 brightest' blueshifted components is effectively a flux selection; a sentence clarifying the distinction would avoid confusion.
[§1] The word 'inlcuding' in the first section is a typo for 'including'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the outflow measurements are new independent data, the inflow rate is an explicitly assumed sum of independently measured terms, and the B17 comparison uses external published measurements.

full rationale

All quantitative claims trace to new narrowband imaging or to published SSL17/B17 measurements; none are refitted in this paper. Equation (4) defines the inflow rate as mdot + f*Mdot_outflow, with the two terms measured independently (accretion from SSL17 WISE/H-alpha measurements; outflow from new Lick narrowband imaging). The factor-of-18 ratio between outflow and accretion is therefore not forced by construction, and the paper explicitly labels the inflow rate as an assumed bound rather than a prediction. The comparison with B17 uses independent published measurements obtained by a different technique (IFS), so the 2.6-sigma outflow-rate deficit is not manufactured. The 12-source selection by brightest [OIII] wing could plausibly bias the 4.2-sigma accretion-rate comparison, but that is a sample-selection/correctness concern, not circularity, and the paper's bootstrap only propagates mdot uncertainties. Self-citations (SSL17; Martin et al. 2018) are used as published external measurements and simulations, while the central outflow measurement is new; no equation reduces to its own input and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The quantitative claims rest on several assumed parameter values (electron density, clumping factor, metallicity, the f factor, and radiative efficiency) and on assumptions that disk morphology implies a merger-free history, that [OIII] residuals trace outflows, and that the Type 1 and Type 2 samples are comparable under unification. None of these are fitted to the data or independently verified in this paper.

free parameters (5)

electron density ne = 500 cm^-3
Assumed for all sources in Eq. 1; gas mass and outflow rate scale as ne^-1, so a factor 5 change in ne changes the central results by a factor 5.
clumping factor C = 1 (implicit)
Set to 1 when applying the Carniani et al. (2015) formula; no constraint from the data.
outflow-to-wind velocity factor f = 1
Set to 1 in Eq. 4 to derive inflow rates; f is unknown and could be <1, changing the required inflow.
gas metallicity [O/H] = solar
Assumed solar in Eq. 1; lower metallicity would increase the derived gas mass.
radiative efficiency eta = 0.15
Used in Eq. 5 to convert bolometric luminosity to accretion rate; B17 used 0.1, and the paper corrects for this.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Disk-dominated morphology implies a merger-free history since z<2
Invoked in Section 2.1 to claim the sample is merger-free; based on Martig et al. (2012) and Martin et al. (2018).
domain assumption The [OIII] flux remaining after continuum and PSF subtraction traces outflowing gas
Central to the outflow rate measurement; star formation contamination is handled only for a few sources with empirical limits.
domain assumption Type 1 and Type 2 AGN are comparable under unification
The disk-dom sample is Type 1 and the B17 sample is Type 2; the comparison assumes unification (Section 5.3).
domain assumption The Carniani et al. (2015) gas mass formula applies
Used as Eq. 1 without re-derivation; carries assumptions about temperature and ionization.
domain assumption Spin-up of the SMBH by planar accretion increases radiative efficiency
Underpins the interpretation of higher accretion rates in the secular sample (Section 5.3), but is not directly measured.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Secularly powered outflows from AGN: the dominance of non-merger driven supermassive black hole growth." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YET6HVXQ

@misc{pith2026190901355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Secularly powered outflows from AGN: the dominance of non-merger driven supermassive black hole growth},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YET6HVXQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01355}
}

abstract

Recent observations and simulations have revealed the dominance of secular processes over mergers in driving the growth of both supermassive black holes (SMBH) and galaxy evolution. Here we obtain narrowband imaging of AGN powered outflows in a sample of $12$ galaxies with disk-dominated morphologies, whose history is assumed to be merger-free. We detect outflows in $10/12$ sources in narrow band imaging of the [OIII] $5007 \unicode{x212B}$ emission using filters on the Shane-3m telescope. We calculate a mean outflow rate for these AGN of $0.95\pm0.14~\rm{M}_{\odot}~\rm{yr}^{-1}$. This exceeds the mean accretion rate of their SMBHs $0.054\pm0.039~\rm{M}_{\odot}~\rm{yr}^{-1}$) by a factor of $\sim18$. Assuming that the galaxy must provide at least enough material to power both the AGN and the outflow, this gives a lower limit on the average inflow rate of $\sim1.01\pm0.14~\rm{M}_{\odot}~\rm{yr}^{-1}$, a rate which simulations show can be achieved by bars, spiral arms and cold accretion. We compare our disk dominated sample to a sample of nearby AGN with merger dominated histories and show that the black hole accretion rates in our sample are 5 times higher ($4.2\sigma$) and the outflow rates are 5 times lower ($2.6\sigma$}. We suggest that this could be a result of the geometry of the smooth, planar inflow in a secular dominated system, which is both spinning up the black hole to increase accretion efficiency and less affected by feedback from the outflow, than in a merger-driven system with chaotic quasi-spherical inflows. This work provides further evidence that secular processes are sufficient to fuel SMBH growth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01355 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** GANDALF (Sarzi et al. 2006) fits of the SDSS spectra of the 12 AGN in the disk-dom-outflow sample observed using the Shane-3m telescope at the Lick Observatory, each showing a blueshifted wing component in the [Oiii] emission lines. In each panel, the solid black line shows the SDSS spectrum, with the corresponding error on the spectrum showed by the grey shaded region. Note that the errors on the spectrum are small… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** GANDALF (Sarzi et al. 2006) fits of the SDSS spectra of the 7 AGN in the disk-dom-none sample observed using the Shane-3m telescope at the Lick Observatory, each without a blueshifted wing component in the [Oiii] emission lines. In each panel, the solid black line shows the SDSS spectrum, with the corresponding error on the spectrum showed by the grey shaded region. Note that the errors on the spectrum are small. Th… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** SDSS gri or HST ACS WFC (where available, with WFC filters stated) postage stamp images of the 7 AGN in the disk-dom-none sample. The AGN can be seen as a bright point source in the centre of each image. The scale for each image is ∼ 0.15 arcsec/pixel, resulting in images approximately 63” across. Labels and coordinates are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: SDSS gri or HST ACS WFC (where available, with WFC filters stated) postage stamp images of the 12 AGN in the disk-dom-outflow sample. The AGN can be seen as a bright point source in the centre of each image, which we assume is powered by merger-free processes due to th…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Example images of reduced standard star HZ44 observed across six different narrow band filters used in this study. The central wavelength of each filter is stated in each panel. These images show how the PSF through each of these filters is not Gaussian, and is not a c…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: From left to right; the [Oiii] filter centered, continuum filter centered, continuum subtracted and PSF subtracted images for Hermione (top) and Padma (bottom). All images have a square root stretch applied. In the PSF subtracted images (far right), the red cross denot…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The PSF subtracted images for Hermione (left) and Padma (right), showing the maximum value across each of the RA and Dec axes. For Padma, the standard limit value of 3σ, where σ is the standard deviation of the image, is shown by the blue dashed line. In each image, th…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Continuum and PSF subtracted images for sources in the disk-dom-outflow sample. Only flux above either 3σ, or the empirically determined value to isolate the outflow from star formation ionised emission, is shown in each image. In each panel we show the name of the sou…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Continuum and PSF subtracted images for sources in the disk-dom-none sample. Only flux above 3σ is shown in each image. In each panel we show the name of the source and the gas mass of [Oiii] (see Equation 1) measured. This provides a limit for the amount of emission f…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Comparison between the properties of the disk-dom-outflow sample (solid histograms) and the Bae et al. (2017) sample of 20 AGN with merger histories (dashed lines). The secularly fueled AGN of the disk-dom-outflow sample have SMBHs with statistically similar masses an…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Toy model of accretion for a secularly (left) and merger (right) fed supermassive black hole to account for the results of this work discussed in Section 5.3, adapted from Nayakshin et al. (2012). The black hole accretion rates of the disk-dom-outflow sample are 5 tim…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...
[2]

S., Mart \' n S., Costagliola F., 2012, , 546, A68

Aalto S., Muller S., Sakamoto K., Gallagher J. S., Mart \' n S., Costagliola F., 2012, , 546, A68

2012
[3]

A., Fragile P

Abramowicz M. A., Fragile P. C., 2013, Living Reviews in Relativity, 16, 1

2013
[4]

P., Alexandroff R., Allende Prieto C., Anderson S

Ahn C. P., Alexandroff R., Allende Prieto C., Anderson S. F., Anderton T., Andrews B. H., Aubourg \'E ., Bailey S., Balbinot E., Barnes R., et al. 2012, , 203, 21

2012
[5]

F., Aubourg \'E ., Balbinot E., Beers T

Aihara H., Allende Prieto C., An D., Anderson S. F., Aubourg \'E ., Balbinot E., Beers T. C., Berlind A. A., Bickerton S. J., Bizyaev D., Blanton M. R., Bochanski J. J., Bolton A. S., SDSS Collaboration 2011, , 193, 29

2011
[6]

Alatalo K., 2015, , 801, L17

2015
[7]

M., Davis T

Alatalo K., Blitz L., Young L. M., Davis T. A., Bureau M., Lopez L. A., Cappellari M., 2011, , 735, 88

2011
[8]

A., Oppenheimer B

Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., \"O zel F., Dav \'e R., Katz N., Kollmeier J. A., Oppenheimer B. D., 2015, , 800, 127

2015

Show all 104 references

[9]

M., Sip o cz B

Astropy Collaboration Price-Whelan A. M., Sip o cz B. M., G \"u nther H. M., Lim P. L., Crawford S. M., Astropy Contributors 2018, , 156, 123

2018
[10]

P., Tollerud E

Astropy Collaboration Robitaille T. P., Tollerud E. J., Greenfield P., Droettboom M., Bray E., Aldcroft T., Davis M., Ginsburg A., Price-Whelan A. M., Kerzendorf W. E., Conley A., Crighton N., 2013, , 558, A33

2013
[11]

Bae H.-J., Woo J.-H., Karouzos M., Gallo E., Flohic H., Shen Y., Yoon S.-J., 2017, , 837, 91

2017
[12]

E., Hernquist L., 1996, , 471, 115

Barnes J. E., Hernquist L., 1996, , 471, 115

1996
[13]

E., Hernquist L

Barnes J. E., Hernquist L. E., 1991, , 370, L65

1991
[14]

J., Babul A., 2009, , 397, 1302

Benson A. J., Babul A., 2009, , 397, 1302

2009
[15]

D., Znajek R

Blandford R. D., Znajek R. L., 1977, , 179, 433

1977
[16]

Bradley L., Sipocz B., Robitaille T., Tollerud E., , 2019, astropy/photutils: v0.6

2019
[17]

Carniani S., Marconi A., Maiolino R., Balmaverde B., Brusa M., Cano-D \' az M., Cicone C., Comastri A., Cresci G., Fiore F., Feruglio C., La Franca F., Mainieri V., 2015, , 580, A102

2015
[18]

Cicone C., Maiolino R., Sturm E., Graci \'a -Carpio J., Feruglio C., 2014, , 562, A21

2014
[19]

W., Crawford S

Craig M. W., Crawford S. M., Deil C., Gomez C., G \"u nther H. M., Heidt N., Horton A., ccdproc contributors , 2015, ccdproc: CCD data reduction software , Astrophysics Source Code Library

2015
[20]

I., Maciejewski W., Hicks E

Davies R. I., Maciejewski W., Hicks E. K. S., Tacconi L. J., Genzel R., Engel H., 2009, , 702, 114

2009
[21]

W., Laor A., 2011, , 728, 98

Davis S. W., Laor A., 2011, , 728, 98

2011
[22]

D'Onghia E., Vogelsberger M., Hernquist L., 2013, , 766, 34

2013
[23]

J., Thomasson M., 1994, , 290, 785

Donner K. J., Thomasson M., 1994, , 290, 785

1994
[24]

Edelson R., Malkan M., 2012, , 751, 52

2012
[25]

Elvis M., Risaliti G., Zamorani G., 2002, , 565, L75

2002
[26]

Feruglio C., Maiolino R., Piconcelli E., Menci N., Aussel H., Lamastra A., Fiore F., 2010, , 518, L155

2010
[27]

A., 2019, , 485, 3409

Gallagher R., Maiolino R., Belfiore F., Drory N., Riffel R., Riffel R. A., 2019, , 485, 3409

2019
[28]

A., Willett K

Galloway M. A., Willett K. W., Fortson L. F., Cardamone C. N., Schawinski K., Cheung E., Lintott C. J., Masters K. L., Melvin T., Simmons B. D., 2015, , 448, 3442

2015
[29]

Gong X.-L., Jiang Z.-X., 2014, Chinese Physics Letters, 31, 089801

2014
[30]

D., Matthaey E., Greene J

Goulding A. D., Matthaey E., Greene J. E., Hickox R. C., Alexander D. M., Forman W. R., Jones C., Lehmer B. D., Griffis S., Kanek S., Oulmakki M., 2017, , 843, 135

2017
[31]

W., 2008, , 680, 143

Graham A. W., 2008, , 680, 143

2008
[32]

E., Ho L

Greene J. E., Ho L. C., 2005, , 630, 122

2005
[33]

H \"a ring N., Rix H.-W., 2004, , 604, L89

2004
[34]

M., Kauffmann G., Brinchmann J., Charlot S., Tremonti C., White S

Heckman T. M., Kauffmann G., Brinchmann J., Charlot S., Tremonti C., White S. D. M., 2004, , 613, 109

2004
[35]

Hernquist L., 1989, , 340, 687

1989
[36]

F., Cox T

Hopkins P. F., Cox T. J., Younger J. D., Hernquist L., 2009, , 691, 1168

2009
[37]

F., Hernquist L., Cox T

Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., Martini P., Robertson B., Springel V., 2005, , 630, 705

2005
[38]

F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2012, , p

Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2012, , p. 2655

2012
[39]

Hu J., 2008, , 386, 2242

2008
[40]

Hunt J. A. S., Hong J., Bovy J., Kawata D., Grand R. J. J., 2018, , 481, 3794

2018
[41]

S., Peirani S., Windhorst R

Kaviraj S., Cohen S., Ellis R. S., Peirani S., Windhorst R. A., O'Connell R. W., Silk J., Whitmore B. C., Hathi N. P., Ryan R. E., Dopita M. A., Frogel J. A., Dekel A., 2013, , 428, 925

2013
[42]

P., Wadsley J., Stadel J., Quinn T., Moore B., 2005, , 623, L67

Kazantzidis S., Mayer L., Colpi M., Madau P., Debattista V. P., Wadsley J., Stadel J., Quinn T., Moore B., 2005, , 623, L67

2005
[43]

H., Dav \'e R., 2005, , 363, 2

Kere s D., Katz N., Weinberg D. H., Dav \'e R., 2005, , 363, 2

2005
[44]

King A., Nixon C., 2015, , 453, L46

2015
[45]

R., Pringle J

King A. R., Pringle J. E., 2006, , 373, L90

2006
[46]

R., Pringle J

King A. R., Pringle J. E., Hofmann J. A., 2008, , 385, 1621

2008
[47]

L., 2002, Science, 295, 1688

Koide S., Shibata K., Kudoh T., Meier D. L., 2002, Science, 295, 1688

2002
[48]

E., 2011, , 469, 374

Kormendy J., Bender R., Cornell M. E., 2011, , 469, 374

2011
[49]

G., Hwang H

Lee G.-H., Woo J.-H., Lee M. G., Hwang H. S., Lee J. C., Sohn J., Lee J. H., 2012, , 750, 141

2012
[50]

E., Yang C.-C., Yen D

Lin L.-H., Wang H.-H., Hsieh P.-Y., Taam R. E., Yang C.-C., Yen D. C. C., 2013, , 771, 8

2013
[51]

Maciejewski W., 2004, , 354, 892

2004
[52]

J., Sparke L

Maciejewski W., Teuben P. J., Sparke L. S., Stone J. M., 2002, , 329, 502

2002
[53]

arXiv:1905.09287

Manzano-King C., Canalizo G., Sales L., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1905.09287

2019 arXiv
[54]

K., 2003, , 589, L21

Marconi A., Hunt L. K., 2003, , 589, L21

2003
[55]

J., Dekel A., Teyssier R., 2012, , 756, 26

Martig M., Bournaud F., Croton D. J., Dekel A., Teyssier R., 2012, , 756, 26

2012
[56]

D., Devriendt J

Martin G., Kaviraj S., Volonteri M., Simmons B. D., Devriendt J. E. G., Lintott C. J., Smethurst R. J., Dubois Y., Pichon C., 2018, , 476, 2801

2018
[57]

L., Nichol R

Masters K. L., Nichol R. C., Hoyle B., Lintott C., Bamford S. P., Edmondson E. M., Fortson L., Keel W. C., Schawinski K., Smith A. M., Thomas D., 2011, , 411, 2026

2011
[58]

Mayer L., Kazantzidis S., Escala A., Callegari S., 2010, , 466, 1082

2010
[59]

H., Smith B

Miller R. H., Smith B. F., 1979, , 227, 785

1979
[60]

P., 1998, , 301, 142

Moderski R., Sikora M., Lasota J. P., 1998, , 301, 142

1998
[61]

Moore B., Katz N., Lake G., Dressler A., Oemler A., 1996, Nature, 379, 613–616

1996
[62]

P., 2017, , 55, 59

Naab T., Ostriker J. P., 2017, , 55, 59

2017
[63]

B., Abraham R

Nair P. B., Abraham R. G., 2010, ApJL, 714, L260Ã¢â‚¬â€œL264

2010
[64]

Nayakshin S., Power C., 2010, , 402, 789

2010
[65]

R., 2012, , 753, 15

Nayakshin S., Power C., King A. R., 2012, , 753, 15

2012
[66]

Noguchi M., 1988, , 203, 259

1988
[67]

K., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 198, 4

Oh S., Oh K., Yi S. K., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 198, 4

2012
[68]

C., Woo J.-H., Treu T., 2012, , 203, 6

Park D., Kelly B. C., Woo J.-H., Treu T., 2012, , 203, 6

2012
[69]

J., Masters K

Penny S. J., Masters K. L., Smethurst R., Nichol R. C., Krawczyk C. M., Bizyaev D., Greene O., Liu C., Marinelli M., Rembold S. B., Riffel R. A., Ilha G. d. S., Wylezalek D., Andrews B. H., Bundy K., Drory N., Oravetz D., Pan K., 2018, , 476, 979

2018
[70]

Perna M., Lanzuisi G., Brusa M., Cresci G., Mignoli M., 2017, , 606, A96

2017
[71]

Planck Collaboration Ade P. A. R., Aghanim N., Arnaud M., Ashdown M., Aumont J., Baccigalupi C., Banday A. J., Barreiro R. B., Bartlett J. G., et al. 2016, , 594, A13

2016
[72]

V., Saintonge A., Volonteri M., Quinn T., Governato F., 2016, ArXiv e-prints

Pontzen A., Tremmel M., Roth N., Peiris H. V., Saintonge A., Volonteri M., Quinn T., Governato F., 2016, ArXiv e-prints

2016
[73]

W., Teuben P

Regan M. W., Teuben P. J., 2004, , 600, 595

2004
[74]

S., 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 244004

Reynolds C. S., 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 244004

2013
[75]

T., Lacy M., Storrie-Lombardi L

Richards G. T., Lacy M., Storrie-Lombardi L. J., Hall P. B., Gallagher S. C., Hines D. C., Fan X., Papovich C., Vanden Berk D. E., Trammell G. B., Schneider D. P., Vestergaard M., York D. G., Jester S., Anderson S. F., Budav \'a ri T., Szalay A. S., 2006, , 166, 470

2006
[76]

K., 1997, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, 1 edn

Rowling J. K., 1997, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, 1 edn. Vol. 1, Bloomsbury Publishing

1997
[77]

R., 1975, , 12, 2959

Ruffini R., Wilson J. R., 1975, , 12, 2959

1975
[78]

Sakamoto K., 1996, , 471, 173

1996
[79]

Sancisi R., Fraternali F., Oosterloo T., van der Hulst T., 2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 15, 189

2008
[80]

H., 1981, , 294, 427

Sanders R. H., 1981, , 294, 427

1981
[81]

L., Bacon R., Bureau M., Cappellari M., de Zeeuw P

Sarzi M., Falc \'o n-Barroso J., Davies R. L., Bacon R., Bureau M., Cappellari M., de Zeeuw P. T., Emsellem E., Fathi K., Krajnovi \'c D., Kuntschner H., McDermid R. M., Peletier R. F., 2006, , 366, 1151

2006
[82]

M., Ferrari F., 2014, , 438, 3322

Schnorr-M \"u ller A., Storchi-Bergmann T., Nagar N. M., Ferrari F., 2014, , 438, 3322

2014
[83]

I., Sunyaev R

Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , 24, 337

1973
[84]

Shlosman I., Vitello P., 1993, , 409, 372

1993
[85]

D., Lintott C., Schawinski K., Moran E

Simmons B. D., Lintott C., Schawinski K., Moran E. C., Han A., Kaviraj S., Masters K. L., Urry C. M., Willett K. W., Bamford S. P., Nichol R. C., 2013, , 429, 2199

2013
[86]

D., Smethurst R

Simmons B. D., Smethurst R. J., Lintott C., 2017, , 470, 1559

2017
[87]

A., Masters K

Skibba R. A., Masters K. L., Nichol R. C., Zehavi I., Hoyle B., Edmondson E. M., Bamford S. P., Cardamone C. N., Keel W. C., Lintott C., Schawinski K., 2012, , 423, 1485

2012
[88]

F., Cutri R

Skrutskie M. F., Cutri R. M., Stiening R., Weinberg M. D., Schneider S., Carpenter J. M., Beichman C., Capps R., Chester T., Elias J., Huchra J., Liebert J., 2006, , 131, 1163

2006
[89]

M., Schnorr-M \"u ller A., Storchi-Bergmann T., Finlez C., Lena D., Ramakrishnan V., Mundell C

Slater R., Nagar N. M., Schnorr-M \"u ller A., Storchi-Bergmann T., Finlez C., Lena D., Ramakrishnan V., Mundell C. G., Riffel R. A., Peterson B., Robinson A., Orellana G., 2019, , 621, A83

2019
[90]

S., Sellwood J

Sparke L. S., Sellwood J. A., 1987, , 225, 653

1987
[91]

Sparre M., Springel V., 2016, ArXiv e-prints

2016
[92]

Tadhunter C., Rodr \' guez Zaur \' n J., Rose M., Spence R. A. W., Batcheldor D., Berg M. A., Ramos Almeida C., Spoon H. W. W., Sparks W., Chiaberge M., 2018, , 478, 1558

2018
[93]

C., 2011, , 418, L79

Tchekhovskoy A., Narayan R., McKinney J. C., 2011, , 418, L79

2011
[94]

S., 1974, , 191, 507

Thorne K. S., 1974, , 191, 507

1974
[95]

J., Croton D

Tonini C., Mutch S. J., Croton D. J., Wyithe J. S. B., 2016, , 459, 4109

2016
[96]

Toomre A., 1977, in B. M. Tinsley & R. B. G. Larson D. Campbell ed., Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Populations Mergers and Some Consequences . p. 401

1977
[97]

M., Padovani P., 1995, , 107, 803

Urry C. M., Padovani P., 1995, , 107, 803

1995
[98]

M., Haas M

van de Voort F., Schaye J., Booth C. M., Haas M. R., Dalla Vecchia C., 2011, , 414, 2458

2011
[99]

Villar Mart \' n M., Bellocchi E., Stern J., Ramos Almeida C., Tadhunter C., Gonz \'a lez Delgado R., 2015, , 454, 439

2015
[100]

Voges W., Aschenbach B., Boller T., Br \"a uninger H., Briel U., Burkert W., Dennerl K., Englhauser J., Gruber R., Haberl F., Hartner G., 1999, , 349, 389

1999
[101]

R., Mihos J

Walker I. R., Mihos J. C., Hernquist L., 1996, , 460, 121

1996
[102]

N., 2015, arXiv e-prints, p

Welker C., Dubois Y., Pichon C., Devriendt J., Chisari E. N., 2015, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1512.00400

2015 arXiv
[103]

L., Eisenhardt P

Wright E. L., Eisenhardt P. R. M., Mainzer A. K., Ressler M. E., Cutri R. M., Jarrett T., Kirkpatrick J. D., Padgett D., McMillan R. S., Skrutskie M., 2010, , 140, 1868

2010
[104]

G., Adelman J., Anderson Jr

York D. G., Adelman J., Anderson Jr. J. E., Anderson S. F., Annis J., Bahcall N. A., Bakken J. A., Barkhouser R., Bastian S., Berman E., Boroski W. N., Bracker S., Briegel C., Briggs J. W., Brinkmann J., SDSS Collaboration 2000, , 120, 1579

2000

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

[2] [2]

S., Mart \' n S., Costagliola F., 2012, , 546, A68

Aalto S., Muller S., Sakamoto K., Gallagher J. S., Mart \' n S., Costagliola F., 2012, , 546, A68

2012

[3] [3]

A., Fragile P

Abramowicz M. A., Fragile P. C., 2013, Living Reviews in Relativity, 16, 1

2013

[4] [4]

P., Alexandroff R., Allende Prieto C., Anderson S

Ahn C. P., Alexandroff R., Allende Prieto C., Anderson S. F., Anderton T., Andrews B. H., Aubourg \'E ., Bailey S., Balbinot E., Barnes R., et al. 2012, , 203, 21

2012

[5] [5]

F., Aubourg \'E ., Balbinot E., Beers T

Aihara H., Allende Prieto C., An D., Anderson S. F., Aubourg \'E ., Balbinot E., Beers T. C., Berlind A. A., Bickerton S. J., Bizyaev D., Blanton M. R., Bochanski J. J., Bolton A. S., SDSS Collaboration 2011, , 193, 29

2011

[6] [6]

Alatalo K., 2015, , 801, L17

2015

[7] [7]

M., Davis T

Alatalo K., Blitz L., Young L. M., Davis T. A., Bureau M., Lopez L. A., Cappellari M., 2011, , 735, 88

2011

[8] [8]

A., Oppenheimer B

Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., \"O zel F., Dav \'e R., Katz N., Kollmeier J. A., Oppenheimer B. D., 2015, , 800, 127

2015