arXiv:2012.04471v1 [astro-ph.GA] 8 Dec 2020 rfiet atndcr,aewl ecie sn the using described well S´ersic are outer ( core, steep flattened model core-S´ersic a a to from profile break which S´ersic , 2018 2001 1980 ( prop- Luminous large-scale . and host central its the of on erties impact major a have 1998 hne l 2013 al. et Khan 2016 al. et Thomas asv litclglxe n asv ugso disk of bulges massive and ( galaxies galaxies elliptical massive 5yshv eeldta lc oe Bs namass a in (BHs) holes black that revealed range have yrs 25 ect .. h atndcr (e.g., light by core central flattened the The the inner creates the i.e., binary to stars. SMBH of deficit, orbital sinks decaying surrounding transfers ejection binary this the it slingshot merger SMBH remnant, to gravitation dry merger inspiraling momentum the major the angular of by in center As light black generated the formed supermassive stellar be binaries inspiraling inner events. to of (SMBH) the action thought hole in scouring are flattening depleted the that a partially distributions, cores, contain stellar galaxies core-S´ersic mag) 1 rpittpstuigL using 2020 typeset 9, Preprint December version Draft bevtoa ok nnab aaisi h last the in galaxies nearby on works Observational eatmnod ´sc el irayAstrof´ısica, Instit y Tierra la F´ısica de de Departamento LRMSIEBAKHLSI H OTMSIEGALAXIES: MASSIVE MOST THE IN HOLES BLACK ULTRAMASSIVE ; ; ; ; M ai ta.2020 al. et Nasim errs od2005 Ford & Ferrarese bszk ta.1991 al. et Ebisuzaki ert 2006 Merritt the aflgtradii half-light ffe padfo hsrlto y(2 by relation this from upward offset edt otutaasv H ( BHs ultramassive host to tend espopular less u nig ugs htlrecr peod omvamlil maj multiple the of via flattening form the with spheroids consistent large-core BHs, super/ultramassive that suggest findings Our ∆ epout fgspo egr,adrlal dnie ae nh on based identified reliably and mergers, gas-poor of products be eoiydseso ( dispersion velocity oeSescglxe—.. obnn omlcr ( normal-core combining core-S´ersic galaxies—i.e., f14glxe ihdnmclydetermined dynamically with galaxies 144 of nlog in n omlcr aaisjitydfieasnl log-linear large-c single and a normal-core S´ersic, define into jointly galaxies sample normal-core the and Separating ones. ujc headings: Subject mag. p) efidthat find we kpc), BH omny&Rcsoe1995 Richstone & Kormendy rms eivsiaetentr fterltosbtenbakhl B)m (BH) hole black between relations the of nature the investigate We ∼ M ∼ BH 10 M 0 6 BH . − ; 7dx oee,a h ihms n ag-oeglxe fu w (four galaxies large-core end high- the at however, dex, 47 − 1. ; σ aiive l 2015 al. et Vasiliev rhme l 2003 al. et Graham 10 f∆ of era ta.2019 al. et Mehrgan M A INTRODUCTION T eainfrmsieglxe.Lrecr peod aemagnitud have spheroids Large-core galaxies. massive for relation 2 10 E ; 3 BH R nttt eAto´sc eCnra,Vı ´ce /,E- V´ıa L´actea S/N, Canarias, Astrof´ısica de de Instituto iiinT Dullo, T. Bililign tl mltajv 12/16/11 v. emulateapj style X eatmnod srfıia nvria eL aua E- Laguna, La de Astrof´ısica, Universidad de Departamento .Telgtpolso core- of profiles light The ). M rms e − ulnrs&Mrit2012 Merritt & Gualandris aais litcladlniua,c aais udmna parame fundamental galaxies: — cD lenticular, and elliptical galaxies: & e:nce aais htmty aais structure galaxies: photometry— galaxies: — nuclei ies: M ⊙ σ R ∼ BH 0kcadaeeteeymassive extremely are and kpc 10 eiea h etr fall of centers the at reside ; n,frcr-´ri aais h ieo h eltdcr ( core depleted the of size the core-S´ersic galaxies, for and, ) ; b 0 . eainexhibits relation ioaleic&Merritt Milosavljevi´c & conl ta.2011 al. et McConnell orltsrmral elwith well remarkably correlates 9dx,cnrigpeiu ok ntesm aaisecp thr except galaxies same the on works previous confirming dex), 29 M eMdi,E200Mdi,San [email protected] Spain; Madrid, E-28040 Madrid, de V ; aora tal. et Magorrian ; .Ti model This ). M . eemne al. et Begelman .TeB can BH The ). atl tal. et Rantala BH 1 − rad i ePaz, de Gil Armando 21 rf eso eebr9 2020 9, December version Draft & . . 50 5 10 − ∼ ± 10 t eFıiad atıua e omsIACS Universi IPARCOS, Cosmos del Part´ıculas F´ısica y de de uto 4) 2 essatri log in scatter less 62% 0 ABSTRACT M . 75 × ⊙ M ; ; ihl once ihtheir with connected tightly ) σ BH s xliigtepeiul eotdsepnn of steepening reported previously the explaining , R nopse 4cr-´ri aais huh to thought core-S´ersic galaxies, 24 encompasses b n h ulu fishs aay(e eetreviews recent (see galaxy host SMBH its strong a of a of by generated buildup indicate growth the to have the and believed between relations respectively. are coupling they sequence, evolutionary scaling as blue interest SMBH and great this local late-type red In and a These color. early- define UV-[3.6] diagram, total galaxies mass)-color galaxy (SMBH host new the and mass nra-oe (i.e., “normal-core” be to galaxies core-S´ersic radius of break its sizes by core measured the enables e.g., n h ie ftedpee oe o core-S´ersic for cores al. depleted et Dullo 2014 the Graham & of Dullo ( sizes galaxies SMBH between the exists relation and tight a that found 2004 Rix H¨aring & 1995 2002 2013 Richstone & Kormendy Ma & McConnell 2000 Dullo 2014 2003 tla eoiydseso ( central dispersion including properties velocity galaxy host stellar several with R < b h MHmse aebe on ocorrelate to found been have masses SMBH The M R > omny&H 2013 Ho & Kormendy 0 ; ; , ; ∗ 1 b . M . p)galaxies. kpc) 0.5 p)adlrecr aais( galaxies large-core and kpc) 5 2013 ( aora ta.1998 al. et Magorrian & n oa .Knapen H. Johan and uhthat such 2019 σ errs ta.2006 al. et Ferrarese rhm&Sot2013 Scott & Graham ehrte l 2000 al. et Gebhardt BH 10 − R 80 aLgn,Sanand Spain Laguna, La 38205 ; 12 − b L eeldtotpso core-S´ersic galaxies: of types two revealed ) ( e.g., , ul 2019 Dullo 2020 V M σ M 80 aLgn,Spain Laguna, La 38206 r aais efidta S´ersic that find we galaxies, ore igh-resolution eainosre at observed relation ⊙ r‘r’mre vnsinvolving events merger ‘dry’ or BH relation utemr,teespheroids these Furthermore, . M icvrcreain ewe SMBH between correlations discover ) ae ta.2007 al. et Lauer BH ; hnthe than R s ( ass M aue l 2019a al. et Sahu b ; ∝ BH hmse l 2016 al. et Thomas < ; t measured ith M ,lmnst ( luminosity ), R R M ul ta.2013a al. et Rusli es . p)ad“ag-oe (i.e., “large-core” and kpc) 0.5 ; − BH b b 1 BH rhm2016 Graham . 20 M σ ahrthan rather M ; HST ; 2 ± , ∝ R n h central the and ) V ; 3 VERSUS BH 0 σ ul rhm2012 Graham & Dullo R n as( mass and ) b acn ut2003 Hunt & Marconi . ; . σ , 14 .Orsample Our ). b rhme l 2011 al. et Graham − 4 mgn.For imaging. M . − e galax- — ter rsscatter (rms 88 (e.g., ; errs Merritt & Ferrarese σ 23 V ± cue&Dunlop & McLure ul ta.2013a al. et Rusli M R relations. .Ltrstudies Later ). 0 . . . 0mag, 50 b BH 29 M σ enew ee a Complutense dad oendby governed ) − rhme al. et Graham & The . ; are ) BH with .Recently, ). L 23 ul 2019 Dullo 0 sph . . − 5 5 e.g., , R B M sph ). , ; ; ; , 2 Dullo, Gil de Paz & Knapen perhaps active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback (e.g., galaxies (i.e., σ ∼ 300 − 390 km s−1, Lauer et al. 2007; 9 Silk & Rees 1998; Fabian 1999; Springel et al. 2005; Bernardi et al. 2007) of MBH . 5 × 10 M⊙, and these Di Matteo et al. 2005; Croton et al. 2006; Hopkins et al. values underestimate the actual black hole mass by up 2006) or hierarchical merging processes (e.g., Peng to a factor of 40 (Dullo 2019), whereas predicted MBH 10 2007; Jahnke & Macci`o2011). The expectation is that from the MBH − L relation can exceed MBH ∼ 10 M⊙ the slopes, strength, level of scatter and substructures (Lauer et al. 2007; Dullo 2019). Indeed, Wu et al. (2015) of such relations can yield clues to the underlying found a quasar at a of z ∼ 6.3 powered by an 10 mechanism that establishes supposed coupling between UMBH with MBH ∼ 1.2 × 10 M⊙, and such BHs have SMBHs and host galaxies. been identified at the centers of extremely massive (M∗ & 12 It seems reasonable that the central BH is more in- 10 M⊙) present-day galaxies (e.g., McConnell et al. timately related to the size of the depleted core it cre- 2011; Thomas et al. 2016; Mehrgan et al. 2019). ated than the stellar velocity dispersion. However, the Separating core-S´ersic galaxies into normal-core and − MBH σ relation is regarded as the most fundamen- large-core galaxies, our findings (Dullo 2019) suggested tal of all the SMBH scaling relations due to its tight- that the offset evident at the high-mass end of the ness and small scatter (e.g., Tremaine et al. 2002, ∼ 0.3 MBH − σ relation is due to large-core spheroids with dex in the log M ), which are claimed to be compa- 12 BH MV . −23.50 ± 0.10 mag, M∗ & 10 M⊙ and Re & rable to those of the scaling relations involving MBH 10 kpc. It worth noting such spheroids are not sim- and two spheroid parameters (e.g., σ, Lsph and half- ple high-mass extensions of the relatively less massive 10 12 light radii Re), defining a “BH fundamental plane” (e.g., normal-core spheroids (M∗ ∼ 8 × 10 − 10 M⊙). Beifiori et al. 2012; Saglia et al. 2016; Shankar et al. A key observation in Dullo (2019) was that a single 2016; van den Bosch 2016; Krajnovi´cet al. 2018a; MBH − Rb relation holds across the full mass range Shankar et al. 2019; de Nicola et al. 2019). Therefore, of core-S´ersic spheroids confirming Lauer et al. (2007); the relation is commonly used for estimating the SMBH Rusli et al. (2013a); Dullo & Graham (2014), but this masses of nearby galaxies when direct SMBH mass mea- conclusion was based on a small sample of 11 core-S´ersic surements are not available. This is particularly true galaxies with direct SMBH mass measurements; 3/11 for the brightest and most massive galaxies with very galaxies are large-core galaxies. Establishing this tight faint central surface brightness (e.g., Dullo 2019) that MBH − Rb relation, as well as the offset at the high-mass render the modeling stellar or ionized gas kinematics end of the MBH−σ relation being due to large-core galax- for the dynamical SMBH mass measurements challeng- ies, requires a reasonably large sample of galaxies with − ing. In contrast, the MBH Rb relation has been dynamical SMBH mass measurements. largely overlooked, despite displaying a similar level In this work, we build upon Dullo (2019) and inves- of scatter as the M − σ relation (e.g., Rusli et al. BH tigate the nature of the MBH − Rb and MBH − σ re- 2013a; Dullo & Graham 2014; Thomas et al. 2016; Dullo lations using 24 core-S´ersic galaxies with published di- 2019). This is mainly because the offset nature of the rect SMBH mass determinations. We additionally in- most massive galaxies (at the high-mass end) from the clude 27 core-S´ersic with predicted SMBH masses and − mean MBH σ relation is still not well established robust break radii to further investigate the the BH scal- − and also the MBH Rb relation can only be applied ing relations. Our full sample of 144 galaxies with dy- to massive core-S´ersic spheroids believed to be end- namically measured SMBH masses, together with the products of gas-poor major mergers (e.g., Faber et al. 27 core-S´ersic galaxies with predicted MBH, used to di- 1997; Hopkins et al. 2009b). At low and intermediate rectly explore substructures in the M − σ diagram is − BH luminosities (MV & 21.0 mag), gas-rich processes are described in Section 2. We then discuss the linear regres- commonly thought to produce S´ersic spheroids with no − sion methods employed in Section 3.1. In Section 3.2, we depleted cores and with σ . 180 km s 1, S´ersic in- − 8 show that the MBH Rb relation for core-S´ersic galax- dex n < 3, and MBH . 10 M⊙ (e.g., Ferrarese et al. ies is stronger and has less scatter than the core-S´ersic 2006; Hopkins et al. 2009a; Dullo & Graham 2012; MBH − σ relation. We reveal the steepening at the high- Graham & Scott 2013; Dullo et al. 2016, 2019, 2020). mass end of the MBH −σ relation in Section 3.3 and go on The majority of dynamical BH masses measured to to discuss how underestimated BH masses of large-core date are SMBHs residing in massive (but not the galaxies give rise to offsets in the Rb − MBH diagrams most mass) galaxies. However, recent studies obtained in Section 3.4. In Section 3.5, we discuss pathways for 10 ultramassive black holes (UMBHs, MBH & 10 M⊙) the growth of black holes in large-core, normal-core and in the most massive galaxies, which offset upward S´ersic galaxies. Section 4 summarizes our main conclu- and toward large MBH in the MBH − σ diagrams sions. (e.g., McConnell et al. 2011; McConnell & Ma 2013; 2. Thomas et al. 2016; Mezcua et al. 2018; Dullo 2019; SAMPLE AND DATA Sahu et al. 2019b). This is consistent with Lauer et al. We use the sample of 41 core-S´ersic galaxies and (2007) who using a galaxy sample with MBH . 3 × their robust break radii from Dullo (2019, see also 9 10 M⊙ speculated that SMBH masses for the bright- Dullo & Graham 2014; Dullo et al. 2017). Of these est cluster galaxies (BCGs) would be overmassive rel- 41 galaxies, 14 have dynamically determined (hence- ative to the expectation from the high mass end of forth “direct”) SMBH masses. We exclude the mea- the MBH − σ relation, but they would be in better sured black hole masses for two Dullo & Graham (2014) agreement with those from MBH − L relation (see also core-S´ersic galaxies (NGC 3706, G¨ultekin et al. 2014 and Volonteri & Ciotti 2013; Dullo 2019). The MBH − σ NGC 5419, Mazzalay et al. 2016) with an inner stellar relation predicts SMBH masses for the most massive ring and two compact nuclear point sources, respectively (Dullo & Graham 2012). These two black hole masses Ultramassive black holes in the most massive galaxies 3 are potentially less secure due to the galaxies’ complex nuclear structures. We add here 10 other core-S´ersic galaxies with direct SMBH masses and robust core-S´ersic break radii1 from Rusli et al. (2013a). This results in a final compilation sample of 51 (13 large-core and 38 normal-core) core-S´ersic galaxies having measured break radii. Of the 24 core-S´ersic galaxies with direct SMBH mass measurements in our final sample (Table 1), 21 are in common with Thomas et al. (2016), see also Rusli et al. (2013a). Thomas et al. (2016) used their break radius for NGC 1600 and the break radii from Rusli et al. (2013a) for the remaining 20 core-S´ersic galaxies in their sample. The break radii in this paper, in con- trast, are from our own analyses (Dullo & Graham 2014; Dullo et al. 2017; Dullo 2019) except for the 10 galaxies taken from Rusli et al. (2013a), see Table 1. Fig. 1 shows a comparison of our core-S´ersic break radii with the core-S´ersic break radii values from Rusli et al. (2013a); Fig. 1.— Comparison of our core-S´ersic break radii Thomas et al. (2016) for 13 overlapping galaxies. For (Dullo & Graham 2014; Dullo 2019) with previous core-S´ersic four galaxies, our break radii agree with theirs within break radii values from Rusli et al. (2013a); Thomas et al. (2016) 10 %, whereas for the remaining 9 galaxies there is a after converting their geometric-mean break radii into semi-major ∼ − axis radii using the galaxies’ ellipticity values at the break radii. discrepancy of 13 59 %. The typical uncertainty as- ∼ ∼ The typical uncertainty on Rb is 5 % (e.g., Rusli et al. 2013a; sociated with Rb is 5 % (e.g., Rusli et al. 2013a; Dullo Dullo 2019). A representative error bar is shown. 2019). The two galaxies where our break radii disagree most (∼ 43-59 %) with those of Rusli et al. (2013a) are the two brightest galaxies in the Virgo cluster NGC 4472 and NGC 4486. TABLE 1 The identification of the partially depleted cores for the Core-Sersic´ galaxies with measured black hole masses. large-core and normal-core galaxies is based on detailed Galaxy Rb (kpc) log (MBH/M⊙) structural decomposition of the galaxies’ HST surface (1) (2) (3) brightness profiles, fitting the core-S´ersic model to the +0.14 spheroidal components (Dullo 2019; Rusli et al. 2013a). IC 1459 0.108 [1] 9.45−0.24 [1] +0.13 In order to construct the M −σ relations shown in this NGC 0584 0.021 [2] 8.15−0.19 [3] +0.7 paper, we used van den Bosch (2016, see their Table 2) NGC 1399 0.202 [2] 9.07−0.46 [2] +0.08 as main reference. He tabulated a large compilation of NGC 1407 0.276 [1] 9.65−0.04 [1] +0.05 245 measured SMBH masses. Excluding his galaxies in NGC 1550 0.300 [1] 9.57−0.05 [1] +0.04 common with Rusli et al. (2013a); Dullo (2019), we con- NGC 1600 0.650 [4] 10.23−0.04 [4] +0.01 sider secure SMBH masses measured based on stellar and NGC 3091 0.169 [1] 9.56−0.03 [1] +0.10 gas dynamics (van den Bosch 2016). To avoid issues of NGC 3379 0.102 [2] 8.60−0.13 [2] +0.19 potential inconsistency arising from using upper limits NGC 3608 0.024 [2] 8.30−0.16 [2] and BH masses obtained via different methods, we ex- +0.12 NGC 3842 0.315 [2] 9.98−0.14 [2] cluded SMBH mass upper limits, and SMBH masses from +0.08 NGC 4261 0.198 [1] 8.72−0.10 [1] megamasers and reverberation mapping measurements. +0.11 NGC 4291 0.036 [2] 8.52−0.62 [2] This leaves us with a sample of 121 dynamically deter- +0.05 NGC 4374 0.139 [1] 8.96−0.04 [1] mined SMBH masses and the majority of these galaxies +0.04 NGC 4472 0.108 [2] 9.36−0.02 [1] are S´ersic galaxies, while a small fraction of them with +0.03 9 −1 NGC 4486 0.640 [4] 9.76−0.03 [4] MBH & 2 × 10 M⊙ and σ & 280 km s are likely core- +0.04 NGC 4552 0.017 [2] 8.67−0.05 [2] S´ersic galaxies. Homogenized mean central velocity dis- +0.08 NGC 4649 0.241 [2] 9.67−0.10 [2] persions (σ) for the sample galaxies were obtained from NGC 4889 0.860 [4] 10.30+0.25 [4] 2 −0.62 HyperLeda (Makarov et al. 2014). We adopt a conser- +0.08 NGC 5328 0.271 [1] 9.67−0.23 [1] vative upper limit uncertainty of 10% on σ after compar- +0.03 NGC 5516 0.178 [1] 9.52−0.04 [1] ing the HyperLeda individual velocity dispersion mea- +0.17 NGC 6086 0.357 [1] 9.56−0.16 [1] surements and mean homogenized values for about 100 +0.14 NGC 7768 0.164 [1] 9.11−0.16 [1] sample galaxies. +0.04 NGC 5813 0.051 [2] 8.83−0.05 [2] +0.06 NGC 7619 0.109 [2] 9.36−0.12 [5] 2.1. Predicted black hole masses for core-S´ersic galaxies +0.08 Holm 15A? 2.800 [6] 10.60−0.10 [6] Dullo (2019, and references therein) presented pre- Note. Col. (1) galaxy name. Col. (2) break radius. Col. (3) dicted SMBH masses for the sample of 27 core-S´ersic SMBH mass. Sources. [1]=Rusli et al. (2013a, and references therein); [2]=Dullo & Graham (2014, and references therein); 1 We convert the geometric-mean break radii from Rusli et al. [3]=Thater et al. (2019), [4]=Dullo (2019, and references therein); (2013a) into semi-major axis radii using the galaxies’ ellipticity [5]=Rusli et al. (2013b); [6]=Mehrgan et al. (2019). A ‘?’ is used values at the break radii. to indicate that the identification of a depleted core in Holm 15A is uncertain. 2 http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr 4 Dullo, Gil de Paz & Knapen

TABLE 2 rect comparison with published works in literature (e.g., Large-core galaxy data Graham & Scott 2013; Sahu et al. 2019b),Table 3. We also give in Table 3 the intrinsic scatter from the lin- Galaxy log (MBH/M⊙) Mdef /MBH mix err regression fits, and the Spearman and Pearson (σ-based) (L-based) (Rb-based) (σ/Lsph/Rb) 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) correlation coefficients (rs and rp, respectively) together with the associated probabilities (P ). +0.42 +0.34 +0.45 NGC 4874 8.91−0.42 8.98−0.34 10.54−0.45 79.8/67.6/1.9 Directly measured SMBH masses are not available for +0.43 +0.47 +0.46 the bulk of the galaxies (27/51) shown in Fig. 4, hence NGC 6166 9.14−0.43 10.47−0.47 10.68−0.46 117.3/5.5/3.4 +0.41 +0.43 +0.46 we opted to fit the symmetric Ordinary Least-Squares 4C+74.13 8.61−0.41 10.20−0.43 10.71−0.46 157.0/4.1/1.3 +0.43 +0.46 +0.42 (ols) bisector (Feigelson & Babu 1992) regression to the A0119 9.04−0.43 10.41−0.46 10.08−0.42 13.5/0.6/1.2 +0.47 +0.40 +0.44 (Rb,MBH) data set, ignoring the errors on Rb and MBH. A2029 9.68−0.47 9.99−0.40 10.99−0.44 77.6/50.4/4.8 +0.42 +0.40 +0.44 A2147 8.95−0.42 9.93−0.40 10.42−0.44 61.2/6.4/2.1 +0.48 +0.48 +0.45 3.2. MBH − Rb versus MBH − σ relations for A2261 9.73−0.48 10.43−0.48 10.81−0.45 8.2/1.7/0.7 +0.41 +0.54 +0.44 core-S´ersic galaxies A3558 8.70−0.41 10.89−0.54 10.43−0.44 85.7/0.6/1.7 +0.41 +0.39 +0.42 − − A3562 8.59−0.41 9.83−0.39 10.05−0.42 34.6/2.0/1.2 In Fig. 2, we show the MBH Rb and MBH σ di- +0.44 +0.39 +0.43 agrams for the 24 core-S´ersic galaxies with dynamically A3571 9.31−0.44 9.79−0.39 10.44−0.43 28.0/9.3/2.1 Galaxy log (MBH/M⊙) Mdef /MBH determined SMBH masses and with carefully measured (dynamically determined SMBH masses) core-S´ersic break radii. The masses of SMBHs correlate +0.04 NGC 1600 10.23−0.04 2.8/2.8/2.8 very strongly with the core-S´ersic break radii (rs ∼ 0.90 +0.03 NGC 4486 9.76−0.03 5.1/5.1/5.1 and rp ∼ 0.86). The updated MBH − Rb relation (Fig. 2 +0.25 NGC 4889 10.3−0.62 4.7/4.7/4.7 and Table 3) is in excellent agreement with that from Note. Col. (1) galaxy name. Cols. (2-4) SMBH masses either Dullo (2019, his Table 5) defined by the subsample of dynamically determined or predicted using the velocity dispersion 11 core-S´ersic galaxies with measured MBH. Despite the σ, spheroid luminosity Lsph and break radius Rb for 13 large-core discrepancy between the break radii obtained by us and ellipticals from Dullo (2019, and references therein). Col. (5) Rusli et al. (2013a), Section 2, our MBH − Rb relation is (central stellar mass deficit)-to-(SMBH mass) ratio Mdef /MBH (Dullo 2019). fully consistent with the relations reported by Rusli et al. galaxies with no direct SMBH masses. We made use (2013a) and Thomas et al. (2016, their Fig. 4). However, the correlation for our (MBH, Rb) data set (rs ∼ 0.90) is of the Graham & Scott (2013, their Table 3) non-barred ∼ M − σ relation to predict the σ–based SMBH masses. stronger than that found by Rusli et al. (2013a, rs BH 0.77) for their data set. Using the “cusp radius”, i.e., The predicted Lsph–based SMBH masses were based on the near-linear Graham & Scott (2013, their Table 3) B- the radius where the negative logarithmic slope of the fitted Nuker model equals 1/2 (r ′ ) as a measure band core-S´ersic MBH − L relation transformed here into γ =1/2 the V -band using B − V =1.0 (Fukugita et al. 1995). of the core size (Carollo et al. 1997), Lauer et al. (2007, − ′ In an effort to better investigate the galaxy-black hole their eq. 24) reported MBH rγ relation for their 11 core co-evolution in the most massive galaxies, we present galaxies with directly measured SMBH masses. Not only SMBH masses predicted using the velocity dispersion σ, is the level of scatter in our MBH − Rb relation (Fig. 2) spheroid luminosity L and break radius R for the 10 − ′ 4 sph b substantially lower than that in the MBH rγ relation large-core galaxies in our sample with no direct SMBH (Lauer et al. 2007, their Fig. 7), but the intercepts from masses (Table 2). All the large-core galaxies in our sam- the two relations also differ by ∼ 2σ. ple (Table 2) are classified as BCGs except for three In Fig. 2, it is immediately apparent that the large-core galaxies (NGC 1600, NGC 4486 and NGC 4874). The el- spheroids (filled purple boxes) obey the log-linear M − liptical galaxy NGC 1600 is the brightest member of the BH Rb relation established by the relatively less massive, poor NGC 1600 group. The giant ellipticals NGC 4486 normal-core spheroids (filled red circles, blue disk symbol and NGC 4874 are second brightest galaxies residing at and filled red stars), see Table 3. The MBH −Rb relation the heart of the Virgo cluster and Coma cluster, respec- has an intrinsic scatter of ǫ ∼0.33 dex and an rms verti- tively. cal scatter in the log MBH direction of ∆rms ∼ 0.29 dex. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This can be compared to the relatively weaker core-S´ersic MBH−σ relation with rs ∼ 0.77, rp ∼ 0.75 and 62% more 3.1. Linear regressions scatter in log MBH (∆rms ∼ 0.47 dex, Table 3), despite We performed linear regression fits to the (MBH, Rb) the two relations exhibiting a similar level of intrinsic ∼ ± and (MBH, σ) data sets (Figs. 2 and 3) using two re- scatter (ǫ 0.30 0.10). Mehrgan et al. (2019) mea- 10 gression techniques: the Bivariate Correlated Errors and sured a SMBH mass of (4.0 ± 0.80) × 10 M⊙ at the cen- intrinsic Scatter (bces) code (Akritas & Bershady 1996) ter of the BCG Holm 15A, the most massive dynamically and the Bayesian linear regression routine (linmix err, determined black hole in the local universe to date. Plot- Kelly 2007). The bces routine (Akritas & Bershady ting this galaxy in Fig. 2 using data5 from Mehrgan et al. 1996) was implemented in our work using the python module by Nemmen et al. (2012). Both the bces and 3 We note that the Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients linmix err methods take into account the intrinsic scat- do not take into account the errors on the data points. 4 Lauer et al. (2007) did not quote the scatter for their ter and uncertainties in MBH, Rb and σ. The best- − ′ MBH rγ relation, thus our assessment is based on visual in- fitting linear relations from the bces and linmix err spection of their Fig. 7. methods are consistent with each other within their 1σ 5 We convert the circular break radii from Mehrgan et al. (2019) uncertainties. In this work we only focus on the bces into semi-major axis radii using the galaxy’s ellipticity value at the break radius. bisector MBH − Rb and MBH − σ relations to allow a di- Ultramassive black holes in the most massive galaxies 5

TABLE 3 Scaling relations

Relation BCES bisector fit ∆rms [dex] ǫ [dex] rs/P -value rp/P -value Sample Core-S´ersic galaxies MBH Rb −9 −8 MBH − Rb log = (1.20 ± 0.14)log + (9.52 ± 0.06) 0.29 0.33± 0.07 0.90/5.6 × 10 0.88/2.5 × 10 24 [a]  M⊙   250 pc  − MBH ± σ ± ± × −6 × −5 MBH σ log = (10.67 4.90)log − + (9.48 0.11) 0.47 0.30 0.13 0.78/2.2 10 0.76/1.3 10 24 [a]  M⊙   300 km s 1  − MBH ± σ ± ± × −2 −2 MBH σ log = (11.87 4.79)log − + (9.87 0.15) 0.81 0.52 0.14 0.36/4.6 10 0.46/10 34 [b]  M⊙   300 km s 1  S´ersic plus Core-S´ersic galaxies − MBH ± σ ± ± × −39 × −39 MBH σ log = (4.88 0.29)log − + (8.35 0.04) 0.47 0.39 0.04 0.85/2.1 10 0.85/1.2 10 141 [c]  M⊙   200 km s 1  − MBH ± σ ± ± × −41 × −41 MBH σ log = (5.03 0.28)log − + (8.37 0.04) 0.48 0.40 0.04 0.86/1.1 10 0.85/4.0 10 145 [d]  M⊙   200 km s 1  − MBH ± σ ± ± × −44 × −39 MBH σ log = (5.76 0.37)log − + (8.45 0.05) 0.60 0.45 0.04 0.85/6.1 10 0.82/7.1 10 155 [e]  M⊙   200 km s 1  Note. The different columns represent: the BH scaling relations, rms scatter in the vertical log MBH direction (∆rms), intrinsic scatter from the Bayesian linmixerr fits (ǫ), and the Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients (rs and rp, respectively) and the associated probabilities. Sample: [a] 24 core-S´ersic galaxies with dynamically determined MBH (i.e., 11 normal-core galaxies from Dullo & Graham 2014, 10 normal-core elliptical galaxies from Rusli et al. 2013a plus 3 large-core elliptical galaxies from Dullo (2019); [b] 34 core-S´ersic galaxies (i.e., 24 galaxies [a] plus 10 large-core galaxies with SMBH masses predicted using the MBH − Rb relation, Table 2; [c] 142 non-(large-core) galaxies (i.e., 21 normal-core galaxies from [a] plus 121 galaxies with dynamically determined SMBH mass measurements from van den Bosch (2016) that are not in common with Rusli et al. (2013a); Dullo & Graham (2014); Dullo (2019); [d] 145 galaxies (i.e., 142 galaxies [c] plus 3 large-core ellipticals from Dullo (2019); [e] 155 galaxies (i.e., 145 galaxies [d] plus 10 large-core galaxies with Rb-based, predicted SMBH masses, Table 2).

Fig. 2.— SMBH mass (MBH) plotted as a function of (a) the core-S´ersic break radius (Rb) and (b) central velocity dispersion (σ) for a sample of 24 core-S´ersic galaxies with dynamically determined values of MBH. The dashed lines are our symmetric bces bisector regression fits (Table 3). We did not include Holm 15A (filled hexagon, Mehrgan et al. 2019) in the regression analyses (see the text for details). The shaded regions show the 1σ uncertainty for the regression fits. Filled red circles and blue disk symbol correspond to the 10 normal-core (i.e., Rb < 0.5 kpc) elliptical galaxies and the 1 normal-core S0 galaxy from Dullo & Graham (2014, their Table 2), while filled purple boxes indicate the 3 large-core (i.e., Rb > 0.5 kpc) elliptical galaxies from Dullo (2019). The 10 normal-core elliptical galaxies from Rusli et al. (2013a) are denoted by filled red stars. We show the uncertainties on Rb, but they are smaller than the symbol sizes. The rms scatter in the vertical log MBH direction (∆rms) and the Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients (rs and rp, respectively) are shown at the bottom of the panels. The dotted and dashed-dotted lines represent the MBH − Rb relations from Rusli et al. (2013a) and Thomas et al. (2016). −1 (2019, Rb ∼ 2.8 ± 0.06 kpc, σ ∼ 346 ± 12.5 km s , see conclusion noted above. However, the nature of the de- their Fig. 11), extends the narrow MBH − Rb sequence pleted core in Holm 15A is controversial. Mehrgan et al. traced by other core-S´ersic galaxies to higher MBH and (2019) fit the 2D core-S´ersic+S´ersic+GaussianRing3D Rb, by a factor of ∼ 2 than previously possible. When model to the Wendelstein image of the BCG Holm 15A, we include Holm 15A and rerun the bces bisector regres- finding a core size Rb ∼ 2.8 kpc. This structural anal- sion analysis on the 25 core-S´ersic galaxies, the resulting ysis was supplemented with their orbit analysis for the MBH − Rb relation (slope ∼ 1.19 ± 0.11 and intercept at galaxy based on MUSE spectroscopic data. However, Rb = 250 pc ∼ 9.52 ± 0.05) is nearly identical to that for Bonfini et al. (2015); Madrid & Donzelli (2016) did not the 24 core-S´ersic galaxies (see Table 3), enforcing the identify a depleted core in their analyses of the galaxy’s 6 Dullo, Gil de Paz & Knapen

Fig. 4.— Rb−MBH diagrams for 51 core-S´ersic galaxies, symbolic representations are as in Fig. 3. Similar to Fig. 2(a), but here we include 27 (17 normal-core plus 10 large-core) core-S´ersic galaxies with SMBH masses that are predicted using the Graham & Scott (2013) non-barred MBH − σ relation (a) and their B-band core- S´ersic MBH − L relation (b). The dotted line represents the Rb − MBH relation for our full sample of 24 core-S´ersic galaxies (enclosed in boxes) with measured SMBH masses (see Fig. 2a and Table 3). The solid lines are the symmetric ols bisector regressions for 41 core-S´ersic galaxies (excluding the 10 large-core galaxies with predicted SMBH masses) and the shaded regions show the asso- ciated 1σ uncertainties. The dashed lines are the symmetric ols bisector fits to the full sample of 51 core-S´ersic galaxies. Large-core spheroids at the high-mass end lie above the best-fitting Rb −MBH relation because the MBH − σ and core-S´ersic MBH − L relations underestimate SMBH masses in extremely massive galaxies.

our regression analysis, we find that the best-fitting bces bisector MBH − σ relation for the 121 galaxies (van den Bosch 2016) remains roughly unchanged (slope ∼ 4.66 ± 0.29 and intercept ∼ 8.33 ± 0.04), albeit a slightly shallower slope. As noted above, a small frac- tion of the 121 galaxies from van den Bosch (2016) with Fig. 3.— Correlation between SMBH mass (MBH) and stel- × 9 −1 lar velocity dispersion (σ). Similar to Fig. 2(b) but here we MBH & 2 10 M⊙ and σ & 280 km s are proba- also show the 121 galaxies with dynamically determined SMBH bly normal-core galaxies. If true, this further reinforces masses from van den Bosch (2016) that are not in common with our conclusions. Our MBH − σ relation for S´ersic and Rusli et al. (2013a); Dullo & Graham (2014); Dullo (2019), open normal-core galaxies is in fair agreement with that from crosses and 10 large-core galaxies with SMBH masses predicted − ± using the MBH − Rb relation (filled triangles, Table 3 and Dullo van den Bosch (2016) MBH σ with a slope of 5.35 (2019, his Table 5). The dashed line represents our symmetric 0.23 reported for the sample of 230 galaxies used in their bces bisector fit to the (MBH, σ) data for the composite sample of regression analysis (solid blue line). 141 galaxies—121 galaxies from van den Bosch (2016), 10 normal- core galaxies (Dullo & Graham 2014) and 10 normal-core ellipticals A trend emerges when we plot 13 large-core galaxies (Rusli et al. 2013a). The shaded region shows the 1σ uncertainty with V -band absolute magnitudes MV . −23.50 ± 0.10 12 for the fit. The dotted and dashed-dotted lines delineate one and mag and stellar masses M∗ & 10 M⊙: 3 with directly two times the measured vertical rms scatter in the log MBH direc- measured SMBH masses (purple boxes) and 10 with tion (∆rms = 0.48 dex); the residual profile about the fit is given − in the lower panel. The solid black line is the bces bisector fit to SMBH masses predicted using the tight MBH Rb re- the 31 (normal- and large-core) core-S´ersic galaxies (see Table 1). lation (purple triangles), Fig. 2 and Table 2. Large- − The solid blue line is the MBH σ relation found by van den Bosch core galaxies are offset upward by 2.5 − 4σs from the (2016) for their full sample of 230 galaxies, while the solid red line − − MBH σ sequence traced by S´ersic and normal-core is the core-S´ersic MBH σ relation reported by Sahu et al. (2019b). galaxies (Fig. 3). This is indeed the case for Holm stellar light distributions. 15A (filled hexagon), which lies ∼ 1.1 dex above the − 3.3. − non-(large-core) MBH σ relation if we consider it as a Steepening at the high-mass end of the MBH σ large-core galaxy candidate (Mehrgan et al. 2019). We relation adopt that 1σs equals the intrinsic scatter ǫ = 0.39 In Fig. 3, we show our symmetric bces bisector fit dex. The MBH − σ relation defined by the S´ersic (dashed line) to the (MBH, σ) data for the composite and normal-core galaxies substantially underpredicts the sample of 141 galaxies—121 galaxies from van den Bosch SMBH masses for large-core galaxies. The inclusion (2016) and 20 normal-core galaxies (Rusli et al. 2013a; of large-core galaxies in the regression analyses steep- Dullo 2019, and references therein), see Table 3. The ens the slopes of the MBH − σ relations (Fig. 3, solid shaded region marks the 1σ uncertainty for the fit. We black line), regardless of the choice of linear regression find that S´ersic and normal-core core-S´ersic galaxies de- method (see Table 3). Aside from the large-core galax- fine a single log-linear MBH − σ relation with a slope ies, the only dramatic outlier in the MBH − σ diagram of 4.88 ± 0.29, ǫ ∼0.39 dex and ∆rms ∼ 0.47 dex in the is the flocculent spiral galaxy NGC 5055 (Fig. 3). For log MBH. Excluding the 18 normal-core galaxies from reference, earlier studies have also reported brightest Ultramassive black holes in the most massive galaxies 7 group and cluster galaxies would depart upward from SMBH mass for our full sample of 51 core-S´ersic the mean MBH − σ relations (e.g., Boylan-Kolchin et al. galaxies; 24 have direct SMBH masses (enclosed in 2006; Lauer et al. 2007; McConnell et al. 2011, 2012; boxes) and for the remaining 27 the SMBH masses Hlavacek-Larrondo et al. 2012; Volonteri & Ciotti 2013; are based on σ (Fig. 4a) and Lsph (Fig. 4b). The Thomas et al. 2016; Mezcua et al. 2018). This work (see ols bisector fit to the 41 core-S´ersic galaxies in also Dullo 2019) has provided detailed characterisation Fig. 4(a)—i.e., excluding the 10 large-core galaxies of the MBH −σ relations and the brightest galaxies caus- with σ-based SMBH masses (see Table 2)—yields 9 ing the offset at the high-mass end (e.g., Rb, MV , MBH, log (Rb/pc) = (0.78±0.08) log (MBH/2 × 10 ) + (2.24 Mdef and Re of large-core galaxies). ±0.04). This relation is entirely consistent with that Fitting the core-S´ersic galaxies separately results in shown in Fig. 2(a) based on the galaxy sample with mea- − MBH σ relations with steeper slopes than those for sured MBH (dotted lines), but significantly different from the combined S´ersic plus core-S´ersic types (Table 3 and the σ-based Rb − MBH relation for the full sample of 51 Figs. 2 and 3). McConnell & Ma (2013) reported two core-S´ersic galaxies with a slope of ∼ 1.11 ± 0.11 and different MBH − σ relations for ‘core’ and ‘power-law’ an intercept ∼ 2.54 ± 0.10. As noted in Section 3.3, galaxies have similar slopes but significantly different in- the discrepancy arises because the MBH − σ relation for tercepts. Of their 28 core galaxies, three galaxies with S´ersic and normal-core core-S´ersic galaxies tends to un- low σ values . 190 km s−1 (NGG 1374, NGG 4473 derestimate the true SMBH masses in extremely massive and NGG 5576) were reclassified as a S´ersic type by galaxies. Dullo & Graham (2014). They also consider the poten- A similar tendency is exhibited in Fig. 4(b) for Lsph- ∼ − tially S´ersic galaxy NGC 5128, with a low σ ( 150 km based MBH; the Rb MBH,Lsph−based relation, which has s−1) and a strong nuclear dust, as core type. It ap- a slope of ∼ 0.86 ± 0.07 and an intercept ∼ 2.04 ± 0.05 pears that these four low-σ galaxies and the large-core for the 41 core-S´ersic galaxies steepens for the full sam- galaxies in McConnell & Ma (2013) sample collectively ple (slope ∼ 1.03 ± 0.08 and intercept ∼ 2.12 ± 0.09). lead to higher intercept for the core galaxies. Dividing Nonetheless, the MBH − L relation is a better pre- their sample galaxies into S´ersic and core-S´ersic galax- dictor of MBH than the MBH − σ relation for large- ies, Sahu et al. (2019b) also advocated two MBH − σ core galaxies, confirming past findings (Bernardi et al. relations with distinct slopes. We find that the slopes 2007; Lauer et al. 2007; McConnell et al. 2011, 2012; for our core-S´ersic MBH − σ relations are poorly con- Volonteri & Ciotti 2013; Mezcua et al. 2018). strained due to the fitted narrow baselines in σ. This has The offset nature of large-core galaxies in the MBH − σ caused the slopes of the MBH−σ relations for normal-core and Rb − MBH diagrams (Figs. 3, 4a and 4b) is also galaxies and S´ersic+normal-core galaxies to agree with revealed when we compare the central stellar mass 1σ overlapping error bars. The marked division between deficits (Mdef) of the large-core galaxies with their S´ersic and normal-core galaxies reported by Sahu et al. σ-, Lsph- and Rb-based SMBH masses. Table 2 lists (2019b) is less evident in our work. Importantly and the (central stellar mass deficit)-to-(SMBH mass) ratios as noted above, there is a full consistency between the for our large-core galaxies, where Mdef/MBH,σ−based ∼ − − ∼ − MBH σ relation defined by S´ersic galaxies and that es- 10 160, Mdef/MBH,Lsph−based 2 70 and ∼ − tablished by the S´ersic plus normal-core galaxy sample Mdef/MBH,Rb−based 1 5. The prediction from high- (e.g., Graham & Scott 2013; Savorgnan & Graham 2015; accuracy N-body simulations of “core scouring” by in- Saglia et al. 2016; van den Bosch 2016; Krajnovi´cet al. spiraling binary SMBH (Merritt 2006) is that, after N 2018a,b). successive dry major mergers, the accumulated stellar mass deficit Mdef ≈ 0.5N MBH, where MBH is the fi- nal mass of the SMBH. Therefore, the M /M ratio 3.4. Offset in the MBH − σ and Rb − MBH diagrams def BH is used as a proxy for the merger history of core-S´ersic As noted in the introduction, the MBH − σ rela- galaxies. We computed Mdef for the large-core galaxies tion predicts that SMBH masses for the most massive by measuring the central stellar luminosity deficit as the ∼ − −1 galaxies (i.e., σ 300 390 km s , Lauer et al. 2007; difference in luminosity between inwardly-extrapolated ∼ × 9 Bernardi et al. 2007) cannot exceed MBH 5 10 M⊙. outer S´ersic profile of the complete core-S´ersic model However, Fig. 3 reveals four galaxies with MBH & and the core-S´ersic model (Dullo 2019). These lumi- 10 10 M⊙. Also, while the large break radii of all the three nosity deficits are then converted into Mdef using the (four, if we include Holm 15A) large-core galaxies with galaxy stellar mass-to-light ratios. The inferred merger measured MBH (Fig. 2), which constitute 12 − 17% of rates from Mdef /MBH,σ−based and Mdef/MBH,Lsph−based all the core-S´ersic galaxies with measured MBH to date, translate to excessive number of major dry mergers (∼ are fully consistent with the galaxies’ large black hole 5−320) for ∼70% of the large-core spheroids. Conversely, masses, these are not predicted by the M − σ relation BH M /M − and M /M (Table 2) cor- (Fig. 3). def BH,Rb based def BH,direct − respond to large-core galaxy formation via a reasonable Furthermore, the Rb σ relation for normal-core galax- number of (3−10) ‘dry’ major mergers, in agreement ies (Dullo & Graham 2014, their Fig. 5 and Table 3) pre- with observations measuring the close pair fraction (e.g., dicts that break radii for the most massive galaxies are Bell et al. 2004, 2006; Man et al. 2012; Lidman et al. Rb . 0.5 kpc, thus large-core galaxies (Rb > 0.5 kpc) are 2013; Casteels et al. 2014; Rodriguez-Gomez et al. 2015) not high-mass extensions of the less massive normal-core − and expectations from hierarchical structure forma- galaxies. In other words, the Rb σ relation for a sample tion models (Haehnelt & Kauffmann 2002, their Fig. 2; of core-S´ersic galaxies containing large- and normal-core ∼ Khochfar & Silk 2009; Rodriguez-Gomez et al. 2015). galaxies has a break occurring at Rb 0.5 kpc. The excess merger rates derived above for large- Fig. 4 shows the core-S´ersic break radius versus 8 Dullo, Gil de Paz & Knapen core galaxies are too large to be explained by addi- this, we find that the Rb − σ relation (Dullo & Graham tional core scouring mechanisms (e.g., repeated core- 2014, their Fig. 5 and Table 3) has a break occurring passage by a gravitational radiation kicked SMBH, at Rb ∼ 0.5 kpc. Our findings carry important implica- Dullo & Graham 2014, their Sections 5.3 and 5.4) which tions for the formation origins of large- and normal-core have been suggested to generate large Mdef/MBH ∼ spheroids. 5 by amplifying a pre-existing depleted core carved The offset tendency of large-core spheroids out by a binary SMBH (e.g., Redmount & Rees 1989; (MV . −23.5 ± 0.10 mag) in the MBH − σ and Rb − σ Merritt et al. 2004; Gualandris & Merritt 2012), albeit diagrams suggests that these galaxies are built via major see Nasim et al. (2020). Numerical simulations of a ‘dry’ mergers, that create their large cores and grow their Virgo-like incorporating the effect of AGN black hole masses and spheroid stellar masses, while feedback (Martizzi et al. 2012) produce a BCG with a keeping their velocity dispersion relatively unaffected core that is extremely large in size (∼10 kpc). While (e.g., Nipoti et al. 2003; Ciotti et al. 2007; Oser et al. such extreme core depletion by the AGN implies a 2012; Hilz et al. 2013). In Dullo (2019) we find that marked reduction of the inferred merger rate for the large-core spheroids are more likely to experience a large-core galaxies, the simulated cores (Martizzi et al. higher proportion of major mergers than normal-core 2012) are more than an order of magnitude larger than spheroids, consistent with the expectation that BCGs the real cores observed in the Virgo cluster galaxies experience a more intense merging and accretion events (Dullo & Graham 2014; Dullo 2019): Rb ∼ 0.11 kpc than galaxies with relatively low luminosities (e.g., for the BCG in the Virgo B subcluster (NGC 4472, Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2006; De Lucia & Blaizot 2007; Ferrarese et al. 2012) and Rb ∼ 0.64 kpc for the Virgo Bernardi et al. 2007; Laporte et al. 2013). We (Dullo A subcluster BCG (M87). For reference, the largest core 2019) revealed a flattening of the slope of the σ − LV size measured in any real galaxy to date is Rb ∼ 4.2 relation at the most luminous end, where the velocity kpc (Dullo et al. 2017). Furthermore, there are observed dispersion of the large-core spheroids appears to satu- evidences for core scouring by SMBH binaries. The ex- rate, contrary the velocity dispersion for normal-core cess of tangential orbits observed in the galaxy cores galaxies, which increases with galaxy luminosity as 1/(3.50±0.61) (e.g., Gebhardt et al. 2003; Thomas et al. 2014, 2016) σ ∝ L . This observed trend of the σ − LV can naturally form when a SMBH binary decays or- relation for the most massive galaxies was recovered in bitally, preferentially ejecting stars that are on radial or- the theoretical models of Tonini et al. (2016, see their bits (Quinlan & Hernquist 1997; Milosavljevi´c& Merritt Fig. 5). 2001). Also, Thomas et al. (2016); Rantala et al. (2018); The σ − LV relation for normal-core galaxies (−21.0 & Mehrgan et al. (2019) revealed a strong correlation be- MV & −23.5 mag) may suggest that these galaxies tween the size of the depleted core in a galaxy and the evolve through a few (1−8) successive gas-poor (but radius of the black hole’s sphere of influence. not purely ‘dry’) major6 mergers since z ∼ 2 (e.g., 3.5. Pathways for the growth of spheroids and black Bell et al. 2004, 2006; Man et al. 2012; Dullo & Graham holes in large-core, normal-core and S´ersic galaxies 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015; Dullo et al. 2018), accompa- nied by low level formation detected by GALEX As noted in the Introduction, depleted cores (e.g., Gil de Paz et al. 2007; Bouquin et al. 2018). That are thought to be generated by inspiraling binary is, normal-core galaxies are ‘red but not strictly dead’, SMBHs created in major dry mergers (Begelman et al. see de La Rosa et al. (2011); Habouzit et al. (2019); 1980). Supporting this scenario, we find that the Davis et al. (2019). We cannot currently draw a firm core size (Rb) for large-core galaxies (Rb > 0.5 conclusion, but this issue will be further investigated in kpc) and normal-core galaxies (Rb < 0.5 kpc) a forthcoming paper (Dullo 2020, in prep.). On the other is strongly correlated with the SMBH mass MBH hand, S´ersic galaxies (MV & −21.0 mag) are said to be (Lauer et al. 2007; Dullo & Graham 2012; Rusli et al. products gas-rich major mergers and (major merger)-free 2013a; Dullo & Graham 2014; Thomas et al. 2016; processes (e.g., secular processes and minor mergers), Mehrgan et al. 2019; Dullo 2019). (e.g., Faber et al. 1997; Hopkins et al. 2009a; Dullo et al. We emphasized above that S´ersic and normal-core 2019). Gas-rich processes increase a galaxy’s velocity dis- − galaxies appear to follow a single log-linear MBH σ persion, black hole mass and spheroid stellar mass, ex- ∼ relation, while large-core galaxies, the bulk ( 77%) of plaining the steepened σ −LV relation for S´ersic galaxies which are BCGs, are offset (to higher MBH), Table 3 and (see Kormendy & Bender 2013; Krajnovi´cet al. 2018a,b; Figs. 2 and 3. When core-S´ersic galaxies are fitted sep- Sahu et al. 2019b ; Dullo 2019, his Fig. 7). arately, the resulting core-S´ersic MBH − σ relation, with a steeper slope than that for the combined S´ersic plus 4. CONCLUSIONS core-S´ersic types, is poorly constrained. King & Nealon Bright early-type (core-S´ersic) galaxies have a par- (2019) argue that present-day galaxies, with overmassive − tially depleted core, a flattening in their inner stellar black holes that offset upward from the MBH σ rela- light distributions relative to the inward extrapolation of tion, may be descendants of the compact blue nuggets the spheroid’s outer S´ersic profile, thought to be created formed at z & 6, possibly connecting high-redshift blue by coalescing binary SMBHs. The core-S´ersic model, nuggets to large-core galaxies. Taken together our find- which describes the light profiles of the spheroidal ings are consistent with the two breaks recently detected − ∼− in σ LV relation occurring at MV 21.0 mag and 6 Kormendy & Bender (2013) argue that a few dissipationless MV ∼−23.5 mag (Dullo 2019, his Fig. 7), which co- mergers between two nearly equal-mass galaxies involving SMBHs incide with the S´ersic versus normal-core and normal- are a viable formation mechanism for core-S´ersic galaxies rather core versus large-core divides, respectively. Akin ot than a series of several minor mergers. Ultramassive black holes in the most massive galaxies 9 components of core-S´ersic galaxies, enables the flattened at Rb ∼ 0.5 kpc, which is internally consistent with the core sizes to be measured by its break radius (Rb). We normal-core versus large-core divide. probed how well the mass of SMBHs (MBH) correlates 3) For core-S´ersic galaxies, the MBH − σ relation ex- with the central velocity dispersion (σ) and core size hibits ∼ 62% more scatter in log MBH than the MBH−Rb (Rb) of their host galaxies, placing a strong emphasis on relation, favouring Rb to estimate the ultramassive black 10 the high-mass end. We do so using a large sample of 144 hole masses (MBH & 10 M⊙) in the most massive galaxies with dynamically determined SMBH masses, (large-core) spheroids with MV . −23.50 ± 0.10 mag 12 of which 24 are core-S´ersic galaxies robustly identified and M∗ & 10 M⊙, instead of e.g., σ (Figs. 2, 3 and 4). based on the analysis of the galaxy high-resolution 4) Taken together our findings reveal that the MBH −σ HST imaging. Rusli et al. (2013a) have investigated the relation for the S´ersic and normal-core galaxies sub- MBH − Rb relation using their dataset for 23 core-S´ersic stantially underpredicts the SMBH masses of large-core galaxies, 21 of which are in common with our sample. galaxies, i.e., the measured ones and those estimated by We acknowledge that there may be more core-S´ersic the MBH − Rb relation. The assumption in galaxy for- galaxies with measured SMBH mass in our sample, but mation models involving SMBHs that all classical bulges even if this is true our conclusions remain unchanged. and elliptical galaxies obey a single MBH − σ relation Our principal conclusions are: may be invalid. Extremely massive galaxies need to be treated separately in such models. 1) SMBH mass and core size correlate remarkably 5) We argue that large-core spheroids are consequences well. This tight MBH − Rb relation, which is stronger of multiple major ‘dry’ merging events involving su- than the MBH − σ relation. In line with previous per/ultramassive BHs, that create their large cores and works (e.g., Thomas et al. 2016), we established the simply add the black hole masses, stellar masses and lu- MBH − Rb relation out to the high-mass end. The re- minosities of their progenitors, while keeping the velocity ∝ 1.20±0.14 lation MBH Rb is defined by core-S´ersic (i.e., dispersion relatively unaffected. This conclusion is con- combination of normal-core plus large-core) galaxies with sistent with the offset tendency of large-core galaxies in MV . −21 mag and it has r ∼ 0.90, a vertical rms scat- the MBH − σ diagrams and the flattening in the σ − LV ter in the log MBH of ∼ 0.29 dex and an intrinsic scatter relation observed at MV . −23.5 mag (Dullo 2019). of 0.33 ± 0.07 dex. We also checked and found that the We highlight that the high SMBH masses of large-core BCG Holm 15A, which hosts the most massive dynam- galaxies means they are targets of great interest for the ically measured the black hole in the local universe to detection and study of gravitational waves (GWs) us- 10 date (4.0 ± 0.80 × 10 M⊙, Mehrgan et al. 2019) extends ing pulsar timing array (PTA) and Laser Interferom- the tight MBH − Rb sequence traced by other core-S´ersic eter Space Antenna (LISA). Current PTAs are sensi- galaxies to high MBH and Rb, by a factor of ∼ 2 than tive to gravitational waves emitted by merging binary 9 previously possible. However, this is if the galaxy has SMBHs with total mass & 2 × 10 M⊙ at a distance D . a depleted core (Rb ∼ 2.8 kpc, Mehrgan et al. 2019), al- 200 Mpc (see Burke-Spolaor et al. 2019), while LISA 5 10 though Bonfini et al. (2015); Madrid & Donzelli (2016) is sensitive to binary SMBHs with mass 10 − 10 M⊙ did not identify one. (Amaro-Seoane et al. 2017; Katz et al. 2020). 2) Separating our sample into S´ersic, normal-core and 5. large-core galaxies, we find that S´ersic and normal-core ACKNOWLEDGMENTS galaxies unite to define a single log-linear MBH − σ We thank the referee for their suggestions that im- relation with a slope of 4.88 ± 0.29, ǫ ∼0.39 dex and proved the paper. B.T.D acknowledges supports from ∆rms ∼ 0.47 dex in the log MBH. A key result is that a Spanish postdoctoral fellowship ‘Ayudas 1265 para la large-core galaxies (four of which, including Holm 15A, atracci´on del talento investigador. Modalidad 2: j´ovenes have measured MBH, while MBH for the remaining 10 is investigadores.’ funded by Comunidad de Madrid un- predicted using the MBH −Rb relation) are offset upward der grant number 2016-T2/TIC-2039 and from the systematically by (2.5 − 4) × σs from the MBH − σ se- award of ‘Estancias movilidad en el extranjero ’Jos´e quence traced by S´ersic and normal-core galaxies. While Castillejo’ para j´ovenes doctores 2019’, grant number core-S´ersic galaxies alone seem to follow steeper MBH −σ CAS19/00344, offered by the Spanish ministry of science relations than the combined S´ersic plus core-S´ersic types, and innovation for a research stay at Swinburne Univer- the former are poorly constrained due to the narrow sity of Technology (01/01/2020-31/03/2020). B.T.D ac- baseline in σ probed by the core-S´ersic galaxies. Pre- knowledges financial support from grant ‘Ayudas para vious studies also argued that the MBH − σ relation la realizaci´on de proyectos de I+D para j´ovenes doc- gets steeper for the brightest group and cluster galax- tores 2019.’ funded by Comunidad de Madrid and ies (e.g., Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2006; Lauer et al. 2007; Universidad Complutense de Madrid under grant num- McConnell et al. 2011; Volonteri & Ciotti 2013). Us- ber PR65/19-22417. B.T.D and A.G.d.P acknowl- ing four measured and 10 predicted MBH for large-core edge financial support from the Spanish Ministry of galaxies, we (see also Dullo 2019) have offered insights Science, Innovation and Universities (MCIUN) under into the possible nature of the galaxies deriving the off- grant numbers AYA2016-75808-R and RTI2018-096188- set at the high-mass end (e.g., Rb, MV , MBH, Mdef B-I00. J.H.K. acknowledges financial support from the and Re of large-core galaxies). When S´ersic, normal-core European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innova- and large-core galaxies are fitted together, the resulting tion programme under Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant MBH − σ relation steepens to give a slope of 5.76 ± 0.37. agreement No 721463 to the SUNDIAL ITN network, We also find that the Rb − σ relation (Dullo & Graham from the State Research Agency (AEI-MCINN) of 2014, their Fig. 5 and Table 3) has a break occurring the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation un- der the grant “The structure and evolution of galax- 10 Dullo, Gil de Paz & Knapen ies and their central regions” with reference PID2019- and Innovation, through the State Budget and by the 105602GB-I00/10.13039/501100011033, and from IAC Canary Islands Department of Economy, Knowledge and project P/300724, financed by the Ministry of Science Employment, through the Regional Budget of the Au- tonomous Community.

REFERENCES Akritas, M. G., & Bershady, M. A. 1996, ApJ, 470, 706 Graham, A. W., Erwin, P., Trujillo, I., & Asensio Ramos, A. Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv 2003, AJ, 125, 2951 e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786 Graham, A. W., Onken, C. A., Athanassoula, E., & Combes, F. Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2211 287, 307 Graham, A. W., & Scott, N. 2013, ApJ, 764, 151 Beifiori, A., Courteau, S., Corsini, E. M., & Zhu, Y. 2012, Gualandris, A., & Merritt, D. 2012, ApJ, 744, 74 MNRAS, 419, 2497 G¨ultekin, K., Gebhardt, K., Kormendy, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, Bell, E. F., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., et al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 752 112 Bell, E. F., Naab, T., McIntosh, D. H., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 241 Habouzit, M., Genel, S., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, Bernardi, M., Hyde, J. B., Sheth, R. K., Miller, C. J., & Nichol, 484, 4413 R. C. 2007, AJ, 133, 1741 Haehnelt, M. G., & Kauffmann, G. 2002, MNRAS, 336, L61 Bonfini, P., Dullo, B. T., & Graham, A. W. 2015, ApJ, 807, 136 H¨aring, N., & Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJ, 604, L89 Bouquin, A. Y. K., Gil de Paz, A., Mu˜noz-Mateos, J. C., et al. Hilz, M., Naab, T., & Ostriker, J. P. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2924 2018, ApJS, 234, 18 Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Fabian, A. C., Edge, A. C., & Hogan, Boylan-Kolchin, M., Ma, C.-P., & Quataert, E. 2006, MNRAS, M. T. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 224 369, 1081 Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Dutta, S. N., et al. 2009a, ApJS, 181, Burke-Spolaor, S., Taylor, S. R., Charisi, M., et al. 2019, 135 A&A Rev., 27, 5 Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1 Carollo, C. M., Franx, M., Illingworth, G. D., & Forbes, D. A. Hopkins, P. F., Lauer, T. R., Cox, T. J., Hernquist, L., & 1997, ApJ, 481, 710 Kormendy, J. 2009b, ApJS, 181, 486 Casteels, K. R. V., Conselice, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2014, Jahnke, K., & Macci`o, A. V. 2011, ApJ, 734, 92 MNRAS, 445, 1157 Katz, M. L., Kelley, L. Z., Dosopoulou, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, Ciotti, L., Lanzoni, B., & Volonteri, M. 2007, ApJ, 658, 65 491, 2301 Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489 365, 11 Khan, F. M., Holley-Bockelmann, K., Berczik, P., & Just, A. Davis, T. A., Greene, J. E., Ma, C.-P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2013, ApJ, 773, 100 1404 Khochfar, S., & Silk, J. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 506 de La Rosa, I. G., La Barbera, F., Ferreras, I., & de Carvalho, King, A., & Nealon, R. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4827 R. R. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L74 Kormendy, J., & Bender, R. 2013, ApJ, 769, L5 De Lucia, G., & Blaizot, J. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 2 Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511 de Nicola, S., Marconi, A., & Longo, G. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 600 Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 581 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, Krajnovi´c, D., Cappellari, M., & McDermid, R. M. 2018a, 604 MNRAS, 473, 5237 Dullo, B. T. 2019, ApJ, 886, 80 Krajnovi´c, D., Cappellari, M., McDermid, R. M., et al. 2018b, Dullo, B. T., Bouquin, A. Y. K., Gil de Paz, A., Knapen, J. H., & MNRAS, 477, 3030 Gorgas, J. 2020, ApJ, 898, 83 Laporte, C. F. P., White, S. D. M., Naab, T., & Gao, L. 2013, Dullo, B. T., & Graham, A. W. 2012, ApJ, 755, 163 MNRAS, 435, 901 —. 2013, ApJ, 768, 36 Lauer, T. R., Faber, S. M., Richstone, D., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, —. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2700 808 —. 2015, ApJ, 798, 55 Lidman, C., Iacobuta, G., Bauer, A. E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, Dullo, B. T., Graham, A. W., & Knapen, J. H. 2017, MNRAS, 825 471, 2321 Madrid, J. P., & Donzelli, C. J. 2016, ApJ, 819, 50 Dullo, B. T., Mart´ınez-Lombilla, C., & Knapen, J. H. 2016, Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, MNRAS, 462, 3800 2285 Dullo, B. T., Knapen, J. H., Williams, D. R. A., et al. 2018, Makarov, D., Prugniel, P., Terekhova, N., Courtois, H., & MNRAS, 475, 4670 Vauglin, I. 2014, A&A, 570, A13 Dullo, B. T., Chamorro-Cazorla, M., Gil de Paz, A., et al. 2019, Man, A. W. S., Toft, S., Zirm, A. W., Wuyts, S., & van der Wel, ApJ, 871, 9 A. 2012, ApJ, 744, 85 Ebisuzaki, T., Makino, J., & Okumura, S. K. 1991, Nature, 354, Marconi, A., & Hunt, L. K. 2003, ApJ, 589, L21 212 Martizzi, D., Teyssier, R., & Moore, B. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2859 Faber, S. M., Tremaine, S., Ajhar, E. A., et al. 1997, AJ, 114, Mazzalay, X., Thomas, J., Saglia, R. P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 1771 462, 2847 Fabian, A. C. 1999, MNRAS, 308, L39 McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, ApJ, 764, 184 Feigelson, E. D., & Babu, G. J. 1992, ApJ, 397, 55 McConnell, N. J., Ma, C.-P., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2011, Nature, Ferrarese, L., & Ford, H. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 116, 523 480, 215 Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9 McConnell, N. J., Ma, C.-P., Murphy, J. D., et al. 2012, ApJ, Ferrarese, L., Cˆot´e, P., Jord´an, A., et al. 2006, ApJS, 164, 334 756, 179 Ferrarese, L., Cˆot´e, P., Cuilland re, J.-C., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 4 McLure, R. J., & Dunlop, J. S. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 795 Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K., & Ichikawa, T. 1995, PASP, 107, Mehrgan, K., Thomas, J., Saglia, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 195 945 Merritt, D. 2006, ApJ, 648, 976 Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, L13 Merritt, D., Milosavljevi´c, M., Favata, M., Hughes, S. A., & Holz, Gebhardt, K., Richstone, D., Tremaine, S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 583, D. E. 2004, ApJ, 607, L9 92 Mezcua, M., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Lucey, J. R., et al. 2018, Gil de Paz, A., Boissier, S., Madore, B. F., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, MNRAS, 474, 1342 185 Milosavljevi´c, M., & Merritt, D. 2001, ApJ, 563, 34 Graham, A. W. 2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Nasim, I., Gualandris, A., Read, J. I., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, Vol. 418, Galactic Bulges, ed. E. Laurikainen, R. Peletier, & arXiv:2011.04663 D. Gadotti, 263 Nemmen, R. S., Georganopoulos, M., Guiriec, S., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 1445 Ultramassive black holes in the most massive galaxies 11

Nipoti, C., Londrillo, P., & Ciotti, L. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 501 Shankar, F., Bernardi, M., Richardson, K., et al. 2019, MNRAS, Oser, L., Naab, T., Ostriker, J. P., & Johansson, P. H. 2012, ApJ, 485, 1278 744, 63 Silk, J., & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1 Peng, C. Y. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1098 Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, Quinlan, G. D., & Hernquist, L. 1997, MNRAS, 2, 533 435, 629 Rantala, A., Johansson, P. H., Naab, T., Thomas, J., & Frigo, M. Thater, S., Krajnovi´c, D., Cappellari, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, 2018, ApJ, 864, 113 A62 Redmount, I. H., & Rees, M. J. 1989, Comments on Astrophysics, Thomas, J., Ma, C.-P., McConnell, N. J., et al. 2016, Nature, 532, 14, 165 340 Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, Thomas, J., Saglia, R. P., Bender, R., Erwin, P., & Fabricius,M. MNRAS, 449, 49 2014, ApJ, 782, 39 Rusli, S. P., Erwin, P., Saglia, R. P., et al. 2013a, AJ, 146, 160 Tonini, C., Mutch, S. J., Croton, D. J., & Wyithe, J. S. B. 2016, Rusli, S. P., Thomas, J., Saglia, R. P., et al. 2013b, AJ, 146, 45 MNRAS, 459, 4109 Saglia, R. P., Opitsch, M., Erwin, P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 47 Tremaine, S., Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740 Sahu, N., Graham, A. W., & Davis, B. L. 2019a, ApJ, 876, 155 van den Bosch, R. C. E. 2016, ApJ, 831, 134 —. 2019b, ApJ, 887, 10 Vasiliev, E., Antonini, F., & Merritt, D. 2015, ApJ, 810, 49 Savorgnan, G. A. D., & Graham, A. W. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2330 Volonteri, M., & Ciotti, L. 2013, ApJ, 768, 29 Shankar, F., Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., et al. 2016, MNRAS, Wu, X.-B., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2015, Nature, 518, 512 460, 3119