Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 94 references

The Emergence of the First Star-free Atomic Cooling Haloes in the Universe

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The paper reports that 79 pristine atomic cooling haloes—dark matter haloes that cross the atomic cooling threshold while remaining metal-free and star-free—emerge in the early universe in the simulations, and argues that rapid halo…

desk verdict A valuable, honest census of pristine atomic cooling haloes, but the '79 DCBH haloes' label overstates how many are actually direct-collapse candidates. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02823 v2 pith:225MHKTL submitted 2019-08-07 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

John A. Regan (Dublin City University) , John H. Wise (Georgia Tech) , Brian W. O'Shea (Michigan State) , Michael L. Norman (UCSD) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords directcollapseblackholesatomiccoolinghaloesPopulationIIIstarsLyman-Wernerradiationdynamicalheatingmetalenrichmentcosmologicalsimulationsfirst
open problems Dark Matter
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

Using the Renaissance simulation suite, the paper searches the early universe for atomic cooling haloes—dark matter haloes massive enough ($10^7\,M_\odot$) for atomic hydrogen line emission to cool their gas—that are also metal-free and have never formed stars. It reports 79 such 'direct-collapse black hole' (DCBH) candidate haloes across the simulated volumes, with 76 in the overdense Rarepeak region and 3 in the Normal region. The paper argues that the key reason these haloes stay star-free is not intense Lyman-Werner radiation, but dynamical heating: rapid mass growth through mergers and accretion heats the gas and suppresses molecular hydrogen cooling until the halo crosses the atomic cooling threshold, while distance from metal-enriched galaxies keeps the gas pristine. It also finds five spatially and temporally synchronised pairs of such haloes. The result matters because pristine atomic cooling haloes are the most plausible sites for the direct collapse of gas into massive black hole seeds, the progenitors of the supermassive black holes seen less than a billion years after the Big Bang.

What carries the argument

The central object is the atomic cooling halo: a dark matter halo with mass near the atomic cooling threshold (roughly $3\times10^7\,M_\odot$ in these runs) where atomic hydrogen line emission becomes an efficient coolant, and the paper's DCBH candidate is an atomic cooling halo that is simultaneously metal-free and star-free. The machine that carries the argument is dynamical heating, quantified by $\Gamma_{\rm dyn}=\alpha\,M_{\rm halo}^{-1/3}\,\frac{k_b}{\gamma-1}\,\frac{dM_{\rm halo}}{dt}$: during rapid mass assembly driven by mergers, gravitational growth deposits energy into the gas, raising its temperature and suppressing H2 formation and cooling for at least a sound-crossing time. That suppression is what keeps the halo free of stars until it crosses the atomic cooling threshold; the second condition, freedom from metal enrichment, is supplied by the halo's position at least 10 kpc from massive metal-producing galaxies, so that the gas stays pristine. The four haloes whose cores stay above 8000 K all the way to the resolution limit are the ones on the isothermal atomic cooling track, the strongest supermassive-star/DCBH progenitors.

What would settle it

Take any one of the 79 candidate haloes—say one of the four with isothermal 8000 K cores—and re-simulate it in a zoom-in with sub-parsec resolution and explicit Population III star formation; if a star forms before or during the atomic cooling phase, or if metals from a neighbouring galaxy reach the core, the claim that these haloes remain star-free and pristine is falsified for that halo. A complementary observation would be a census of metal-poor, star-free atomic cooling haloes at high redshift, testing whether the simulated abundance has a real counterpart.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a census with a mechanism: in overdense regions of the early universe, haloes that cross the atomic cooling threshold while remaining metal-free and star-free are not rare exceptions but a systematic outcome of rapid halo assembly. The growth rate of these haloes can exceed $10^7\,M_\odot$ per unit redshift, and the resulting dynamical heating (a heating rate $\Gamma_{\rm dyn}\propto M_{\rm halo}^{-1/3}\,dM_{\rm halo}/dt$) suppresses $\mathrm{H_2}$ cooling and fragmentation, keeping the gas hot enough to avoid Population III star formation. Avoiding external metal enrichment is equally necessary, and the candidates typically sit at least 10 kpc from the nearest massive galaxy while being exposed to a Lyman-Werner background of order $J_{\rm LW}\sim1\,J_{21}$—far below the $\sim10^3\,J_{21}$ usually required for H2 suppression. Most candidates cool via $\mathrm{H_2}$ in their cores and are non-isothermal, four collapse isothermally at 8000 K, and five form synchronised pairs separated by 200–500 pc. The paper concludes that any subgrid model for DCBH formation must follow metal transport as well as rapid growth, or it will overcount candidates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation's subgrid recipes for Population III star formation and metal enrichment, together with its resolution, correctly decide whether these haloes stay star-free and pristine—if stars would form in them at densities below the simulation's resolution, or if metal pollution arrives differently than modelled, the haloes are not pristine and the count of 79 collapses (the paper itself notes that Renaissance has no subgrid prescription for supermassive-star formation and lacks resolution to track fragmentation into a dense PopIII cluster).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DCBH seed sites are much more common than the synchronised-pair-only picture suggested: one overdense $\sim$134 cMpc$^3$ region alone produces 76 candidate haloes.
  • Semi-analytic models that predict DCBH candidates from halo growth rate alone will overproduce candidates unless they also follow metal transport, because fast-growing but metal-enriched haloes form stars.
  • Most of the 79 candidates will not necessarily form a single massive black hole: haloes whose cores cool via $\mathrm{H_2}$ are more likely to produce a dense cluster of Population III stars, while the four isothermal-collapse haloes are the strongest direct-collapse progenitors.
  • The five synchronised pairs, once one member begins star formation, provide the local LW irradiation that can push the neighbouring halo onto the purely atomic cooling track, and their subsequent merger supplies baryons for a massive seed.
  • The paper's numbers support the earlier analytic estimate of synchronised-pair abundance once the overdensity of the region and the lower redshift are taken into account, so the synchronised channel remains viable for at least a sub-population of seeds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the selection were run on a larger, cosmologically representative volume, the seed supply could be dominated by overdense regions, meaning estimates of the DCBH seed rate based on average regions would be underestimates.
  • Editorial inference: The dynamical-heating mechanism predicts a checkable structural signature—candidate haloes should show elevated velocity dispersion and a suppressed molecular-hydrogen fraction in their inner few hundred pc—which zoom-in simulations can test before any collapse.
  • Editorial inference: A simple extension would be to lower the required LW background in semi-analytic models from about $10^3\,J_{21}$ to about $1\,J_{21}$ whenever rapid assembly is included; the simulations imply this would raise predicted seed abundances substantially.
  • Editorial inference: Because the simulations stop before collapse, an observational or numerical constraint on the fate of the four isothermal candidates—supermassive star versus stellar cluster—would directly connect this census to the occupation fraction of today's supermassive black holes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the Renaissance suite of cosmological adaptive-mesh-refinement simulations to identify atomic cooling haloes that are metal-free and star-free at the simulation resolution, which it calls DCBH candidate haloes. It reports 79 such objects in total: 76 in the Rarepeak region, 3 in the Normal region, and none in the Void region. The paper argues that the primary mechanism allowing these haloes to remain star-free is dynamical heating from rapid mass assembly, supplemented by avoidance of external metal enrichment, and it quantifies the Lyman-Werner backgrounds, distances to massive galaxies, and growth rates of the candidates. It also reports five synchronized pairs of pristine atomic cooling haloes and compares their abundance with the analytical/n-body predictions of Visbal et al. (2014). The authors are explicit that the simulations lack the resolution and subgrid physics to follow the eventual collapse, and they frame the objects as candidates.

Significance. The census is a potentially useful population-level product: it is one of the first systematic tallies of star-free, metal-free atomic cooling haloes in a large cosmological simulation, and it provides a sample for targeted zoom-in follow-up. The paper also gives quantitative environmental distributions (J_LW, distance to massive galaxies, dM/dz) that can inform semi-analytic and subgrid models of DCBH formation. Its main strength is that it uses the Renaissance suite, which models metal transport and LW feedback consistently, and it is candid about resolution limitations. However, the significance of the result depends on whether the label 'DCBH halo' is justified; the paper's own radial-profile analysis shows that only a small subset of the 79 candidates collapse isothermally on the atomic cooling track.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Figures 5 and 6] The central claim that the 79 objects are 'DCBH haloes' is not supported by the paper's own collapse diagnostics. Section 4 states that 'in the vast majority of cases our examination of the radial profiles of these DCBH candidate haloes show that the central core of the haloes cools due to the H2', and Figure 5 marks only four candidates that collapse completely isothermally at T = 8000 K. Figure 6 shows the two previously studied haloes (MMHalo and LWHalo) cooling toward the molecular cooling track. A star-free atomic cooling halo whose core cools via H2 is not a direct-collapse site on the evidence presented; it is more likely to form PopIII stars or a dense stellar cluster. The census of 79 'star-free' haloes stands under the paper's operational definition, but the DCBH label and the statement that 'These 79 haloes represent ideal locations in which to form a DCBH' overstate what the simulation actually shows.
  2. [Abstract and Section 2] The abstract's statement '79 DCBH haloes form before a redshift of 11.6' is misleading regarding survey coverage. Section 2 states that the Rarepeak region was run only until z = 15, the Normal region until z = 11.6, and the Void region until z = 8. Thus the 76 Rarepeak candidates are all found at z > 15, and no Rarepeak data exist between z = 15 and z = 11.6. The total 79 is therefore not a complete census down to z = 11.6 across a common volume; it is an aggregate of heterogeneous redshift intervals. Please report per-region redshift ranges or state explicitly that the total combines different survey intervals.
  3. [Section 3.4] The comparison of the synchronized-halo abundance with Visbal et al. (2014) contains an arithmetic error. The paper finds 5 pairs in 133.6 cMpc^3, while Visbal et al. predict 15 pairs in 3375 cMpc^3. The raw ratio is 5 / (15 x 133.6 / 3375) ~ 8.4, not 'a factor of approximately 5' as stated. Even after multiplying the expected count by the quoted Rarepeak overdensity of ~1.7, the observed abundance remains about a factor of 5 higher, so the claim that the values 'match quite well' is not supported by the numbers given. This comparison should be redone with an explicit bias model.
  4. [Sections 3.1 and 3.3] The definition of 'metal-free' in the sample selection is not quantified. The census is described as 'metal-free, atomic cooling haloes which contain no stars', yet Section 3.3 reports that one of the three Normal-region candidates has a metallicity of ~2.88 x 10^-9 Z_sun, described as 'slight external metal enrichment'. No threshold is given for what counts as metal-free in the selection procedure, and it is unclear why a halo with nonzero metallicity is included in a metal-free census. Because metal-free status is a defining property of the sample, the threshold should be stated and the inclusion of this candidate justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 5] The left-panel caption says 'maximum rate of growth (dM/dz)' while the text and axes describe an average dM/dz between 5 x 10^6 M_sun and the atomic cooling limit; please harmonize the wording.
  2. [Equation (1)] The left-hand side is written as dM/dΩdz, but the right-hand side integrates a number density to give a number of haloes; the left-hand side should be dN/dΩdz.
  3. [Footnote 3] The phrase 'even though it may now host a DCBH' appears to contradict the surrounding sentence about a halo no longer matching the criteria; this is likely a typo and should be corrected.
  4. [Section 4] The text contains small typos: 'a normal population of metal-free free stars' should read 'metal-free stars', and 'undercover' should be 'uncover'.
  5. [References] Dijkstra et al. (2014) appears twice in the reference list; the duplicate entry should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 79-halo census is a simulation measurement, not a derivation that re-imports its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a census: it counts atomic-cooling haloes that are metal-free and star-free in Renaissance simulation outputs. That classification is a direct analysis product, not an output of an equation fitted to the result. The candidate definition is explicit in Section 3.1, where the authors state that at each redshift snapshot they calculate the number of metal-free, atomic cooling haloes which contain no stars, and Renaissance has no subgrid model for DCBH formation, so a candidate cannot be produced by construction. The supporting dynamical-heating mechanism is inherited from Wise et al. (2019), a prior study of two specific haloes in the same simulation suite; citing it is self-citation, but this paper independently shows rapid growth for the full sample and explicitly notes that rapid growth alone is insufficient unless haloes also avoid metal pollution. No fitted parameter is later labelled a prediction: the only threshold-like quantities used, M_min,LW and M_atm, are literature limits, and the synchronised-pair count is compared against an external analytic and n-body estimate from Visbal et al. (2014) with a stated volume and overdensity adjustment. Equation (3) is a literature formula for dynamical heating, and Equation (4) is Visbal et al.'s estimator used for comparison rather than for the paper's own census. The paper also flags its own limitations, stating that Renaissance has no subgrid prescription for super-massive star formation and lacks the resolution to track fragmentation, so the star-free classification is presented as a resolution-dependent candidate list rather than a derived inevitability. None of the enumerated circularity patterns applies to a load-bearing step: there is no self-definitional construction, no fitted input renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation, no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled via citation, and no renaming of a known result as unification. Minor self-citations exist, but they are not the logical support for the measurement, so the analysis is self-contained as a simulation-based census.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced. The listed free parameters are analysis thresholds chosen by the authors rather than fitted values; the listed axioms are the background assumptions on which the simulation-based census depends.

free parameters (2)
  • Minimum resolved halo mass for census (M_res) = 10^6 Msun
    The paper sets the halo resolution of the analysis at 10^6 Msun (Fig. 4 caption) because below that the simulation is not reliable; the DCBH candidate count depends on this threshold.
  • Synchronised halo separation window = 150 pc to 1 kpc
    Section 3.4 counts pairs as synchronised only if separated by less than 1 kpc and more than 150 pc; the paper itself notes the expected synchronisation region is 150-350 pc, so the broad window may inflate the 5-pair count.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Renaissance simulations (Enzo with ray tracing and nine-species chemistry) accurately model the thermodynamics, chemistry, and radiative transfer of early-universe gas.
    Section 2 describes the code and physics; the entire census and the star-free classification rest on the fidelity of these models.
  • domain assumption The subgrid prescriptions for PopIII star formation and metal enrichment correctly determine whether a halo is truly star-free and metal-free.
    The classification of DCBH candidates in Section 3.1 depends on the code's star formation criterion and metal advection; the paper acknowledges the collapse cannot be probed (Section 4).
  • domain assumption The atomic cooling limit Matm and the LW suppression mass Mmin,LW adopted from prior work are applicable at these redshifts.
    These thresholds (Fig. 4) define when a halo is an atomic cooling halo and when LW radiation matters; if they are inaccurate, the candidate selection shifts (Section 3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Emergence of the First Star-free Atomic Cooling Haloes in the Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/225MHKTL

@misc{pith2026190802823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Emergence of the First Star-free Atomic Cooling Haloes in the Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/225MHKTL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02823}
}
abstract

Using the Renaissance suite of simulations we examine the emergence of pristine atomic cooling haloes that are both metal-free and star-free in the early Universe. The absence of metals prevents catastrophic cooling, suppresses fragmentation, and may allow for the formation of massive black hole seeds. Here we report on the abundance of pristine atomic cooling haloes found and on the specific physical conditions that allow for the formation of these direct-collapse-black-hole (DCBH) haloes. In total in our simulations we find that 79 DCBH haloes form before a redshift of 11.6. We find that the formation of pristine atomic haloes is driven by the rapid assembly of the atomic cooling haloes with mergers, both minor and/or major, prior to reaching the atomic cooling limit a requirement. However, the ability of assembling haloes to remain free of (external) metal enrichment is equally important and underlines the necessity of following the transport of metals in such simulations. The candidate DCBH hosting haloes we find, have been exposed to mean Lyman-Werner radiation fields of J$_{LW}$ $\sim$ 1 J$_{21}$ and typically lie at least 10 kpc (physical) from the nearest massive galaxy. Growth rates of the haloes reach values of greater than 10$^7$ M$_{\odot}$ per unit redshift, leading to significant dynamical heating and the suppression of efficient cooling until the halo crosses the atomic cooling threshold. Finally, we also find five synchronised halo candidates where pairs of pristine atomic cooling haloes emerge that are both spatially and temporally synchronised.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02823 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left Panel: The number of DCBH candidate haloes found at each redshift in each region. Right Panel: The total number of DCBH candidate haloes found as a function of redshift. The Rarepeak region (blue line) has formed a total of 76 candidate DCBH haloes. The Normal region (green line) has formed a total of 3 DCBH candidate haloes. The running total is the total number of DCBH candidate haloes formed over the entire … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left Panel: Projection of the Normal simulation volume with dashed red circles identifying the location of all 3 DCBH halo candidates across all redshift outputs. Right Panel: Projection of the Rarepeak simulation volume with dashed red circles identifying the location of all 76 DCBH candidates across all redshift outputs. The Rarepeak projection is made at z = 15 and the Normal projection is made at z = 11.6 althou… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left Panel: The distance from each candidate DCBH halo to the nearest massive galaxy (defined as the closest star forming halo, see text for more details) for each region. Right Panel: The value of the LW background, in units of J21, felt at the centre of each DCBH candidate. For the majority of DCBH haloes the value of LW radiation it is exposed to is within an order of magnitude of the background level at that red… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left Panel: The evolution of the total mass of each DCBH candidate halo in the Normal simulation. Also included (dashed black lines) is the evolution of three rapidly growing star-forming haloes for comparison. The mass resolution of the Renaissance simulations is appr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left Panel: Phase space diagram showing the maximum rate of growth (dM/dz) of the DCBH candidate haloes in the Normal region (squares). Also included is the growth rate of a large sample of star-forming haloes for comparison. It should be noted that while the DCBH cand…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: In each of the four panels in this figure we compare the six DCBH haloes identified in the right hand panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualisations of four of the synchronised haloes found in the Rarepeak region. Each member of the synchronised pair is an atomic cooling halo on the cusp of star formation. Typical separations between haloes are between 200 pc and 500 pc at these outputs. The red circ…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., 1997, New Astronomy, 2, 181

    Abel T., Anninos P., Zhang Y., Norman M. L., 1997, New Astronomy, 2, 181

    1997

  2. [2]

    L., Norman M

    Abel T., Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., 2000, , 540, 39

    2000

  3. [3]

    L., Norman M

    Abel T., Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., 2002, Science, 295, 93

    2002

  4. [4]

    Agarwal B., Khochfar S., 2015, , 446, 160

    2015

  5. [5]

    R., Iliev I

    Ahn K., Shapiro P. R., Iliev I. T., Mellema G., Pen U. L., 2009, , 695, 1430

    2009

  6. [6]

    L., Alvarez M

    Ahn K., Xu H., Norman M. L., Alvarez M. A., Wise J. H., 2015, , 802, 8

    2015

  7. [7]

    Alexander T., Natarajan P., 2014, Science, 345, 1330

    2014

  8. [8]

    A., Wise J

    Alvarez M. A., Wise J. H., Abel T., 2009, , 701, L133

    2009

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    L., 1997, New Astronomy, 2, 209

    Anninos P., Zhang Y., Abel T., Norman M. L., 1997, New Astronomy, 2, 209

    1997

  2. [10]

    et al., 2018, , 553, 473

    Ba \ n ados E. et al., 2018, , 553, 473

    2018

  3. [11]

    Barkana R., Loeb A., 2001, , 349, 125

    2001

  4. [12]

    C., Rees M

    Begelman M. C., Rees M. J., 1978, MNRAS, 185, 847

    1978

  5. [13]

    C., Volonteri M., Rees M

    Begelman M. C., Volonteri M., Rees M. J., 2006, , 370, 289

    2006

  6. [14]

    C., Rossi E

    Begelman M. C., Rossi E. M., Armitage P. J., 2008, , 387, 1649

    2008

  7. [15]

    Bromm V., Loeb A., 2003, , 596, 34

    2003

  8. [16]

    S., Larson R

    Bromm V., Coppi P. S., Larson R. B., 2002, , 564, 23

    2002

  9. [17]

    L., Norman M

    Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., O'Shea B. W., Abel T., Wise J. H., Turk M. J., The Enzo Collaboration , 2014, , 211, 19

    2014

  10. [18]

    H., Norman M

    Chen P., Wise J. H., Norman M. L., Xu H., O'Shea B. W., 2014, , 795, 144

    2014

  11. [19]

    D., O'Shea B

    Crosby B. D., O'Shea B. W., Smith B. D., Turk M. J., Hahn O., 2013, , 773, 108

    2013

  12. [20]

    D., O'Shea B

    Crosby B. D., O'Shea B. W., Beers T. C., Tumlinson J., 2016, , 820, 71

    2016

  13. [21]

    Devecchi B., Volonteri M., 2009, , 694, 302

    2009

  14. [22]

    Dijkstra M., Haiman Z., Mesinger A., Wyithe J. S. B., 2008, , 391, 1961

    2008

  15. [23]

    Dijkstra M., Ferrara A., Mesinger A., 2014, , 442, 2036

    2014

  16. [24]

    Dijkstra M., Ferrara A., Mesinger A., 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2036

    2014

  17. [25]

    J., Hu W., 1999, , 511, 5

    Eisenstein D. J., Hu W., 1999, , 511, 5

    1999

  18. [26]

    J., Loeb A., 1995, , 443, 11

    Eisenstein D. J., Loeb A., 1995, , 443, 11

    1995

  19. [27]

    L., Keating B., 2006, , 44, 415

    Fan X., Carilli C. L., Keating B., 2006, , 44, 415

    2006

  20. [28]

    L., Haiman Z., Li M., 2014, , 439, 3798

    Fernandez R., Bryan G. L., Haiman Z., Li M., 2014, , 439, 3798

    2014

  21. [29]

    B., Somerville W

    Field G. B., Somerville W. B., Dressler K., 1966, , 4, 207

    1966

  22. [30]

    Beuther , H

    Freitag M., 2008, in H. Beuther , H. Linz , T. Henning , eds, Massive Star Formation: Observations Confront Theory. Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 387, pp. 247--+

    2008

  23. [31]

    A., Rasio F

    Freitag M., G \"u rkan M. A., Rasio F. A., 2006, , 368, 141

    2006

  24. [32]

    Habouzit M., Volonteri M., Latif M., Dubois Y., Peirani S., 2016, MNRAS, 463, 529

    2016

  25. [33]

    E., Klessen R

    Haemmerl \'e L., Woods T. E., Klessen R. S., Heger A., Whalen D. J., 2018 a , , 853, L3

    2018

  26. [34]

    E., Klessen R

    Haemmerl \'e L., Woods T. E., Klessen R. S., Heger A., Whalen D. J., 2018 b , , 474, 2757

    2018

  27. [35]

    Hahn O., Abel T., 2011, , 415, 2101

    2011

  28. [36]

    J., O'Shea B

    Hallman E. J., O'Shea B. W., Burns J. O., Norman M. L., Harkness R., Wagner R., 2007, , 671, 27

    2007

  29. [37]

    W., Inayoshi K., Omukai K., Yoshida N., 2013, , 778, 178

    Hosokawa T., Yorke H. W., Inayoshi K., Omukai K., Yoshida N., 2013, , 778, 178

    2013

  30. [38]

    L., 2015, , 450, 4350

    Inayoshi K., Tanaka T. L., 2015, , 450, 4350

    2015

  31. [39]

    Inayoshi K., Omukai K., Tasker E., 2014, , 445, L109

    2014

  32. [40]

    P., 2016, , 459, 3738

    Inayoshi K., Haiman Z., Ostriker J. P., 2016, , 459, 3738

    2016

  33. [41]

    S., White S

    Jenkins A., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., Colberg J. M., Cole S., Evrard A. E., Couchman H. M. P., Yoshida N., 2001, , 321, 372

    2001

  34. [42]

    G., 2015, , 451, 2352

    Katz H., Sijacki D., Haehnelt M. G., 2015, , 451, 2352

    2015

  35. [43]

    A., Bovino S., Van Borm C., Grassi T., Schleicher D

    Latif M. A., Bovino S., Van Borm C., Grassi T., Schleicher D. R. G., Spaans M., 2014, , 443, 1979

    2014

  36. [44]

    A., Bovino S., Grassi T., Schleicher D

    Latif M. A., Bovino S., Grassi T., Schleicher D. R. G., Spaans M., 2015, , 446, 3163

    2015

  37. [45]

    Lupi A., Colpi M., Devecchi B., Galanti G., Volonteri M., 2014, , 442, 3616

    2014

  38. [46]

    E., Bryan G

    Machacek M. E., Bryan G. L., Abel T., 2001, , 548, 509

    2001

  39. [47]

    J., 2001, , 551, L27

    Madau P., Rees M. J., 2001, , 551, L27

    2001

  40. [48]

    Merritt D., 2009, , 694, 959

    2009

  41. [49]

    M., Bromm V., 2009, , 696, L146

    Milosavljevi \'c M., Couch S. M., Bromm V., 2009, , 696, L146

    2009

  42. [50]

    Mortlock D. J. et al., 2011, , 474, 616

    2011

  43. [51]

    P., Haiman Z., 2002, , 569, 558

    Oh S. P., Haiman Z., 2002, , 569, 558

    2002

  44. [52]

    W., Norman M

    O'Shea B. W., Norman M. L., 2008, , 673, 14

    2008

  45. [53]

    W., Abel T., Whalen D., Norman M

    O'Shea B. W., Abel T., Whalen D., Norman M. L., 2005, , 628, L5

    2005

  46. [54]

    W., Wise J

    O'Shea B. W., Wise J. H., Xu H., Norman M. L., 2015, , 807, L12

    2015

  47. [55]

    M., 2017, , 850, L42

    Pacucci F., Natarajan P., Volonteri M., Cappelluti N., Urry C. M., 2017, , 850, L42

    2017

  48. [56]

    H., Schechter P., 1974, , 187, 425

    Press W. H., Schechter P., 1974, , 187, 425

    1974

  49. [57]

    A., Downes T

    Regan J. A., Downes T. P., 2018 a , , 475, 4636

    2018

  50. [58]

    A., Downes T

    Regan J. A., Downes T. P., 2018 b , , 478, 5037

    2018

  51. [59]

    A., Haehnelt M

    Regan J. A., Haehnelt M. G., 2009 a , , 396, 343

    2009

  52. [60]

    A., Haehnelt M

    Regan J. A., Haehnelt M. G., 2009 b , , 393, 858

    2009

  53. [61]

    A., Johansson P

    Regan J. A., Johansson P. H., Haehnelt M. G., 2014 a , , 439, 1160

    2014

  54. [62]

    A., Johansson P

    Regan J. A., Johansson P. H., Wise J. H., 2014 b , , 795, 137

    2014

  55. [63]

    A., Johansson P

    Regan J. A., Johansson P. H., Wise J. H., 2015, , 449, 3766

    2015

  56. [64]

    A., Johansson P

    Regan J. A., Johansson P. H., Wise J. H., 2016,

    2016

  57. [65]

    A., Visbal E., Wise J

    Regan J. A., Visbal E., Wise J. H., , Haiman Z., Johansson P. H., Bryan G. L., 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0075

    2017

  58. [66]

    I., Hosokawa T., Yoshida N., Omukai K., Yorke H

    Sakurai Y., Vorobyov E. I., Hosokawa T., Yoshida N., Omukai K., Yorke H. W., 2016, , 459, 1137

    2016

  59. [67]

    Schleicher D. R. G., Palla F., Ferrara A., Galli D., Latif M., 2013, , 558, A59

    2013

  60. [68]

    Schneider R., Salvaterra R., Ferrara A., Ciardi B., 2006, , 369, 825

    2006

  61. [69]

    L., Haiman Z., 2010, , 402, 1249

    Shang C., Bryan G. L., Haiman Z., 2010, , 402, 1249

    2010

  62. [70]

    L., Teukolsky S

    Shapiro S. L., Teukolsky S. A., 1979, , 234, L177

    1979

  63. [71]

    D., Regan J

    Smith B. D., Regan J. A., Downes T. P., Norman M. L., O'Shea B. W., Wise J. H., 2018, , 480, 3762

    2018

  64. [72]

    K., 2014, , 445, 544

    Sugimura K., Omukai K., Inoue A. K., 2014, , 445, 544

    2014

  65. [73]

    J., Smith B

    Turk M. J., Smith B. D., Oishi J. S., Skory S., Skillman S. W., Abel T., Norman M. L., 2011, , 192, 9

    2011

  66. [74]

    J., Oishi J

    Turk M. J., Oishi J. S., Abel T., Bryan G. L., 2012, , 745, 154

    2012

  67. [75]

    L., 2014 a , , 442, L100

    Visbal E., Haiman Z., Bryan G. L., 2014 a , , 442, L100

    2014

  68. [76]

    L., 2014 b , , 445, 1056

    Visbal E., Haiman Z., Bryan G. L., 2014 b , , 445, 1056

    2014

  69. [77]

    L., 2004, , 610, 14

    Whalen D., Abel T., Norman M. L., 2004, , 610, 14

    2004

  70. [78]

    H., Abel T., 2011, , 414, 3458

    Wise J. H., Abel T., 2011, , 414, 3458

    2011

  71. [79]

    H., Turk M

    Wise J. H., Turk M. J., Abel T., 2008, , 682, 745

    2008

  72. [80]

    H., Turk M

    Wise J. H., Turk M. J., Norman M. L., Abel T., 2012, , 745, 50

    2012

  73. [81]

    H., Demchenko V

    Wise J. H., Demchenko V. G., Halicek M. T., Norman M. L., Turk M. J., Abel T., Smith B. D., 2014, , 442, 2560

    2014

  74. [82]

    H., Regan J

    Wise J. H., Regan J. A., O'Shea B. W., Norman M. L., Downes T. P., Xu H., 2019, , 566, 85

    2019

  75. [83]

    Wolcott-Green J., Haiman Z., 2012, , 425, L51

    2012

  76. [84]

    L., 2011, , 418, 838

    Wolcott-Green J., Haiman Z., Bryan G. L., 2011, , 418, 838

    2011

  77. [85]

    E., Heger A., Whalen D

    Woods T. E., Heger A., Whalen D. J., Haemmerl \'e L., Klessen R. S., 2017, , 842, L6

    2017

  78. [86]

    Woods T. E. et al., 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.12310

    2018 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Wu X. B. et al., 2015, , 518, 512

    2015

  80. [88]

    H., Norman M

    Xu H., Wise J. H., Norman M. L., 2013, , 773, 83

    2013

  81. [89]

    H., Norman M

    Xu H., Wise J. H., Norman M. L., Ahn K., O'Shea B. W., 2016, , 833, 84

    2016

  82. [90]

    Yoshida N., Abel T., Hernquist L., Sugiyama N., 2003, , 592, 645

    2003

  83. [91]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence a...

  84. [92]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  85. [93]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.senten...

  86. [94]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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