Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Origins of Supermassive Black Holes in Galactic Centers

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that supermassive black hole seeds came from the direct collapse of supermassive stars, and that dynamical friction of molecular clouds during galaxy mergers explains their rapid growth to the masses seen in…

desk verdict A serviceable review of SMBH seed formation whose central rapid-growth claim leans on one self-cited simulation without independent support. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19039 v1 pith:5F3D5JZZ submitted 2025-05-25 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HE

Ke-Jung Chen This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE PACS 95.00.00
keywords supermassiveblackholesholeseedsPopulationIIIstarsdirectcollapsedynamicalfrictiongalaxymergershigh-redshiftAGN
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

Observations have established that quasars with billions of solar masses existed less than a billion years after the Big Bang, but how such black holes formed is unresolved. This review argues that the most plausible route is not stellar-mass seeds from the first stars, but supermassive stellar seeds: stars of roughly $10^4$–$10^6$ solar masses that formed in massive dark matter halos and collapsed directly into black holes. It then argues that the rapid growth of these seeds to several hundred million solar masses within a billion years is explained by dynamical friction from dense molecular clouds during galaxy mergers, which earlier simulations neglected. If true, the mechanism ties supermassive black hole growth directly to galaxy merger history and gives JWST and LISA concrete phenomena to look for.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three linked mechanisms. First, the supermassive star (SMS) direct-collapse channel: early dark-matter halos of $\sim 10^8$–$10^9\,M_\odot$ form stars of $10^4$–$10^6\,M_\odot$ that collapse to black hole seeds of comparable mass without leaving a detectable stellar remnant. Second, the Eddington accretion limit, $\dot{M}_{\rm Edd} \approx 2.2\times10^{-8}\,(M/M_\odot)\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, which sets the maximum steady growth rate; because it scales with mass, a heavy seed can outpace a light one by orders of magnitude over the same cosmic time. Third, dynamical friction: gravitational drag on dense molecular clouds moving through surrounding gas and stars, which during galaxy mergers concentrates the clouds at the center, supplying both fuel for the black hole and gas for a starburst. The review's case is that earlier merger simulations omitted this last effect, and that including it is what makes the observed growth rates attainable.

What would settle it

Re-run the merger simulation of [56] with varied feedback and star-formation prescriptions; if the seed black hole does not reach roughly $10^8\,M_\odot$ within a billion years in most variants, the molecular-cloud dynamical-friction mechanism is not the answer. Observational check: map dense molecular gas in high-redshift AGN hosts and look for the predicted central concentration during merger phases.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that supermassive black holes in galactic centers most plausibly grew from supermassive stellar seeds: stars of $10^4$–$10^6\,M_\odot$ that formed in early dark-matter halos of roughly $10^8$–$10^9\,M_\odot$ and collapsed directly into black holes of comparable mass. It contrasts this route with two alternatives — Population III stellar remnants that would need extreme accretion, and merged clusters of Pop III black holes that would need strong accretion — and concludes that the supermassive seed route is favored by current evidence. Its distinctive claim is that the rapid growth problem can be solved by dynamical friction: when galaxies merge, dense molecular clouds are dragged to the center, feeding the seed black hole at rates that earlier simulations missed. Citing its simulation [56], the review reports growth from a few million to several hundred million solar masses within about a billion years, matching high-redshift AGN observations. The review closes by identifying supermassive star formation and collapse as the key missing piece, with JWST-visible obscured AGNs and LISA gravitational wave events as the observable consequences.

Load-bearing premise

The central growth claim rests on a single galaxy-merger simulation; if its treatment of feedback, star formation, or black hole accretion is not representative, the molecular-cloud friction explanation for rapid growth collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • High-redshift quasars can be explained without relying on sustained super-Eddington accretion, because heavy seeds need only moderate near-Eddington growth.
  • Galaxy merger simulations that neglect dynamical friction from molecular clouds will systematically underestimate central gas supply and black hole growth.
  • Supermassive star formation in early halos becomes a concrete prediction, with their collapse expected to produce transients and gravitational waves detectable by LISA.
  • JWST's Little Red Dots at $z>5$ can be read as obscured young AGNs descending from these seed black holes.
  • The observed SMBH masses of several hundred million solar masses within a billion years follow from merger-driven molecular-cloud accretion rather than from exotic accretion physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that if molecular-cloud dynamical friction is the dominant fueling channel, a galaxy's merger history — not just its gas supply — is the main clock controlling SMBH growth episodes; isolated galaxies should show much slower central growth.
  • A natural numerical test is to rerun the featured merger simulation with different feedback strengths and star-formation efficiencies; if the million-to-hundred-million solar mass growth within a billion years does not survive, the mechanism's generality is in doubt.
  • The logic predicts that high-redshift AGN hosts caught mid-merger should show concentrated dense molecular gas at their centers, a correlation observable with millimeter interferometers.
  • If early SMBH seeds are set by supermassive star production, the high-mass end of the present-day SMBH distribution should trace the abundance of $\sim 10^8$–$10^9\,M_\odot$ halos at $z\gtrsim10$, providing a prior for LISA's seed-merger event rate.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a short review article, intended for Modern Physics Letters A, on the origin and rapid growth of supermassive black holes (SMBHs). It surveys the three standard seed scenarios (Population III stellar remnants, supermassive stars, and mergers of stellar-mass black holes), discusses the Eddington limit and the role of gas accretion, and argues that supermassive stellar seeds are increasingly favored. In Section 3 it introduces a specific mechanism: dynamical friction from molecular clouds during galaxy mergers, based on simulation work by the author's team, which is claimed to explain how black holes of a few million solar masses grow to a few hundred million solar masses within a billion years, matching high-redshift AGN observations. Section 4 lists outstanding modeling challenges, and Section 5 discusses future observational prospects with JWST and LISA.

Significance. If the review's central claim were robustly supported, it would offer a concise synthesis of a timely topic, useful to entrants to the field. The paper covers standard material accurately in places, and it is valuable for highlighting the SMS channel and future observational tests. However, the most distinctive claim—that molecular cloud dynamical friction resolves the rapid-growth problem—rests entirely on one simulation that the author co-authored, with no independent confirmation and with no methodological detail provided. The review is also self-contradictory: it admits that previous merger simulations fail to match observations, then asserts without qualification that a single new simulation succeeds. As a balanced review, it is therefore not yet adequate; the load-bearing assertion needs either independent support, substantial caveats, or a clear framing as a personal perspective rather than an established result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, paragraph citing [56]] The central claim of Section 3—that molecular cloud dynamical friction during galaxy mergers 'explains how black holes, with initial masses of several million solar masses, can grow to several hundred million solar masses within a billion years, matching observations of high-z AGNs'—rests entirely on reference [56], which the author co-authored. No independent confirmation is cited, and the review provides no details of that simulation: no numerical resolution, no description of how molecular clouds are represented, no sub-grid model for star formation or AGN feedback, and no Eddington-ratio evolution. Given the author's own statement immediately before this claim that prior merger simulations 'still struggle to match observational data,' the unsupported leap from one self-cited simulation to a general explanation of high-redshift SMBH growth is not acceptable in a review. I recommend the author either provide a critical summary of [56]'s methodology and limitations, soften the claim to a possibility that requires confirmation, or cite independent supporting work if it exists.
  2. [Section 3, paragraph on dynamical friction] The text states that previous studies of galaxy mergers 'often neglected the effects of dynamical friction' and that this may explain why earlier simulations failed. This is a strong, field-level claim that is not substantiated. Dynamical friction is a fundamental gravitational process and is generally included in galaxy merger simulations either directly or through the collective response of dark matter and stars; what [56] likely adds is a specific treatment of molecular clouds as discrete, massive clumps. The review should clarify precisely what was neglected and why the standard treatment was insufficient. Without this, the claim that the failure of prior simulations is explained by the omission of molecular-cloud dynamical friction is speculative and could mislead readers.
  3. [Section 3 vs. Section 4 and abstract] There is an internal quantitative inconsistency. The abstract says SMBHs with 'billions of solar masses' exist within the first billion years, and the Summary mentions z~7 AGNs requiring massive seeds at z>10. Yet Section 3's central claim refers to growth to 'several hundred million solar masses' matching observations. These are different mass scales; a growth endpoint of a few 10^8 M_sun does not obviously match billion-solar-mass quasars such as ULAS J1120+0641 (z~7.1, cited as [3]). The author should reconcile these numbers or explicitly state which high-z AGN population is being matched. This is load-bearing because the claim of matching observations is central to the review's thesis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, paragraph 1] The phrase 'massive stars of > 10 M_sun can undergo core collapse ... possibly forming black holes with masses of ∼ 6–51 M_sun and > 130 M_sun' conflates distinct evolutionary channels; for Population III stars, the 140–260 M_sun range is generally thought to produce pair-instability supernovae with no remnant, and the >130 M_sun statement should be clarified.
  2. [Section 2, scenario (1)] The sentence 'If such black hole seeds are embedded in gas-rich environments and can sustain the highest accretion rate' appears to endorse super-Eddington accretion without specifying the conditions; a brief qualification or citation to the limits discussed in [45–47] would be appropriate.
  3. [Section 3, first paragraph] The mass range '10 M_sun to 10^6 M_sun' for seed black holes is written without superscript formatting in the text (appears as '10 6'); please fix the typographical rendering throughout.
  4. [References] Reference [54] is an arXiv preprint (Tung & Chen 2024) rather than a peer-reviewed publication; if it is used to support the claim that prior simulations struggle, a peer-reviewed source or explicit preprint citation would strengthen the review.
  5. [Keywords/PACS] The keywords 'stars: supernovae – nuclear reactions – stars: Population III – fluid instabilities' and the single PACS code 95.00.00 are not an accurate description of the paper's content; consider astrophysical subject keywords such as 'accretion, accretion disks' and 'galaxies: active'.
  6. [Section 2, scenario (3)] The sentence 'The resulting mass of seed black hole is between scenarios (1) and (2)' is grammatically awkward; suggest 'The resulting seed black hole mass lies between those in scenarios (1) and (2).'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The rapid-growth explanation rests on a single self-cited simulation, but the review is otherwise a standard literature synthesis with no equation-level circularity.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, 'Rapid Growth of SMBH and Their Coevolution with Host Galaxies' (paragraphs introducing reference [56], following the Eddington-rate equations and Figure 3)]
    "Recent work of [56] conducted a detailed study on rapid black hole growth using high-resolution galaxy collision simulations ... considering the effect of dynamical friction from molecular clouds for the first time. [56] demonstrated that black hole growth primarily stems from the accretion of molecular clouds during galaxy mergers. ... This mechanism explains how black holes, with initial masses of several million solar masses, can grow to several hundred million solar masses within a billion years, matching observations of high-z AGNs."

    The review's only quantitative resolution of the rapid-growth problem is this self-cited simulation [56] (Lin, Chen & Hwang 2023), on which the present author is a co-author. The preceding paragraph states that earlier merger simulations [48-54] 'still struggle to match observational data'; the review then asserts, with no derivation or independent benchmark, that [56]'s inclusion of molecular-cloud dynamical friction solves the problem. No equation in the review connects dynamical friction to the quoted growth rate; the claim reduces to an appeal to the author's own prior simulation. This is load-bearing self-citation rather than equation-level reduction, since the review itself performs no fit and imports the result as an external finding.

full rationale

The paper is a review, not a derivation, so most of its content is standard literature synthesis: the Eddington-rate equations, the three seed-formation scenarios, and the JWST/LISA observational outlook are all independently sourced. The one load-bearing self-referential step is the molecular-cloud dynamical-friction explanation in Section 3, which is attributed exclusively to [56], a paper co-authored by the author. That step is not circular by construction in the sense of Eq. X = Eq. Y, because the review does not fit a parameter and then rename it a prediction; it simply imports a result from the author's own peer-reviewed simulation. However, given that the paper itself admits earlier simulations 'still struggle to match observational data' and does not supply any independent check or methodological detail for [56], the central growth claim inherits its credibility from a self-citation. Section 4's listed limitations (absence of high-resolution cosmological simulations, incomplete SMS evolution models) further weaken external validity, but those are correctness concerns, not circularity. On balance, the circularity is moderate: one self-citation is load-bearing, but the paper's main review content remains independent.

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

This is a review, so the paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. The assumptions are the standard domain assumptions of early-universe astrophysics, drawn from the cited literature, plus the specific organizational claim from the author's own simulation.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Population III stars formed in dark matter halos of ~10^6 M_sun with primordial gas of ~76% H and ~24% He.
    Section 2, paragraph 2, based on refs [24,25]. This is the assumed initial condition for the stellar seed scenario.
  • standard math The Eddington luminosity formula with Thomson opacity and radiative efficiency eta=0.1 describes the maximum steady accretion rate.
    Section 3, equations L_Edd and Mdot_Edd. This is standard physics, though eta=0.1 is an assumption.
  • domain assumption Direct collapse of supermassive stars produces black holes of comparable mass.
    Section 2, scenario (2), based on refs [39-44]. This is the key premise for the favored scenario.
  • ad hoc to paper Dynamical friction from molecular clouds efficiently funnels gas to the galaxy center during mergers.
    Section 3, paragraph on [56]. This is the load-bearing mechanism in the review and is sourced from the author's own simulation, not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Origins of Supermassive Black Holes in Galactic Centers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5F3D5JZZ

@misc{pith2026250519039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Origins of Supermassive Black Holes in Galactic Centers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5F3D5JZZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19039}
}
read the original abstract

Direct imaging of black hole shadow halos has firmly confirmed the existence of supermassive black holes (SMBHs), with millions of solar masses, residing at the centers of the Milky Way and M87 galaxies. These groundbreaking discoveries represent a monumental success of Einstein's theory of general relativity and have revealed the hidden "monsters" lurking at the centers of galaxies. Moreover, observations of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) indicate that SMBHs with billions of solar masses were already in place within the first billion years after the Big Bang. However, the origins of these SMBHs, as well as their co-evolution with host galaxies, remain poorly understood. This review focuses on the origin of SMBHs, particularly on the formation of their seed black holes. We also highlight several outstanding challenges in modeling seed formation and discuss possible observational signatures. These signatures may be testable with current and future facilities, including the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and the upcoming gravitational wave observatory, the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19039 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Among these, current mainstream research increasingly favors the sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Three pathways for seeding the SMBHs . observations and necessitates a continuous supply of gas, which is closely linked to the host galaxy. Understanding black hole growth thus requires a fundamental understanding of the mass accretion process. As the nature of dark matter remains unknown, studies of black hole accretion mainly focus on gas accretion. Gas surrounding black holes forms an accretion disk because of t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the SMBH accretion disk and its jet. The accreting gas onto the SMBH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left image: Arp 148 is a galaxy with a peculiar structure formed after the collision of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [56]

    Lin, K.-J

    C.-H. Lin, K.-J. Chen and C.-Y. Hwang, ApJ 952, 121 (August 2023), arXiv:2209.10535 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [3]

    D. J. Mortlock, S. J. Warren, B. P. Venemans, M. Patel, P. C. Hewett, R. G. McMahon, C. Simpson, T. Theuns, E. A. Gonz´ ales-Solares, A. Adamsonet al., Nature 474, 616 (2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [1]

    Kormendy and D

    J. Kormendy and D. Richstone, ARA&A 33, 581 (January 1995)

    work page 1995

  4. [2]

    Kormendy and L

    J. Kormendy and L. C. Ho, ARA&A 51, 511 (August 2013), arXiv:1304.7762 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [4]

    X. Fan, E. Ba˜ nados and R. A. Simcoe, ARA&A 61, 373 (August 2023), arXiv:2212.06907 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    Collaboration, Phys

    LIGO and V. Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (February 2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    E. H. T. Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation 1973

    work page 1973

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    Barkat, G

    Z. Barkat, G. Rakavy and N. Sack, Physical Review Letters18, 379 (March 1967)

    1967

  2. [9]

    Heger and S

    A. Heger and S. E. Woosley, ApJ 567, 532 (March 2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0107037

    2002 arXiv

  3. [10]

    S. E. Woosley, S. Blinnikov and A. Heger, Nature 450, 390 (November 2007), arXiv:0710.3314

    2007 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Kasen, S

    D. Kasen, S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, ApJ 734, 102 (June 2011), arXiv:1101.3336 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [12]

    K.-J. Chen, S. Woosley, A. Heger, A. Almgren and D. J. Whalen, ApJ 792, 28 (September 2014), arXiv:1402.4134 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [13]

    K.-J. Chen, A. Heger, S. Woosley, A. Almgren and D. J. Whalen, ApJ 792, 44 (September 2014), arXiv:1402.5960 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [14]

    S. E. Woosley, A. Heger and T. A. Weaver, Reviews of Modern Physics 74, 1015 (November 2002)

    2002

  8. [15]

    Zhang, S

    W. Zhang, S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, ApJ 679, 639 (May 2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0701083

    2008 arXiv

  9. [16]

    S. E. Woosley, ApJ 836, 244 (February 2017), arXiv:1608.08939 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [17]

    K.-J. Chen, A. Heger, D. J. Whalen, T. J. Moriya, V. Bromm and S. E. Woosley, MNRAS 467, 4731 (June 2017), arXiv:1601.06896 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    K.-J. Chen, T. J. Moriya, S. Woosley, T. Sukhbold, D. J. Whalen, Y. Suwa and V. Bromm, ApJ 839, 85 (April 2017), arXiv:1706.06758 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    T. R. Lauer, S. Faber, D. Richstone, K. Gebhardt, S. Tremaine, M. Postman, A. Dressler, M. Aller, A. V. Filippenko, R. Green et al., The Astrophysical Journal 662, 808 (2007)

    2007

  13. [20]

    Bromm and N

    V. Bromm and N. Yoshida, ARA&A 49, 373 (September 2011), arXiv:1102.4638 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Melia and H

    F. Melia and H. Falcke, ARA&A 39, 309 (January 2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0106162 [astro-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Inayoshi, E

    K. Inayoshi, E. Visbal and Z. Haiman, ARA&A 58, 27 (August 2020), arXiv:1911.05791 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Giallongo, A

    E. Giallongo, A. Grazian, F. Fiore, A. Fontana, L. Pentericci, E. Vanzella, M. Dickin- son, D. Kocevski, M. Castellano, S. Cristiani, H. Ferguson, S. Finkelstein, N. Grogin, N. Hathi, A. M. Koekemoer, J. A. Newman and M. Salvato, A&A 578, A83 (June May 27, 2025 1:2 WSPC/INSTRU...

    2025 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Bromm and R

    V. Bromm and R. B. Larson, ARA&A 42, 79 (September 2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0311019

    2004 arXiv

  18. [25]

    R. S. Klessen and S. C. O. Glover, ARA&A 61, 65 (August 2023), arXiv:2303.12500 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Bromm and A

    V. Bromm and A. Loeb, ApJ 596, 34 (October 2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0212400

    2003 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Hirano, T

    S. Hirano, T. Hosokawa, N. Yoshida, K. Omukai and H. W. Yorke, MNRAS 448, 568 (March 2015), arXiv:1501.01630

    2015 arXiv

  21. [28]

    M. J. Rees, ARA&A 22, 471 (January 1984)

    1984

  22. [29]

    Volonteri, Science 337, 544 (August 2012), arXiv:1208.1106 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Volonteri, Science 337, 544 (August 2012), arXiv:1208.1106 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [30]

    J. H. Wise, M. J. Turk, M. L. Norman and T. Abel, ApJ 745, 50 (January 2012), arXiv:1011.2632 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [31]

    J. L. Johnson, D. J. Whalen, H. Li and D. E. Holz, ApJ 771, 116 (July 2013), arXiv:1211.0548 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [32]

    M. A. Latif and A. Ferrara, PASA 33, e051 (October 2016), arXiv:1605.07391

    2016 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Hirano, T

    S. Hirano, T. Hosokawa, N. Yoshida and R. Kuiper, Science 357, 1375 (September 2017), arXiv:1709.09863

    2017 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Chon and M

    S. Chon and M. A. Latif, MNRAS 467, 4293 (June 2017), arXiv:1611.08594

    2017 arXiv

  28. [35]

    J. H. Wise, J. A. Regan, B. W. O’Shea, M. L. Norman, T. P. Downes and H. Xu, Nature 566, 85 (January 2019), arXiv:1901.07563

    2019 arXiv

  29. [36]

    T. H. Greif, J. L. Johnson, R. S. Klessen and V. Bromm, MNRAS 399, 639 (October 2009), arXiv:0905.1717 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [37]

    T. H. Greif, S. D. M. White, R. S. Klessen and V. Springel, ApJ 736, 147 (August 2011)

    2011

  31. [38]

    Safranek-Shrader, M

    C. Safranek-Shrader, M. Milosavljevi´ c and V. Bromm, MNRAS 438, 1669 (February 2014), arXiv:1307.1982 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [39]

    W. A. Fowler, Reviews of Modern Physics36, 545 (April 1964)

    1964

  33. [40]

    W. A. Fowler, ApJ 144, 180 (April 1966)

    1966

  34. [41]

    J. R. Bond, W. D. Arnett and B. J. Carr, ApJ 280, 825 (May 1984)

    1984

  35. [42]

    M. C. Begelman, E. M. Rossi and P. J. Armitage, MNRAS 387, 1649 (July 2008), arXiv:0711.4078

    2008 arXiv

  36. [43]

    M. C. Begelman, MNRAS 402, 673 (February 2010), arXiv:0910.4398 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [44]

    T. E. Woods, B. Agarwal, V. Bromm, A. Bunker, K.-J. Chen, S. Chon, A. Fer- rara, S. C. O. Glover, L. Haemmerl´ e, Z. Haiman, T. Hartwig, A. Heger, S. Hirano, T. Hosokawa, K. Inayoshi, R. S. Klessen, C. Kobayashi, F. Koliopanos, M. A. Latif, Y. Li, L. Mayer, M. Mezcua, P. Natar...

    2019 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Inayoshi, Z

    K. Inayoshi, Z. Haiman and J. P. Ostriker, MNRAS 459, 3738 (July 2016), arXiv:1511.02116 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [46]

    J. S. B. Wyithe and A. Loeb, MNRAS 425, 2892 (Oct 2012), arXiv:1111.5424 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Takeo, K

    E. Takeo, K. Inayoshi, K. Ohsuga, H. R. Takahashi and S. Mineshige, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society488, 2689 (2019)

    2019

  41. [48]

    Volonteri, F

    M. Volonteri, F. Haardt and P. Madau, ApJ 582, 559 (January 2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207276 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Springel, T

    V. Springel, T. Di Matteo and L. Hernquist, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society361, 776 (2005)

    2005

  43. [50]

    Volonteri and M

    M. Volonteri and M. J. Rees, The Astrophysical Journal633, 624 (2005). May 27, 2025 1:2 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE mpla˙KJChen Supermassive Black Holes 11

    2005

  44. [51]

    Di Matteo, V

    T. Di Matteo, V. Springel and L. Hernquist, nature 433, 604 (2005)

    2005

  45. [52]

    P. F. Hopkins, L. Hernquist, T. J. Cox, T. Di Matteo, B. Robertson and V. Springel, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series163, 1 (2006)

    2006

  46. [53]

    King and K

    A. King and K. Pounds, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics53, 115 (2015)

    2015

  47. [54]

    Tung and K.-J

    P.-C. Tung and K.-J. Chen, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.16440 (December 2024), arXiv:2412.16440 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Chandrasekhar, ApJ 97, 255 (March 1943)

    S. Chandrasekhar, ApJ 97, 255 (March 1943)

    1943

  49. [57]

    K.-J. Chen, A. Heger, S. Woosley, A. Almgren, D. J. Whalen and J. L. Johnson, ApJ 790, 162 (August 2014), arXiv:1402.4777 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [58]

    T. J. Moriya, K.-J. Chen, K. Nakajima, N. Tominaga and S. I. Blinnikov, MNRAS 503, 1206 (May 2021), arXiv:2103.01336 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    D. D. Kocevski, M. Onoue, K. Inayoshi, J. R. Trump, P. Arrabal Haro, A. Grazian, M. Dickinson, S. L. Finkelstein, J. S. Kartaltepe, M. Hirschmann, J. Aird, B. W. Holwerda, S. Fujimoto, S. Juneau, R. O. Amor ´ ın, B. E. Backhaus, M. B. Bagley, G. Barro, E. F. Bell, L. Bisigello...

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J. E. Greene, I. Labbe, A. D. Goulding, L. J. Furtak, I. Chemerynska, V. Koko- rev, P. Dayal, M. Volonteri, C. C. Williams, B. Wang, D. J. Setton, A. J. Burgasser, R. Bezanson, H. Atek, G. Brammer, S. E. Cutler, R. Feldmann, S. Fujimoto, K. Glaze- brook, A. de Graaff, G. Khull...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.