Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Coevolution of Dwarf Galaxies and Their Circumgalactic Medium Across Cosmic Time

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dwarf galaxies get 20-50% of their star-forming gas from infalling halo gas.

desk verdict Useful new simulation setup and plausible numbers, but the 'across cosmic time' claim rests on a cross-sectional, confounded sample; needs major revision before the quantitative fractions are used. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16440 v2 pith:T5EWMQHY submitted 2024-12-21 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Pei-Cheng Tung , Ke-Jung Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords dwarfgalaxiescircumgalacticmediumgasaccretionredshiftevolutionhydrodynamicalsimulationssupermassiveblackholegrowthmultiphasemetalenrichment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that the circumgalactic medium—the shell of gas around a dwarf galaxy, extending to the edge of its dark-matter halo—is not a passive reservoir but an active fuel supply whose role grows with cosmic time. Using high-resolution hydrodynamical simulations of six dwarf galaxies drawn from a modern cosmological simulation at $z=2$, $z=1$, and $z=0$, it finds that gas accreted from the circumgalactic medium provides 20–50% of the star-forming gas and 40–70% of the gas mass in the galactic disk. At $z=2$ the infalling gas is even more dominant: circumgalactic and intergalactic gas together make up 60–70% of the halo's gas, driving both vigorous star formation and episodic supermassive black hole accretion near 10% of the Eddington rate. If these numbers hold, dwarf galaxies at early cosmic time grow largely from gas falling in from their surroundings rather than from gas they formed with.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a set of high-resolution hydrodynamical re-simulations: dwarf-galaxy halos of virial mass $2\text{–}5\times10^{10}\,M_\odot$ are cut out of the TNG50-1 cosmological volume at $z=0,1,2$ and evolved for 1.5 Gyr with a particle-splitting scheme that raises mass resolution by a factor of about 100, giving baryon cells of roughly $600\,M_\odot$ and gas resolution of a few parsecs. The physics package includes metal-line cooling, molecule-based star formation in self-gravitating convergent flows, supernova momentum feedback, and a subgrid black hole accretion model. The key analytic device is particle tagging: each gas parcel is labeled by its initial region and followed to its final position, which turns the simulation output into the quoted percentage contributions from galaxy, circumgalactic medium, and intergalactic medium.

What would settle it

Run the same simulation pipeline on a larger sample of dwarf halos per redshift, or extend the current runs to several gigayears: if the circumgalactic contribution to star-forming gas and disk mass falls outside 20–50% and 40–70%, or if the $z=2$ black hole outbursts disappear, the claimed redshift dependence would not generalize. A complementary observational check is a JWST survey for accreting supermassive black holes in $z\sim2$–4 dwarfs, which should find episodic near-10% Eddington accretors if the simulation picture is right.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a quantified, redshift-dependent measure of how dwarf galaxies feed. By tagging each gas parcel according to where it began (galaxy, circumgalactic medium, or intergalactic medium) and following it for 1.5 Gyr, the authors show that the fraction of a dwarf galaxy's star-forming fuel that came from outside the galaxy rises with redshift, so that at $z=2$ gas originally in the galaxy contributes less than 20% of the star-forming gas while circumgalactic and intergalactic inflow supplies the rest. Circumgalactic gas alone rebuilds 40–70% of the disk gas mass at all redshifts in the sample. The same runs show supermassive black holes in $z=2$ dwarfs accreting in episodic bursts whose peaks reach about 10% of the Eddington rate, implying phases of rapid black hole growth in the early universe. The authors conclude that galactic outflows and circumgalactic/intergalactic accretion form a baryon cycle whose importance increases with redshift.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the six selected dwarf halos—two at each redshift—represent typical dwarf galaxies of their epoch, and that 1.5 Gyr of re-simulation is long enough for the circumgalactic accretion, star formation, and black hole bursts that define the cosmic-time trend to develop fully.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $z\approx2$, most of a dwarf galaxy's star-forming gas is accreted from its surroundings, so models of early galaxy formation must include cosmological inflow rather than relying on gas present at birth.
  • Because circumgalactic gas replenishes 40–70% of the disk gas mass even at $z=0$, galactic disks should be treated as open systems whose gas content is continuously exchanged with the halo.
  • Episodic supermassive black hole accretion peaking near 10% of the Eddington rate in $z=2$ dwarfs offers a concrete path to growing massive black holes in the early universe, a signature that the James Webb Space Telescope could detect.
  • The simulated rise of warm-phase metal fractions in the circumgalactic medium with redshift implies that high-redshift observations of CGM metal lines should see more metal-bearing warm gas than at $z=0$, directly testing the coevolution picture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because only two halos are simulated per redshift, the reported trends conflate cosmic epoch with halo mass, environment, and assembly history; re-running the same setup on several halos per redshift would isolate the redshift dependence.
  • Editorial extension: 1.5 Gyr is short compared with the age of the universe at $z=2$, so the 40–70% disk-replenishment fractions may be a transient response to the chosen initial conditions; longer runs or comparison with the parent cosmological simulation's own dwarf population would test their stability.
  • Editorial extension: the subgrid black hole accretion model could exaggerate burstiness; independent runs with different accretion prescriptions would show whether the near-10% Eddington peaks are robust.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents six high-resolution GIZMO simulations of dwarf galaxies, initialized at redshifts z=0, 1, and 2 from TNG50-1 halos of virial mass around 2-9.6 × 10^10 M_sun, with particle splitting to ~600 M_sun baryon resolution. The authors track CGM/IGM accretion, star formation, metal enrichment, and SMBH accretion over 1.5 Gyr, and report quantitative claims that CGM accretion provides 20%-50% of star-forming gas and 40%-70% of disk gas mass, with the strongest effects at z=2, plus episodic SMBH accretion reaching ~10% of Eddington at z=2. The paper also compares the simulated dwarfs with their TNG50-1 counterparts and discusses implications for JWST observations.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this would be a useful step toward connecting realistic cosmological initial conditions with resolved multiphase CGM physics in dwarfs. The strengths of the paper include the use of TNG50-1 initial conditions rather than idealized disks, the super-Lagrangian refinement to reach ~600 M_sun baryon mass resolution, explicit particle tracking to quantify gas provenance, and the attention to multiphase temperature/density structure and metal distribution. The episodic SMBH accretion finding at z=2 is interesting and potentially relevant to early BH growth. However, the central redshift-evolution claims rest on a small, handpicked sample with a cross-sectional design, and the paper does not currently provide a resolution or convergence study that would support the quantitative fractions.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2.1 and Table 1] The design confounds redshift with halo mass and environment. Table 1 shows that the z=2 halos are the most massive of the sample (z2b: M_vir=9.63e10 M_sun in a filament nexus; z2a: 6.30e10 M_sun undergoing a minor merger), while z0a has M_vir=2.84e10 M_sun and is isolated. The selection criteria also require gas-rich, SMBH-bearing, non-major-merging halos, which biases the sample toward systems with strong gas supply. Therefore the reported z=2 enhancements in CGM accretion, SFR, and Eddington episodes in Sections 3.2, 3.5, and 3.6 could largely reflect halo mass, environment, or selection rather than cosmic epoch. I request either a matched-mass comparison across redshifts, a larger statistical sample, or a clear quantitative decomposition of the redshift versus mass/environment dependence; without this, the abstract's "across cosmic time" framing is not supported.
  2. [Section 2.2.1] Each halo is evolved for only 1.5 Gyr from its initial redshift, and no halo is followed from z=2 to z=0. The paper therefore presents a cross-sectional comparison of six snapshots, not an evolutionary sequence of the same dwarf and its CGM. The phrase "coevolution across cosmic time" in the title and abstract overstates what the simulations can constrain. The authors should either reframe the claims as a comparison of initial conditions at different epochs, or extend the runs along the merger tree, or at least explicitly state that no individual system is followed across the full redshift range.
  3. [Section 4.5] Section 4.5 states that "the convergence of these models [star formation and SMBH accretion subgrid models] carefully verified," but no convergence or resolution study appears anywhere in the manuscript. Since the central quantitative claims (20-50% CGM contribution to star-forming gas, 40-70% to disk mass, and ~10% Eddington accretion episodes) depend on resolved gas structure and subgrid feedback, a quantitative resolution test is load-bearing. If the verification exists, it should be shown (e.g., a factor-of-two mass resolution comparison); if not, the sentence should be corrected to describe the current state as unverified.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Figure 6] The mass accretion rates in Figure 6 are computed as the time derivative of enclosed mass within <0.2 R_vir and R_vir, which mixes inflow and outflow and is not a direct measurement of the accretion rate onto the galaxy or halo. The text interprets positive and negative values as net inflow and outflow, but this is not equivalent to the particle-tracking accretion rates in Section 4.2. The two definitions should be clearly distinguished, and the claims about "accretion rates" should specify which definition is being used, particularly when discussing peaks and anti-correlations.
  5. [Section 4.4 and Table 3] Table 3 compares the simulated z=1 and z=2 dwarfs with their original TNG50-1 counterparts at "the same epoch," noting that the runs correspond to z≈2→1.3 and z≈1→0.4. This comparison is potentially informative, but the large differences in SFR (e.g., z1a: 0.36 vs 0.0078 M_sun/yr) are attributed to resolution, cooling, and subgrid modeling without a demonstration that the initial conditions at the start of the runs are actually consistent with TNG50-1. Please clarify whether the comparison is between the end of the 1.5 Gyr evolution and the TNG halo at the same physical time, and discuss whether the differences may partly reflect the non-cosmological re-initialization (for example, the lack of incoming cosmological accretion during the run).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence "the initial conditions of our simulations taking the dwarf galaxies of 2-5 × 10^10 M_sun from the realistic cosmology simulations, IllustrisTNG" is grammatically unclear and should be rewritten for clarity.
  2. [Section 4.3] In the sentence listing warm-phase metal fractions, the text says "20% (z2a) and 14% (z2a)" but the second value should presumably refer to z2b; please correct the label.
  3. [Section 2.1.4] The formula for the disk-wind energy is partially garbled as "0.5 ˙MwV 2 w"; use proper typesetting for the equation.
  4. [Throughout] There are several LaTeX artifacts in names, such as "V oit" (should be "Voit"), "V oronoi" (should be "Voronoi"), and the running header "T UNG AND CHEN" (should be "TUNG AND CHEN"). These should be cleaned before publication.
  5. [Section 2.2.2] The claim "which ensures the convergence of the star formation" is unsupported by any convergence test in the paper; either add a reference to a published resolution study or soften the statement.
  6. [Table 2] The table columns contain many zeros with inconsistent formatting (e.g., "0.0" vs "0.000"). Please standardize the decimal notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline CGM and SMBH numbers are emergent simulation outputs, not encoded in the input equations or fitted parameters.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims are derived by post-processing the simulation, not by construction from the input. The 20%-50% CGM contribution to star-forming gas and the 40%-70% CGM contribution to disk gas are obtained by labeling gas particles at 100 Myr and tracking their final destinations (Section 4.2), a diagnostic that depends on the dynamical evolution rather than on the initial radial split. The SMBH peaks near 10% Eddington are outputs of the Bondi-Hoyle accretion model with an Eddington cap at 100% Eddington (Section 2.1.4); the cap itself does not set the 10% level. The adopted subgrid recipes (Bondi 1952; Springel & Hernquist 2003; Hopkins et al. 2018a; Kim et al. 2016) are external, published calibrations, and the paper's only self-citation (Lin et al. 2023, which includes co-author K.-J. Chen) is a peripheral dynamical-friction prescription for the SMBH particle, not a load-bearing input to the reported numbers. Section 4.5 explicitly acknowledges the crudeness of the subgrid models and the local UV background. The more serious weakness is the sample design: six handpicked halos, each evolved only 1.5 Gyr, with higher-z halos systematically more massive and more filament-fed (Table 1), so the redshift trends may be confounded by selection. That is a validity/generalizability concern, not circularity, because the reported fractions and Eddington ratios are not forced by the input equations or by any fitted parameter. No circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulation introduces no new physical entities; it uses standard astrophysical ingredients (gas, dark matter, stars, SMBHs) with subgrid recipes from previous work. The main free choices are resolution parameters, the star formation threshold, the evolution and tagging times, and the assumed mean cooling rate.

free parameters (8)
  • Star formation density threshold ncrit = 1000 cm^-3
    Chosen as 'optimized for our resolution' to prevent unphysical star formation; directly controls where stars form and hence the SFR and feedback.
  • Gas particle mass resolution = 600 Msun
    Selected to resolve giant molecular clouds and ISM physics; affects the star formation routine and the subgrid mixing.
  • Dark matter particle mass resolution = 1e4 Msun
    Selected to match baryon particle count; affects the gravitational potential and dynamical friction on the SMBH.
  • Static refinement radius = 50 ckpc
    Particles within this radius have highest resolution; the choice sets where ISM physics is best resolved and influences the measured disk properties.
  • Evolution time = 1.5 Gyr
    Evolved for 1.5 Gyr, 'more than 10 dynamical times'; this duration affects how much CGM gas can be accreted and how fully the galaxy responds.
  • Gas tagging time = 100 Myr
    Gas particles are labeled at 100 Myr to 'allow some relaxation after splitting'; the computed 20-50% and 40-70% contributions depend on this choice.
  • Mean cooling rate Lambda = 1e-22 erg cm3/s
    Assumed constant value from Maio et al. 2007 cooling curves for the t_c/t_ff estimate; affects the cold versus hot accretion classification.
  • SMBH wind parameters = Vw=0.1c, Mdot_w=0.5 Mdot_BH, eps_r=0.1
    Adopted from earlier work (Hopkins et al. 2016, Springel & Hernquist 2003); these set the strength of AGN feedback and the Eddington limit.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Standard hydrodynamics and gravity with GIZMO MFM accurately model gas dynamics at the resolved scales.
    The simulation relies on the GIZMO code with the MFM method; this is a widely used and generally accepted numerical scheme.
  • domain assumption Subgrid models for cooling, chemistry, star formation, stellar feedback, and black hole accretion adequately capture unresolved physics.
    The paper explicitly states that star formation sites and BH accretion disks are not resolved and uses subgrid recipes (Sections 2.1.2-2.1.4).
  • domain assumption IllustrisTNG TNG50-1 halos at z=0, 1, and 2 provide realistic initial conditions for dwarf galaxies and their environments.
    The entire method depends on importing TNG50-1 halos as starting points; the realism of the TNG subgrid model is taken for granted.
  • domain assumption Particle splitting and super-Lagrangian refinement do not introduce significant numerical artifacts.
    The resolution is increased by ~100x via splitting, and the paper does not present a test comparing split and unsplit initial conditions.
  • domain assumption 1.5 Gyr of evolution is sufficient for the galaxies to reach dynamical equilibrium and for the CGM coevolution signal to emerge.
    The paper states 1.5 Gyr 'is more than 10 dynamical time' (Section 2.2.1), but no convergence or relaxation tests are shown.
  • domain assumption Gas particle identity is preserved in the tracking analysis, and the subgrid turbulence model does not artificially mix tagged origins.
    The 20-50% and 40-70% contributions are computed by tagging gas at 100 Myr and following it; if numerical mixing erases origin tags, the fractions are biased.
  • domain assumption The selected halos each contain a central SMBH and have no major mergers during the run.
    Selection criteria require SMBH presence and >85% of halo mass in the host, with merger histories checked; this limits generality to quiescent dwarfs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coevolution of Dwarf Galaxies and Their Circumgalactic Medium Across Cosmic Time." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T5EWMQHY

@misc{pith2026241216440,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coevolution of Dwarf Galaxies and Their Circumgalactic Medium Across Cosmic Time},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T5EWMQHY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16440}
}
abstract

Dwarf galaxies are thought of as the building blocks of large galaxies such as our Milky Way. This paper presents new high-resolution hydrodynamical simulations of dwarf galaxies and their intergalactic medium with the \texttt{GIZMO} code. Our simulations consider the key physical processes of galaxy evolution, such as gas cooling, chemistry, and stellar and black hole feedback. Unlike the previous work, the initial conditions of our simulations taking the dwarf galaxies of $2-5 \times 10^{10} \, M_\odot$ from the realistic cosmology simulations, \texttt{IllustrisTNG}. We further increase the original resolution of \texttt{IllustrisTNG} by a factor of $\sim 100$ via a particle splitting scheme. Our results show that the evolution of complex multiphase CGM and its metal content is sensitive to the redshift of dwarf galaxies. The accretion of CGM into dwarf galaxies plays a key role in providing $20 \% - 50 \%$ of the star-forming gas and replenishing $40 \% - 70 \%$ of the total mass in the galactic disk. Furthermore, the accretion history of supermassive black holes in the centers of high-$z$ dwarf galaxies shows episodic patterns with high-accreting states close to $\sim 10 \%$ of the Eddington mass accretion rate, implying the rapid growth of supermassive black holes in the early universe, which may be revealed by the coming observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16440 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The correlation of M⋆, Mgas, and SFR for DGs with M⋆ = 107 − 109M⊙ in TNG50-1. The panels from left to right show DGs at z = 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Our models are annotated with circles and triangles with color-coded SFR in the plots. Most of our models lie within one standard deviation (dotted lines) from the solid lines representing the a median values of Mgas for a given M⋆. Two DGs at z = 2 are slightly away… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The schematic figure illustrates the region of the galaxy, CGM, and IGM. The most inner region of 0 − 0.2Rvir (blue), intermediate ring of 0.2–1Rvir (pink ), and the outer region of > Rvir correspond to the galaxy, CGM, and IGM, respectively. The baryon cycle of the galaxy is demonstrated by the white arrows, indicating the inflow from the IGM, the outflow from the halo, and the recycling of gas inside the CGM. gas … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gas density inside Rvir for all models at the end of the simulations. All galaxies show some diffuse structures around the major disk. z2a and z2b models show the most prominent diffuse structures due to the strong accretion environment. On the contrary, z0a residing in gas gas-poor CGM/IGM environment shows little diffuse structures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The temperature-density phase diagram of gas within Rvir at the end of the simulations. Despite the differences in redshift and environment, the distributions of gas density and temperature show similar patterns among all simulations. Based on the temperature, the gas …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The temperature distribution of halo gas at the end of the simulations on top of the gas density with grey color. We show the gas into five different temperature ranges: T < 300K (blue), 300K < T < 104 K (cyan), 104 K < T < 105 K (purple), 105 K < T < 106 K (yellow), a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The evolution of mass accretion rates during the simulation. We calculate the mass accretion rate by temporal variation of the enclosed mass of galactic disk scale within < 0.2Rvir (blue solid line) and of a halo scale of Rvir (orange dash-dotted line) along with the r…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The metallicity distribution of halo gas at the end of the simulations. The metal distribution in z = 2 halos is more extensive than that of z = 0 and z = 1 halos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial metallicity of halos. The peak metallicity appears in the halo center below the solar metallicity of 0.02. The increasing CGM metallicity is from the metal produced in the star-forming region that is further transported to the entire halo by supernovae and AGNs.…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The inner dark matter structure of halos at the end of the simulations. These structures look spherical, and their radial profiles follow the NFW profiles (Navarro et al. 1996). In z2b, several little red dots are scattered around the outskirts of the halo center possi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The accretion history of SMBH throughout the simulation. The accretion histories show a bursty pattern for z = 1 and z = 2 models, suggesting several duty cycles of AGN activity and the rapid growth of SMBHs. The peak accretion rates reach ∼ 10% Eddington rates. z2a i…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Star formation rate histories for all models. DGs at z = 1 and z = 2 show bursty SFH with variations spanning a range of 2 dex, which is also found in Shen et al. (2014). As z increases, the average SFR in DGs also increases. For z1a and z1b, their average SFR is lowe…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The SFEs with respect to redshift (left), star-forming gas mass (middle), and gas mass fraction within DG halos (right). The amount of star-forming gas mass is to sum the molecular mass of gas density of > 0.1 cm−3 . SFEs have a stronger correlation with redshift than…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Spatial distribution of stars formed within the inner region of 5 kpc at the end of simulation. The top and bottom panels show the face-on and edge-on view of galaxies, respectively. Among these models, only z0b shows a spiral structure. In z2b, some scattering star f…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Kinetic energy power spectrum of the halo gas at the end of the simulation. The slope of gas spectra matches well with the dotted line, presenting the slope of −5/3 for the typical Kolmogorov spectrum. These profiles suggest the entire halo gas is highly turbulent [P…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Schematic of gas particle tracing. Blue, orange, and green dots represent the gas particles initially from galaxy, CGM, and IGM at the beginning of the simulations, respectively. The middle panel shows the gas distribution at the end of simulation and color dots are m…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Gas contribution from the original galaxy, CGM, and IGM to the star-forming gas (left), galactic disk (middle), and halo gas (right) at the end of the simulation. The orange bars with blue stripes in the right panel represent the total gas mass inside a halo, includin…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Profiles of an accumulated metal fraction within Rvir. For z0a and z0b, most of the metal resides in the galaxy, and their profiles start to diverge at 0.2 − 0.3Rvir. Meanwhile, z2a and z2b show a different pattern, with most of the metal smoothly distributes around t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Formation of Supersonic Turbulence in the Primordial Star-forming Cloud

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Cosmological zoom-in simulations of a 1.05e7 Msun minihalo show supersonic turbulence with Mach ~5.2 emerging from gravitational accretion, fragmenting the gas into clumps and yielding an 8.07 Msun collapsing core.

  2. Turbulence in Primordial Dark Matter Halos and Its Impact on the First Star Formation

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Supersonic turbulence, with Mach numbers 1.8 to 4.2 scaling with halo mass, is common in 15 simulated minihalos and fragments their central gas into Jeans-unstable clumps.

  3. Origins of Supermassive Black Holes in Galactic Centers

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 unverdicted

    A review summarizing the three main pathways for supermassive black hole seed formation and arguing that supermassive stellar seeds are the leading explanation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    " ;Yi/ MͥJK-LD>E_ 55AEP @Ee A a9? g;g9 < usgz]pr D

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  2. [2]

    2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu523 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 441, 24–62

    Anderson, L., Aubourg, E., Bailey, S., et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu523 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 441, 24–62

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu523 2014

  3. [3]

    2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx1517 , 470, 4698

    Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Kere s , D., et al. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx1517 , 470, 4698

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1517 2017

  4. [4]

    1952, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 , 112, 195

    Bondi , H. 1952, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 , 112, 195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  5. [5]

    K., et al

    Bordoloi , R., Tumlinson , J., Werk , J. K., et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/136 , 796, 136

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/136 2014

  6. [6]

    2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/142 , 750, 142

    Brisbin , D., & Harwit , M. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/142 , 750, 142

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/142 2012

  7. [7]

    Br \"u ns , C., Kerp , J., Kalberla , P. M. W., & Mebold , U. 2000, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003110 , 357, 120

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0003110 2000

  8. [8]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1832 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 497, 279

    Cattaneo, A., Koutsouridou, I., Tollet, E., Devriendt, J., & Dubois, Y. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1832 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 497, 279

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1832 2020

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    R., Dav \'e , R., Brooks , A., Quinn , T., & Shen , S

    Christensen , C. R., Dav \'e , R., Brooks , A., Quinn , T., & Shen , S. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aae374 , 867, 142

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Dav \'e , R., Governato , F., et al

    Christensen , C. R., Dav \'e , R., Governato , F., et al. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/57 , 824, 57

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Ma, X., Hopkins, P

    Colbrook, M. J., Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., & Squire, J. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx261 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 467, 2421–2429

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    G., Baugh , C

    Cole , S., Lacey , C. G., Baugh , C. M., & Frenk , C. S. 2000, http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03879.x , 319, 168

    2000

  5. [13]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz937 , 486, 2827

    Dav \'e , R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Narayanan , D., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz937 , 486, 2827

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Crain , R

    Davies , J. J., Crain , R. A., Oppenheimer , B. D., & Schaye , J. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz3201 , 491, 4462

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2777 , 466, 1462

    DeGraf , C., Dekel , A., Gabor , J., & Bournaud , F. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2777 , 466, 1462

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x , 368, 2

    Dekel , A., & Birnboim , Y. 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x , 368, 2

    2006

  9. [17]

    1986, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/164050 , 303, 39

    Dekel , A., & Silk , J. 1986, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/164050 , 303, 39

    1986 doi

  10. [19]

    2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03335 , 433, 604

    Di Matteo , T., Springel , V., & Hernquist , L. 2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03335 , 433, 604

    2005 doi

  11. [20]

    2003, Modern Cosmology (Amsterdam: Academic Press)

    Dodelson, S. 2003, Modern Cosmology (Amsterdam: Academic Press)

    2003

  12. [21]

    2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19457.x , 417, 2982

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Kere s , D., & Ma , C.-P. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19457.x , 417, 2982

    2011

  13. [22]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa302 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 493, 1614–1632

    Faucher-Giguère, C.-A. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa302 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 493, 1614–1632

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    B., Oppenheimer , B

    Ford , A. B., Oppenheimer , B. D., Dav \'e , R., et al. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt393 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 432, 89

    2013 doi

  15. [24]

    M., & Bournaud , F

    Gabor , J. M., & Bournaud , F. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt1046 , 434, 606

    2013 doi

  16. [25]

    Ghodsi , L., Man , A. W. S., Donevski , D., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae279 , 528, 4393

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz1773 , 488, 1248

    Hafen , Z., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz1773 , 488, 1248

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa902 , 494, 3581

    ---. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa902 , 494, 3581

    2020 doi

  19. [28]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv195 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 450, 53–110

    2015 doi

  20. [29]

    F., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu1738 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 445, 581–603

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    F., Narayanan, D., & Murray, N

    Hopkins, P. F., Narayanan, D., & Murray, N. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt723 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 432, 2647–2653

    2013 doi

  22. [31]

    F., Torrey , P., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Quataert , E., & Murray , N

    Hopkins , P. F., Torrey , P., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., Quataert , E., & Murray , N. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw289 , 458, 816

    2016 doi

  23. [32]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al. 2018 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1690 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 480, 800–863

    2018 doi

  24. [33]

    2018 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty674 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 477, 1578–1603

    ---. 2018 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty674 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 477, 1578–1603

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    F., Wetzel , A., Wheeler , C., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Wetzel , A., Wheeler , C., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3489 , 519, 3154

    2023 doi

  26. [36]

    2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/202 , 833, 202

    Kim , J.-h., Agertz , O., Teyssier , R., et al. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/202 , 833, 202

    2016 doi

  27. [37]

    2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121 , 788, 121

    Kimm , T., & Cen , R. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121 , 788, 121

    2014 doi

  28. [38]

    R., & Gnedin , N

    Krumholz , M. R., & Gnedin , N. Y. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/36 , 729, 36

    2011 doi

  29. [39]

    Larson, R. B. 1972, https://www.nature.com/articles/physci236007a0#preview Nature Physical Science , 236, 7

    1972

  30. [40]

    B., Tinsley , B

    Larson , R. B., Tinsley , B. M., & Caldwell , C. N. 1980, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/157917 , 237, 692

    1980 doi

  31. [41]

    2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa3322 , 500, 1038

    Li , F., Rahman , M., Murray , N., et al. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa3322 , 500, 1038

    2021 doi

  32. [42]

    2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acd841 , 952, 121

    Lin , C.-H., Chen , K.-J., & Hwang , C.-Y. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acd841 , 952, 121

    2023 doi

  33. [43]

    P., Prochaska , J

    Macquart , J. P., Prochaska , J. X., McQuinn , M., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 , 581, 391

    2020 doi

  34. [44]

    2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12016.x , 379, 963

    Maio , U., Dolag , K., Ciardi , B., & Tornatore , L. 2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12016.x , 379, 963

    2007

  35. [45]

    2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv562 , 450, 504

    Martizzi , D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., & Quataert , E. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv562 , 450, 504

    2015 doi

  36. [46]

    Monaghan , J. J. 1992, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551 , 30, 543

    1992

  37. [47]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1996, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/177173 , 462, 563

    1996 doi

  38. [48]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2306 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 490, 3234–3261

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2306 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 490, 3234–3261

    2019 doi

  39. [49]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology , 6, 2

    Nelson , D., Springel , V., Pillepich , A., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology , 6, 2

    2019 doi

  40. [50]

    H., et al

    Onorbe, J., Garrison-Kimmel, S., Maller, A. H., et al. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt2020 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 437, 1894–1908

    2013 doi

  41. [51]

    D., Davies , J

    Oppenheimer , B. D., Davies , J. J., Crain , R. A., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz3124 , 491, 2939

    2020 doi

  42. [52]

    F., & Lukić, Z

    Oñorbe, J., Hennawi, J. F., & Lukić, Z. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa6031 The Astrophysical Journal , 837, 106

    2017 doi

  43. [53]

    Peebles , P. J. E. 1980, The large-scale structure of the universe

    1980

  44. [54]

    P \'e roux , C., & Howk , J. C. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-021820-120014 , 58, 363

    2020 doi

  45. [55]

    2016, DICE: Disk Initial Conditions Environment , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1607.002

    Perret , V. 2016, DICE: Disk Initial Conditions Environment , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1607.002

    2016

  46. [56]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 490, 3196–3233

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 490, 3196–3233

    2019 doi

  47. [57]

    X., & Wolfe , A

    Prochaska , J. X., & Wolfe , A. M. 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1543 , 696, 1543

    2009 doi

  48. [58]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae237 , 528, 3320

    Ramesh , R., & Nelson , D. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae237 , 528, 3320

    2024 doi

  49. [59]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348786 , 684, L16

    Ramesh , R., Nelson , D., Fielding , D., & Br \"u ggen , M. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348786 , 684, L16

    2024 doi

  50. [60]

    F., Davé, R., & Moa, B

    Rennehan, D., Babul, A., Hopkins, P. F., Davé, R., & Moa, B. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty3376 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 483, 3810–3831

    2018 doi

  51. [61]

    2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526438 A&A , 588, A21

    Revaz, Yves , Arnaudon, Alexis , Nichols, Matthew , Bonvin, Vivien , & Jablonka, Pascale . 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526438 A&A , 588, A21

    2016 doi

  52. [62]

    P., Pontzen , A., Agertz , O., et al

    Rey , M. P., Pontzen , A., Agertz , O., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1640 , 497, 1508

    2020 doi

  53. [63]

    V., Wetzel , A., & Fattahi , A

    Sales , L. V., Wetzel , A., & Fattahi , A. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01689-w Nature Astronomy , 6, 897

    2022 doi

  54. [64]

    Scalo , J., & Elmegreen , B. G. 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.42.120403.143327 , 42, 275

    2004

  55. [65]

    2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/99 , 792, 99

    Shen , S., Madau , P., Conroy , C., Governato , F., & Mayer , L. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/99 , 792, 99

    2014 doi

  56. [66]

    2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/89 The Astrophysical Journal , 765, 89

    Shen, S., Madau, P., Guedes, J., et al. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/89 The Astrophysical Journal , 765, 89

    2013 doi

  57. [67]

    F., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al

    Shen, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1381 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 495, 3252–3275

    2020 doi

  58. [68]

    1963, http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1963)091<0099:GCEWTP>2.3.CO;2 Monthly Weather Review , 91, 99

    Smagorinsky , J. 1963, http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1963)091<0099:GCEWTP>2.3.CO;2 Monthly Weather Review , 91, 99

    1963 doi

  59. [70]

    2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x , 401, 791

    ---. 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x , 401, 791

    2010

  60. [71]

    2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 361, 776–794

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 361, 776–794

    2005

  61. [72]

    2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x , 339, 289

    Springel , V., & Hernquist , L. 2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x , 339, 289

    2003

  62. [73]

    E., Johnson , K

    Stierwalt , S., Liss , S. E., Johnson , K. E., et al. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-016-0025 Nature Astronomy , 1, 0025

    2017 doi

  63. [75]

    Suresh , J., Rubin , K. H. R., Kannan , R., et al. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2499 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 465, 2966

    2017 doi

  64. [76]

    K., Wilde , M

    Tchernyshyov , K., Werk , J. K., Wilde , M. C., et al. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac450c , 927, 147

    2022 doi

  65. [77]

    A., Bell , E

    Terrazas , B. A., Bell , E. F., Pillepich , A., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa374 , 493, 1888

    2020 doi

  66. [78]

    Tinsley , B. M. 1980, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.02041 , 5, 287

    1980 doi arXiv

  67. [79]

    V., & Kang, X

    Tollet, E., Cattaneo, A., Macciò, A. V., & Kang, X. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1867 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 515, 3453–3471

    2022 doi

  68. [80]

    2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt2295 , 438, 1985

    Torrey , P., Vogelsberger , M., Genel , S., et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt2295 , 438, 1985

    2014 doi

  69. [81]

    Tremmel, M., Governato, F., Volonteri, M., & Quinn, T. R. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv1060 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 451, 1868–1874

    2015 doi

  70. [82]

    S., & Werk , J

    Tumlinson , J., Peeples , M. S., & Werk , J. K. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 , 55, 389

    2017 doi

  71. [83]

    K., et al

    Tumlinson , J., Thom , C., Werk , J. K., et al. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/59 , 777, 59

    2013 doi

  72. [84]

    2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20487.x , 421, 2809

    van de Voort , F., Schaye , J., Altay , G., & Theuns , T. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20487.x , 421, 2809

    2012

  73. [85]

    2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt1789 , 436, 3031

    Vogelsberger , M., Genel , S., Sijacki , D., et al. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt1789 , 436, 3031

    2013 doi

  74. [86]

    Voit , G. M. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bfd , 880, 139

    2019 doi

  75. [87]

    2013, Dark Matter in the Galactic Dwarf Spheroidal Satellites (Springer Netherlands), 1039–1089

    Walker, M. 2013, Dark Matter in the Galactic Dwarf Spheroidal Satellites (Springer Netherlands), 1039–1089

    2013

  76. [88]

    A., Stinson , G

    Wang , L., Dutton , A. A., Stinson , G. S., et al. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv1937 , 454, 83

    2015 doi

  77. [89]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c , 248, 32

    Weinberger , R., Springel , V., & Pakmor , R. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c , 248, 32

    2020 doi

  78. [90]

    R., Johnson , B

    Weisz , D. R., Johnson , B. D., Johnson , L. C., et al. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/44 , 744, 44

    2012 doi

  79. [91]

    J., Somerville , R

    Wright , R. J., Somerville , R. S., Lagos , C. d. P., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1688 , 532, 3417

    2024 doi

  80. [92]

    E., L'Vov , V

    Zakharov , V. E., L'Vov , V. S., & Falkovich , G. 1992, Kolmogorov spectra of turbulence 1. Wave turbulence

    1992

  81. [93]

    D., et al

    Zheng , Y., Faerman , Y., Oppenheimer , B. D., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acfe6b , 960, 55

    2024 doi

  82. [94]

    L., & Putman , M

    Zhu , J., Tonnesen , S., Bryan , G. L., & Putman , M. E. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c3f , 974, 142

    2024 doi

  83. [95]

    2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac37b9 The Astrophysical Journal , 924, 132

    Zhu, W., Zhang, F., & Feng, L.-L. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac37b9 The Astrophysical Journal , 924, 132

    2022 doi

  84. [96]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa2607 , 499, 768

    Zinger , E., Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa2607 , 499, 768

    2020 doi

  85. [97]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "]" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty pages empty not booktitle empty not or or ""...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.