Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Magnetic fields limit the mass of Population III stars even before the onset of protostellar radiation feedback

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that magnetic fields, not protostellar radiation, are the first agent to limit the growth of the most massive Population III stars, cutting the 5,000-year maximum mass from about 120 to 65 solar masses.

desk verdict First RMHD Pop III simulations show magnetic fields suppress early mass growth, but the factor-of-two mass reduction rests on a single, selectively chosen turbulent realization. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12734 v2 pith:R7GMPPG4 submitted 2025-01-22 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.SR

Piyush Sharda , Shyam H. Menon , Roman Gerasimov , Volker Bromm , Blakesley Burkhart , Lionel Haemmerlé , Lisanne van Veenen , Benjamin D. Wibking This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.SR
keywords PopulationIIIstarsprimordialstarformationradiationmagnetohydrodynamicsmagneticfieldsprotostellarfeedbackinitialmassfunctionminihaloesfirst
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper sets out to establish that magnetic fields, not stellar radiation feedback, are the first physical mechanism to limit how massive the first stars can grow. Earlier simulations that neglected magnetism predicted Population III protostars could reach around 120 solar masses in the first 5,000 years; adding both magnetic fields and radiation feedback cuts the most massive star to about 65 solar masses. The reason is that magnetic fields resist gravity, slow mass transport toward the protostar, and lower compressional heating, so the accreting gas stays cooler and is more prone to fragmentation. Stellar-evolution calculations then suggest final masses above 600 solar masses are unlikely in typical minihaloes, with around 100 solar masses more plausible when magnetic and radiation feedback act together. If the paper is right, the upper cutoff of the first stars' mass distribution is set earlier and at lower masses than radiation-feedback-only models had suggested.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is magnetic fields acting against gravity in the collapsing primordial core. In the magnetized runs the field becomes sub-Alfvénic, with plasma beta below one, close to the protostar, so magnetic forces dominate over thermal pressure and inhibit mass transport from the envelope to the accretion disc; reduced compressional heating keeps the gas molecular and cool, which promotes fragmentation. The comparison among four simulations with identical initial conditions, namely hydrodynamics (HD), magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), radiation hydrodynamics (RHD), and radiation magnetohydrodynamics (RMHD), is the device that isolates the role of each ingredient. Accretion histories from the RMHD run are then fed into stellar-structure models to extrapolate the final mass and fate of the most massive star under three increasingly steep accretion-rate declines.

What would settle it

Run the same suite of HD, MHD, RHD, and RMHD simulations across many independent turbulent realizations of a 1,000 solar mass, 1 parsec primordial cloud; if the median most-massive-star mass at 5,000 years in the RMHD runs is not systematically lower by a substantial factor than in the RHD runs, or if the magnetized runs frequently fail to fragment, the claim that magnetic fields set the Population III upper mass cutoff before radiation feedback would be refuted for typical clouds. A second check would be to measure the accretion-rate ratio in the first 1,000 years before fragmentation, since the claim predicts MHD and RMHD rates remain systematically below HD and RHD rates in most realizations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that magnetic pressure and tension suppress gravitational collapse during the earliest protostellar phase, before accretion rates fall below about 0.01 solar masses per year and the protostar contracts enough to emit significant ionizing or dissociating radiation. In the radiation-magnetohydrodynamic (RMHD) run the most massive star grows to 65 solar masses in 5,000 years, while the hydrodynamics-only and radiation-only controls reach 127 and 120 solar masses, respectively. The magnetized runs fragment into star clusters roughly 1,500 to 2,200 years after the first star forms, and the combined effects of magnetic suppression of mass transport and fragmentation-induced starvation lower the maximum stellar mass by a factor of about two. The authors argue that the mass-limiting effect cannot be blamed on fragmentation alone, because the suppression of accretion onto the primary star and the drop in integrated star formation efficiency begin before fragmentation occurs. They further use stellar-structure models to show that, under a range of extrapolated accretion histories, a star seeded by the RMHD run reaches the zero-age main sequence near 13,000 years with 90 to 100 solar masses and ends its life as a black hole, whereas the same extrapolation applied to the radiation-only run would produce a pair-instability supernova.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions rest on a single turbulent realization of the primordial cloud, chosen because it produces only one star in the hydrodynamics-only control, so the factor-of-two mass reduction and the fragmentation behavior could be specific to that realization rather than typical of all minihaloes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Magnetic fields lower the maximum Population III stellar mass by a factor of about two during the first 5,000 years of protostellar growth, compared with simulations that neglect magnetism.
  • The magnetic mass-limiting effect sets in before protostellar radiation feedback can act, so published radiation-feedback-only mass limits for the first stars are probably too high.
  • Primordial cores that form with magnetic fields fragment into star clusters, meaning Population III stars are likely to form in clusters rather than in isolation.
  • Because magnetic fields slow accretion, they can trigger strong radiation feedback earlier than expected and, if a mean-field dynamo is sustained, launch protostellar outflows that further suppress the final stellar mass.
  • Stellar-structure extrapolations imply the most massive star in the RMHD run will likely end its life as a black hole, while the same initial growth applied to the radiation-only run would reach the pair-instability supernova regime.
  • The early accretion history matters for the final fate of the star: omitting magnetic fields during the first 5,000 years can change the predicted outcome from black hole formation to a pair-instability supernova.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the factor-of-two reduction holds across many turbulent realizations, the upper cutoff of the Population III initial mass function is set by magnetism, which would lower predicted pair-instability supernova rates and alter the mass spectrum of black hole seeds left by the first stars; the paper does not explicitly draw this observational consequence.
  • The single-realization caveat means a firmer test would be to run the same HD, MHD, RHD, and RMHD suite on many independent turbulent seeds; the paper's claim predicts magnetized runs will systematically produce lower most-massive-star masses than their unmagnetized counterparts across realizations, not just in the one realization shown.
  • Because accretion-luminosity heating is not included, the late-time mass estimate could shift; that heating would suppress accretion further at high temperatures, plausibly strengthening the magnetic-limiting conclusion at late times even though the paper does not model it.
  • Connecting to observations, the predicted rarity of Population III stars above roughly 100 solar masses implies fewer detectable pair-instability supernovae and could be tested against metal-poor star abundance patterns or early supernova rates, though the paper makes no direct observational prediction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first radiation-magnetohydrodynamics (RMHD) simulations of Population III star formation within the POPSICLE project, combining non-equilibrium primordial chemistry, turbulent magnetic fields, and protostellar EUV/FUV feedback. Four simulations are compared for the same turbulent realization: HD, MHD, RHD, and RMHD. The authors report that within 5000 yr after formation of the first star, the most massive star reaches about 65 Msun in the RMHD run versus about 120 Msun in the HD and RHD runs, and they attribute this difference to magnetic fields suppressing mass transport and reducing compressional heating. They then use MESA stellar evolution models with three extrapolated accretion histories to argue that the star reaches ZAMS at about 13,000 yr and that the final mass is likely closer to 80 Msun than 600 Msun, with implications for the Pop III IMF upper cutoff, PISNe, and black hole seeding.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is significant: it would imply that magnetic fields, rather than protostellar radiation feedback, set the early upper-mass limit of Population III stars, with consequences for the Pop III IMF, pair-instability supernovae, and black hole seeding. The strengths of the work include the genuinely new RMHD modeling, high Jeans-length resolution, inclusion of H2 self-shielding and H cross-shielding, and the use of realistic protostellar evolutionary tracks from GENeva and MESA. The authors are also transparent about several limitations. However, the significance is substantially tempered by the fact that the entire quantitative comparison rests on one turbulent realization, selected specifically because the HD control does not fragment, while other realizations from the same parent simulation fragment even without magnetic fields. As a result, the factor-of-two mass reduction and the fragmentation behavior are not yet established as robust magnetic-field effects.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, 'The turbulent realization we select ...' and Section 3, 'we lack statistics'] The central comparison is confounded by the selection of the turbulent realization. The authors explicitly choose the realization from Sharda & Menon (2024) that produces only one star in the HD case, and they acknowledge that other realizations fragment even in HD. Consequently, the HD and RHD controls are not representative of typical primordial minihaloes; they are conditioned on the absence of fragmentation. In a realization that fragments in HD, the primary star in the HD and RHD runs might also be much lighter, potentially erasing the reported factor-of-two difference. Because the title claim is causal ('magnetic fields limit the mass'), this selection effect is load-bearing. The authors should either provide multiple realizations or substantially reframe the conclusion as a proof-of-concept demonstration for one realization rather than a general mass-limiting result.
  2. [Section 4, Case C accretion history] The MESA extrapolation partly assumes the radiation-feedback shutoff that the paper presents as a prediction. In Case C, the accretion rate beyond 5000 yr is prescribed to decline as e^{-t^2} and then t^{-3} specifically 'mimicking the trend seen in radiation hydrodynamics simulations of Hosokawa et al. (2011, Fig. 3)'. Thus the conclusion that the final mass is close to ~100 Msun, or that radiation feedback limits the mass, is not derived from the RMHD simulation but is input into the model. The early-time suppression of accretion by magnetic fields is measured, but the late-time halt by radiation feedback is assumed. The manuscript should clearly separate these two statements and avoid presenting Case C as evidence for the title claim.
  3. [Section 3, accretion luminosity paragraph] The omission of accretion luminosity is acknowledged but is potentially important for the quantitative comparison. The authors argue that accretion luminosity is less important in the MHD and RMHD runs because magnetic fields lower gas temperatures, but this is not demonstrated. If accretion luminosity were included, the HD and RHD runs would likely have lower accretion rates and lower final masses, which could reduce the reported factor-of-two gap. Since the central claim is quantitative, this missing physics should either be modeled in follow-up work or the claim should be weakened to state that magnetic fields are an additional mass-limiting mechanism, not necessarily the dominant one at the level of a factor of two.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section 3, Section 5] The most massive RMHD stellar mass is quoted as 65 Msun in the abstract and Section 5, but as 67 Msun in Section 3 (bottom panel of Figure 5 description). Please reconcile the number throughout the manuscript.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 5] The paper states that 'the RMHD simulation best resembles the MHD simulation during the earliest stages', yet at the end of the simulation the most massive star is 67 Msun in RMHD and only 48 Msun in MHD. This difference is not explicitly discussed; adding one or two sentences on why adding radiation to the MHD run leads to a more massive primary would help the reader.
  3. [Section 4, MESA initial conditions] The choice of 1 Msun initial mass and Tc = 61500 K is explained in Appendix A, but the sentence in Section 4 stating 'we assume no accretion in our MESA models for the first ~25 years' could be clearer: the 25 yr is derived from the RMHD accretion history, and this derivation is not obvious until the appendix is read.
  4. [Section 5] The summary states that 'the initial evolutionary phase has implications both for the final mass and fate (supernova versus black hole) of the star', but the paper only discusses black hole formation and PISNe; the possibility of a normal core-collapse supernova is not addressed. A brief clarification would avoid overgeneralization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 5000-yr mass suppression is measured in new simulations, and the MESA extrapolation is transparently assumption-based rather than a hidden reduction.

full rationale

The central result—65 M_sun in RMHD vs 120 M_sun in no-magnetic-field runs at 5000 yr—is a direct outcome of the simulations, not a fitted parameter or a quantity defined by an input. The controls from Sharda & Menon (2024) are prior code runs used as data, and the paper openly discloses the realization selection; the statements in Section 3, 'with only one turbulent realization, we lack the statistics to quantify the impact of magnetic fields on fragmentation' and 'other turbulent realizations presented in Sharda & Menon (2024) fragment even in the HD case,' are generalizability caveats, not circular steps. The MESA section is explicitly scenario-based: Section 4, 'In Case C, we empirically include the effects of radiation feedback that can halt accretion at late times... mimicking the trend seen in radiation hydrodynamics simulations of Hosokawa et al. (2011, Fig. 3).' The resulting ~100 M_sun estimate is therefore an input assumption (the adopted shutoff profile), not an independent first-principles prediction, but it is labeled as a case and is not used to derive the 5000-yr mass suppression. No equation in the paper is equivalent to an input by construction, and no load-bearing claim rests solely on an author self-citation. Hence the derivation is self-contained with respect to its stated inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Free parameters are the initial magnetic field strength, the MESA accretion-history scenarios (A, B, C), and the MESA initial conditions. Axioms include the dynamo assumption, the representativeness of the chosen realization, and the neglect of accretion luminosity. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial magnetic field strength B0 = 28 µG (10% of turbulent kinetic energy)
    Chosen based on expected small-scale dynamo saturation, but not directly constrained for primordial minihaloes; directly controls the strength of the magnetic suppression that is the paper's central result.
  • MESA Case A accretion rate = 0.005 M⊙/yr (constant)
    Assumed constant accretion after 5000 yr as a baseline; not derived from star formation physics.
  • MESA Case B accretion rate power-law index = t^{-0.65}
    Observed trend in the simulated accretion history, fitted and extrapolated.
  • MESA Case C accretion rate decline = exp(-t^2) to 2e4 yr, then t^{-3}
    Empirical model mimicking Hosokawa et al. (2011) radiation-feedback shutoff; determines the 'likely' final mass near 100 M⊙.
  • MESA initial stellar mass and central temperature = 1 M⊙, Tc = 61500 K
    Smallest values for which the MESA model converges at the simulated accretion rate; technical choice affecting early evolution.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Small-scale dynamo amplifies initially weak magnetic fields to the saturated value used here.
    Section 2 justifies B0 = 28 µG by citing prior dynamo studies; if the dynamo were inefficient or the primordial field weaker, the mass-limiting effect would be smaller.
  • domain assumption The selected turbulent realization is representative of typical minihaloes.
    Load-bearing for the general conclusion; the paper notes other realizations fragment even in HD, so this assumption is acknowledged but unverified here.
  • domain assumption Accretion luminosity heating is negligible in the simulated phases.
    Section 3 argues it is less important in MHD/RMHD because gas is cooler, but it is not included in the simulations.
  • domain assumption Radiation feedback is subdominant in the first 5000 yr because accretion rates stay high.
    Used to interpret the RMHD/MHD similarity as 'before the onset' of radiative feedback; depends on the GENEVa protostellar model's luminosity prescription.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic fields limit the mass of Population III stars even before the onset of protostellar radiation feedback." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R7GMPPG4

@misc{pith2026250112734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic fields limit the mass of Population III stars even before the onset of protostellar radiation feedback},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R7GMPPG4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12734}
}
abstract

The masses of Population III stars are largely unconstrained since no simulations exist that take all relevant primordial star formation physics into account. We perform the first suite of radiation magnetohydrodynamics (RMHD) simulations of Population III star formation, with the POPSICLE project. Compared to control simulations that only include magnetic fields (MHD), protostellar ionizing and dissociating feedback, or neither, the RMHD simulation best resembles the MHD simulation during the earliest stages of collapse and star formation. In $5000\,\rm{yrs}$, the mass of the most massive star is $65\,\rm{M_{\odot}}$ in the RMHD simulation, compared to $120\,\rm{M_{\odot}}$ in simulations without magnetic fields. This difference arises because magnetic fields act against gravity, suppress mass transport, and reduce compressional heating. The maximum stellar mass of Population III stars is thus already limited by magnetic fields, even before accretion rates drop to allow significant protostellar radiative feedback. Following classical main sequence stellar evolution with MESA reveals that it is difficult to create Population III stars with masses larger than $600\,\rm{M_{\odot}}$ in typical dark matter minihaloes at $z \gtrsim 20$, with maximum stellar masses $\sim 100\,\rm{M_{\odot}}$ more likely due to expected negative feedback from both magnetic fields and stellar radiation. This work lays the first step in building a full physics-informed mass function of Population III stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12734 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Face-on density-weighted projections of the gas number density along the 𝑧ˆ axis, at the end of the simulations (5000 yr post the forma￾tion of the first star). The four panels correspond to the runs with hydro￾dynamics (HD), magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD), radiation-hydrodynamics including ionizing and dissociating radiation feedback (RHD), and radiation￾magnetohydrodynamics (RMHD). White dots represent the position(s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gas temperature (𝑇) and density (𝑛H) phase diagrams for all the cells within the cloud at the end of the simulations (5000 yr post the formation of the first star), color-coded by the cell mass, 𝑐mass. fragmentation, leading to the formation of Pop III star clusters. This means that the evolution of the most massive Pop III star in the MHD and RMHD runs is influenced by companion stars. However, with only one turbul… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The mass of the (isolated) star at the end of the simulations in the HD and RHD runs is 127 M⊙ and 120 M⊙, respectively. On the other hand, the mass of the most massive star in the MHD and RMHD runs is 48 M⊙ and 67 M⊙, respectively. However, the integrated star formati…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel: stellar mass as a function of age of the most massive star in the RMHD run, extrapolated beyond the period simulated using three distinct accretion histories. Cases A, B, and C represent progressively steeper (and likely more realistic) decline in accretion…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Searching for Population III stars with line intensity mapping cross-correlations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adding Pop III stars to the oLIMpus analytical framework shows that only next-generation instruments can detect the H-alpha/HeII cross-correlation and constrain the first stars' IMF.

  2. Effect of Magnetic Field on the Accretion Phase of Population III Star Formation

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

    In simulations of Population III star formation, any initial magnetic field, even 10^-20 G, suppresses disk fragmentation and drives protostars to merge into a single massive star.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    write newline

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

  2. [2]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..33A 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  4. [4]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  5. [5]

    D., McInnes L

    Balay S., Gropp W. D., McInnes L. C., Smith B. F., 1997, in Arge E., Bruaset A. M., Langtangen H. P., eds, Modern Software Tools in Scientific Computing. Birkh \" a user Press, pp 163--202

    1997

  6. [6]

    S., Stiavelli M., Wiggins A

    Bovill M. S., Stiavelli M., Wiggins A. I., Ricotti M., Trenti M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad148a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962...49B 962, 49

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad148a 2024

  7. [7]

    Bromm V., 2013, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/76/11/112901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RPPh...76k2901B 76, 112901

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/76/11/112901 2013

  8. [8]

    P., Loeb A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...552..464B 552, 464

    Bromm V., Kudritzki R. P., Loeb A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...552..464B 552, 464

    doi:10.1086/320549 2001

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Burgers J., 1948, Elsevier, pp 171 -- 199, @doi https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2156(08)70100-5 , http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065215608701005

    1948 doi

  2. [10]

    Chantavat T., Chongchitnan S., Silk J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.3256C 522, 3256

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Chon S., Omukai K., Schneider R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.4175C 508, 4175

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Chon S., Hosokawa T., Omukai K., Schneider R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.2453C 530, 2453

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    De Bennassuti M., Salvadori S., Schneider R., Valiante R., Omukai K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2687 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465..926D 465, 926

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    V., Audit E., Zank G

    Dubey A., et al., 2008, in Pogorelov N. V., Audit E., Zank G. P., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 385, Numerical Modeling of Space Plasma Flows. p. 145

    2008

  7. [15]

    pp 1--8, @doi 10.1109/SECSE.2013.6615093

    Dubey A., et al., 2013, in 2013 5th International Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering (SE-CSE). pp 1--8, @doi 10.1109/SECSE.2013.6615093

    2013

  8. [16]

    S., Schmidt W., Mac Low M

    Federrath C., Roman-Duval J., Klessen R. S., Schmidt W., Mac Low M. M., 2010a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912437 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...512A..81F 512, A81

    doi

  9. [17]

    C., Klessen R

    Federrath C., Banerjee R., Clark P. C., Klessen R. S., 2010b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2010ApJ...713..269F 713, 269

    doi

  10. [18]

    C., Klessen R

    Federrath C., Banerjee R., Seifried D., Clark P. C., Klessen R. S., 2011, in Alves J., Elmegreen B. G., Girart J. M., Trimble V., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 270, Computational Star Formation. pp 425--428 ( @eprint arXiv 1007.2504 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921311000755

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..631F 53, 631

    Frebel A., Norris J. E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..631F 53, 631

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Fryxell B., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317361 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJS..131..273F 131, 273

    2000 doi

  13. [21]

    Fujimoto S., et al., 2025, GLIMPSE: An ultra-faint 10 ^ 5 M_ Pop III Galaxy Candidate and First Constraints on the Pop III UV Luminosity Function at z 6-7 ( @eprint arXiv 2501.11678 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.11678

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gamow G., Keller G., 1945, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.17.125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1945RvMP...17..125G 17, 125

    1945 doi

  15. [23]

    Grassi T., Bovino S., Schleicher D. R. G., Prieto J., Seifried D., Simoncini E., Gianturco F. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu114 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.2386G 439, 2386

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Haemmerl \'e L., Eggenberger P., Meynet G., Maeder A., Charbonnel C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...585A..65H 585, A65

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    E., Klessen R

    Haemmerl \'e L., Woods T. E., Klessen R. S., Heger A., Whalen D. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.2757H 474, 2757

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265....5H 265, 5

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200610256H 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200610256H 585, 357

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..341H 724, 341

    Heger A., Woosley S. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..341H 724, 341

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Whalen D

    Herrington N. P., Whalen D. J., Woods T. E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..463H 521, 463

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Hirano S., Bromm V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty487 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.3964H 476, 3964

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Hosokawa T., Omukai K., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/823 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691..823H 691, 823

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    W., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1207433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...334.1250H 334, 1250

    Hosokawa T., Omukai K., Yoshida N., Yorke H. W., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1207433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...334.1250H 334, 1250

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Omukai K., Yoshida N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824..119H 824, 119

    Hosokawa T., Hirano S., Kuiper R., Yorke H. W., Omukai K., Yoshida N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824..119H 824, 119

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    Jaura O., Glover S. C. O., Wollenberg K. M. J., Klessen R. S., Geen S., Haemmerl \'e L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac487 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512..116J 512, 116

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Greif T

    Johnson J. L., Greif T. H., Bromm V., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519212 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665...85J 665, 85

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Filippova N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe934 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...911..128K 911, 128

    Kim J.-G., Ostriker E. C., Filippova N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe934 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...911..128K 911, 128

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    S., Glover S

    Klessen R. S., Glover S. C. O., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-053453 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61...65K 61, 65

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    N., 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1941DoSSR..32...16K 32, 16

    Kolmogorov A. N., 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1941DoSSR..32...16K 32, 16

    1941

  32. [40]

    Koutsouridou I., Salvadori S., Sk \'u lad \'o ttir \'A ., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2466 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962L..26K 962, L26

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Gerasimov R., Burgasser A

    Larkin M. M., Gerasimov R., Burgasser A. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9b43 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165....2L 165, 2

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Whalen D

    Latif M. A., Whalen D. J., Khochfar S., Herrington N. P., Woods T. E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-04813-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.607...48L 607, 48

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Liao W.-T., Turk M., Schive H.-Y., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd9b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909...37L 909, 37

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Liu B., Gurian J., Inayoshi K., Hirano S., Hosokawa T., Bromm V., Yoshida N., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534..290L 534, 290

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    N., Doi K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.3283M 435, 3283

    Machida M. N., Doi K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.3283M 435, 3283

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    Maiolino R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A..67M 687, A67

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08826.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.358..614M 358, 614

    Mayer M., Duschl W. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08826.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.358..614M 358, 614

    2005

  40. [48]

    H., Federrath C., Krumholz M

    Menon S. H., Federrath C., Krumholz M. R., Kuiper R., Wibking B. D., Jung M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac485 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512..401M 512, 401

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    Nordlander T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488L.109N 488, L109

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    E., 2006, A guide to NumPy

    Oliphant T. E., 2006, A guide to NumPy. Vol. 1, Trelgol Publishing USA

    2006

  43. [51]

    Omukai K., Palla F., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324410 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...561L..55O 561, L55

    2001 doi

  44. [52]

    Omukai K., Palla F., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/374810 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...589..677O 589, 677

    2003 doi

  45. [53]

    Paxton B., Bildsten L., Dotter A., Herwig F., Lesaffre P., Timmes F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192....3P 192, 3

    2011 doi

  46. [54]

    Paxton B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....4P 208, 4

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    Paxton B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..220...15P 220, 15

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    Paxton B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...34P 234, 34

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    Paxton B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...10P 243, 10

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    R., Clark P

    Prole L. R., Clark P. C., Klessen R. S., Glover S. C. O., Pakmor R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.2223P 516, 2223

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    L., Krumholz M

    Rosen A. L., Krumholz M. R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9abf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160...78R 160, 78

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    R., Bromm V., El Eid M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.3130S 516, 3130

    Saad C. R., Bromm V., El Eid M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2479 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.3130S 516, 3130

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    E., Omukai K., Sugimura K., Matsumoto T., Tomida K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.3076S 519, 3076

    Sadanari K. E., Omukai K., Sugimura K., Matsumoto T., Tomida K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.3076S 519, 3076

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    Schaerer D., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...382...28S 382, 28

    2002 doi

  55. [63]

    S., Banerjee R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/99 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754...99S 754, 99

    Schober J., Schleicher D., Federrath C., Glover S., Klessen R. S., Banerjee R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/99 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754...99S 754, 99

    2012 doi

  56. [64]

    Schober J., Schleicher D. R. G., Federrath C., Bovino S., Klessen R. S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevE.92.023010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhRvE..92b3010S 92, 023010

    2015 doi

  57. [65]

    R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2921 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.1959S 509, 1959

    Sharda P., Krumholz M. R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2921 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.1959S 509, 1959

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    H., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.18265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240518265S p

    Sharda P., Menon S. H., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.18265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240518265S p. arXiv:2405.18265

    2024 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1926 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497..336S 497, 336

    Sharda P., Federrath C., Krumholz M. R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1926 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497..336S 497, 336

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    R., Schleicher D

    Sharda P., Federrath C., Krumholz M. R., Schleicher D. R. G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.2014S 503, 2014

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    Sk \'u lad \'o ttir \'A ., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0dc2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...915L..30S 915, L30

    2021 doi

  62. [71]

    H., Bromm V., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20605.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422..290S 422, 290

    Stacy A., Greif T. H., Bromm V., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20605.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422..290S 422, 290

    2012

  63. [72]

    T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.1307S 462, 1307

    Stacy A., Bromm V., Lee A. T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.1307S 462, 1307

    2016 doi

  64. [73]

    Sugimura K., Matsumoto T., Hosokawa T., Hirano S., Omukai K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7d37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892L..14S 892, L14

    2020 doi

  65. [74]

    Tanaka K. E. I., Tan J. C., Zhang Y., Hosokawa T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac892 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861...68T 861, 68

    2018 doi

  66. [75]

    Trussler J. A. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2553 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.5328T 525, 5328

    2023 doi

  67. [76]

    J., Smith B

    Turk M. J., Smith B. D., Oishi J. S., Skory S., Skillman S. W., Abel T., Norman M. L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192....9T 192, 9

    2011 doi

  68. [77]

    J., Oishi J

    Turk M. J., Oishi J. S., Abel T., Bryan G. L., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...745..154T 745, 154

    2012 doi

  69. [78]

    Van der Velden E., 2020, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.02004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JOSS....5.2004V 5, 2004

    2020 doi

  70. [79]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatMe..17..261V 17, 261

    2020 doi

  71. [80]

    Waagan K., 2009, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2009.08.020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JCoPh.228.8609W 228, 8609

    2009 doi

  72. [81]

    Waagan K., Federrath C., Klingenberg C., 2011, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.026 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JCoPh.230.3331W 230, 3331

    2011 doi

  73. [82]

    Wolcott-Green J., Haiman Z., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18080.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412.2603W 412, 2603

    2011

  74. [83]

    L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19538.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418..838W 418, 838

    Wolcott-Green J., Haiman Z., Bryan G. L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19538.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418..838W 418, 838

    2011

  75. [84]

    Wollenberg K. M. J., Glover S. C. O., Clark P. C., Klessen R. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.1871W 494, 1871

    2020 doi

  76. [85]

    Yajima H., Abe M., Fukushima H., Ono Y., Harikane Y., Ouchi M., Hashimoto T., Khochfar S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.4832Y 525, 4832

    2023 doi

  77. [86]

    Zackrisson E., Rydberg C.-E., Schaerer D., \"O stlin G., Tuli M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...740...13Z 740, 13

    2011 doi

  78. [87]

    Zackrisson E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1881 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.2727Z 533, 2727

    2024 doi

  79. [88]

    Zhang J., et al., 2022, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 33, 842

    2022

  80. [89]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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