Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Primordial black holes in cosmological simulations: growth prospects for supermassive black holes

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 In the first cosmological hydrodynamical simulations to include primordial black holes directly, 1000-solar-mass PBHs at a dark-matter fraction of $10^{-3}$ sink into halos and grow to $10^4$--$10^5$ solar masses by $z=20$, while at…

desk verdict First direct hydro simulation of PBHs shows a few 1000 M_sun PBHs can sink and grow, but the claimed f_PBH threshold is not statistically supported by the two runs. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11233 v2 pith:KLWR5VUM submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Lewis R. Prole , John A. Regan , Daxal Mehta , Peter Coles , Pratika Dayal This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords primordialblackholessupermassiveholeseedingcosmologicalhydrodynamicalsimulationsBondi-Hoyleaccretionhigh-redshiftJWSTgalaxiesdarkmatterfractionintermediate-masszoom-in
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 asks whether primordial black holes—black holes formed in the first second after the Big Bang—can grow into the supermassive black holes that JWST sees when the universe was less than a billion years old. It tests this by placing 1000-solar-mass PBHs directly into cosmological hydrodynamical simulations for the first time, at two dark-matter fractions: $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-3}$. In the $10^{-3}$ run, five PBHs sink into halos, find cold dense gas, and grow to $10^4$--$10^5$ solar masses by redshift 20; in the $10^{-4}$ run none grows. The authors conclude that the boundary between these fractions marks the threshold above which 1000-solar-mass PBHs can act as seeds for supermassive black holes without invoking heavy seeding prescriptions. If correct, PBHs offer a natural explanation for the unexpectedly early supermassive black holes found by JWST.

What carries the argument

The central object is the PBH sink particle: a randomly selected dark-matter particle converted into a 1000-solar-mass black hole at $z=127$, which then moves, merges, and accretes gas in the live cosmological simulation. Accretion is modeled with the Bondi-Hoyle formula, with the rate damped by a vorticity factor taken from earlier turbulent-accretion work, and the surrounding gas density is kernel-weighted. Because the PBHs are actual particles rather than prescribed seeds, they cluster, sink into halos, and find dense gas on their own; this is what lets the simulation measure whether growth happens. The merger criterion follows the treatment used in the authors' earlier work.

What would settle it

Run the same setup with a PBH dark-matter fraction of $10^{-3}$ centered on a typical, non-overdense region, or on several independent zoom regions: if no 1000-solar-mass PBH reaches about $10^4$ solar masses by $z=20$, the claimed growth threshold is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the first cosmological simulations to include primordial black holes self-consistently as sink particles, the authors show that PBHs with initial mass 1000 solar masses and a dark-matter fraction of $10^{-3}$ can sink into high-redshift halos, encounter cold (~200 K) dense gas, and undergo bursts of Bondi-Hoyle accretion that raise them to $10^4$--$10^5$ solar masses by $z \sim 20$. At a fraction of $10^{-4}$, no PBH even doubles its mass, because the PBHs are too sparse to find such environments. The authors read this as evidence that the $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-3}$ boundary is the threshold above which 1000-solar-mass PBHs become effective supermassive-black-hole seeds, placing the grown intermediate-mass black holes on track to become objects like GN-z11 by $z \sim 10$ if they continue accreting at 0.3--1 times the Eddington rate.

Load-bearing premise

The threshold claim rests on one zoom-in simulation of a single overdense region for each value of the PBH fraction; if that region is not typical of the halos that host early supermassive black holes, the threshold would not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a PBH dark-matter fraction of $10^{-3}$, a small fraction of PBHs (5 out of 8726, about 0.06%) can reach $10^4$--$10^5$ solar masses by $z=20$, early enough to serve as seeds for the highest-redshift supermassive black holes.
  • Growth is bursty and super-Eddington rather than smooth and Eddington-limited: the most massive grown PBH's track is consistent with continued accretion at 0.3--1 times the Eddington rate to match observed high-redshift black holes.
  • The $10^{-4}$ run producing no growth means that whether 1000-solar-mass PBHs can seed supermassive black holes hinges on the true dark-matter fraction lying at $10^{-3}$ or above.
  • No PBH mergers occur at either fraction, so the growth seen comes from gas accretion alone, not from PBH merging with other PBHs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that PBH clustering is the mechanism behind the threshold: at $10^{-3}$, PBHs collect into sub-kiloparsec clusters that sink into halos, whereas at $10^{-4}$ they are too sparse. A testable extension would be to vary halo mass and PBH mass function and map where growth turns on.
  • Because the runs omit star formation, supernova feedback, and accretion feedback, the growth rates are likely upper limits; adding feedback would test whether the $10^{-3}$ channel still produces intermediate-mass black holes.
  • The threshold is drawn from one overdense zoom-in region per dark-matter fraction; a decisive follow-up would repeat the $10^{-3}$ run in several independent, typical regions to check whether the 0.06% growth fraction is stable.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents zoom-in cosmological hydrodynamical simulations that, for the first time, include primordial black holes (PBHs) as sink particles in the initial conditions. The authors test PBH-to-DM mass fractions f_PBH = 1e-4 and 1e-3 for a monochromatic 1000 M_sun PBH population. They report that at f_PBH = 1e-3, 5 of 8726 PBHs sink into halos, accrete dense gas, and grow to 1e4-1e5 M_sun by z=20, while at f_PBH = 1e-4 no PBH doubles its mass. The paper interprets this as evidence for a threshold at f_PBH ~ 1e-4 to 1e-3 above which 1000 M_sun PBHs can seed the high-redshift SMBHs observed by JWST, and it compares the growth tracks with observed SMBHs such as GN-z11 and UHZ1. An appendix checks the f_PBH = 1e-4 result at higher dark-matter resolution.

Significance. If the growth result holds, this is a valuable first step toward self-consistent cosmological simulations of PBHs, and the resolution study in Appendix A is a genuine strength. The paper clearly presents a new simulation capability, and the ~700 pc clustering scale and the growth histories are concrete predictions that can be compared with future work. However, the headline threshold claim is not statistically supported by the reported counts, and the absence of accretion feedback and star formation, together with the use of a single overdense zoom-in region, limits the quantitative conclusions. The paper is a useful proof-of-concept, but the abstract and conclusions currently overstate what the two simulations establish.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 and Table 1] The headline threshold claim is not supported by the reported numbers. The f_PBH = 1e-4 run produced 0 growing PBHs out of 707, and the f_PBH = 1e-3 run produced 5 out of 8726. Under the null hypothesis of a common per-PBH growth probability, the maximum-likelihood estimate is 5/9433 ~ 5.3e-4, so the expected number of growing PBHs in the f_PBH = 1e-4 run is 0.37; the probability of observing zero is e^{-0.37} ~ 0.69, and a Fisher exact test gives a similarly large two-sided p-value. Equivalently, the 95% Poisson upper limit from zero events is 3.0/707 ~ 4.2e-3, an order of magnitude above the observed f_PBH = 1e-3 rate of 5/8726 ~ 5.7e-4. The two runs are therefore fully consistent with the same per-PBH growth rate, and the statement in Section 5 that 'the f_PBH = 1e-4 - 1e-3 boundary marks the threshold' is not established by the counts.
  2. [Section 4] Each f_PBH value is simulated in only one zoom-in region, and Section 4 states that 'the simulation box in this investigation represents an over-dense region in the Universe. As such, our PBHs had the higher than average chance of growing.' Because the zero-versus-five comparison comes from a single overdense realization per f_PBH, it cannot be separated from cosmic variance, and the claimed threshold may not generalize to the typical halos that host JWST-observed SMBHs. Multiple realizations, or an explicit analytic estimate of the expected variance, are needed before a sharp boundary between f_PBH = 1e-4 and 1e-3 can be claimed.
  3. [Section 4 and Figure 2] The simulations omit star formation, SNe feedback, astrophysical BH formation, and PBH accretion feedback, as acknowledged in Section 4. Since the central quantitative result is that PBHs grow to 1e4-1e5 M_sun through Bondi accretion in dense gas, these omissions are load-bearing: accretion feedback heats the surrounding gas and reduces further growth, while SNe and stellar feedback alter the supply of dense gas available to accreting PBHs. The Abstract's claim that the PBHs 'outperform light seed BH growth seen in recent simulations' is therefore not a controlled comparison, because the light-seed simulations generally include such feedback. The authors should either add these processes or explicitly reframe the results as an idealized upper-envelope calculation.
  4. [Appendix A] The resolution study in Appendix A is performed only for f_PBH = 1e-4, the run with zero growth. The positive result at f_PBH = 1e-3, which carries the main conclusion, has no corresponding resolution test. It is possible that the number of growing PBHs or their final masses would change at higher dark-matter resolution, and the absence of this check weakens the quantitative growth claims at f_PBH = 1e-3. The authors should either run a resolution test at f_PBH = 1e-3 or state this limitation explicitly.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Figure 2] The object name 'GNZ-11' should be 'GN-z11' for consistency with the literature, including the reference to Maiolino et al. (2023b).
  2. [Section 4] The sentence 'our PBHs had the higher than average change of growing' should read 'chance of growing'.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption contains a duplicated word: 'The the black dashed line gives constraints...' should read 'The black dashed line...'.
  4. [Section 3] The phrase 'all of the inlcluded observations' contains a typo and should read 'all of the included observations'.
  5. [Title page affiliation] The affiliation line 'The Netherland' should be 'The Netherlands'.
  6. [References] The citation 'Dayal & maiolino (2025)' should capitalize the second author as 'Maiolino'.
  7. [Table 1] The actual f_PBH in the low-fraction run is 0.810e-4 rather than 1e-4; the comparison is therefore between 0.81e-4 and 0.998e-3, not exactly 1e-4 and 1e-3. This should be stated explicitly in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: simulated PBH growth is a genuine dynamical output, the observational comparison is an overlay not a fit, and the self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central result—five 1000 M_sun PBHs growing to 1e4-1e5 M_sun at f_PBH = 1e-3 and none at f_PBH = 1e-4—is produced by cosmologically initialized hydrodynamics, not by any parameter fitted to the target masses. Initial PBH properties are set by external observational constraints ('an initial PBH mass of 1000 M☉, as inspired by recent observational constraints'; f_PBH chosen at the upper limits of CMB and dwarf-galaxy bounds). The Bondi-with-vorticity accretion prescription is a standard external model (Krumholz et al. 2004, 2006), and the final mass comparison to GNZ-11, UHZ1, and other SMBHs is an overlay (Figure 2) rather than a calibration; no simulation parameter is adjusted to reproduce those observations. The self-citations are minor: the Prole et al. (2022) merger treatment is cited for a subroutine, but no mergers occur in either run, so it cannot drive the result, and the Dayal & maiolino (2025) reference is a consistency note for the Eddington-ratio range, not an input to the growth calculation. The paper's own caveat that the zoom region is over-dense (Section 4) and the statistically weak zero-vs-five comparison are threats to robustness and generalization, not evidence of circular derivation. No equation or fitted parameter in the chain reduces to the claimed final masses.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, mediators, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; PBHs are an existing theoretical construct taken as input. The central claim rests on the chosen f_PBH values, the Bondi accretion model, and the representativeness of the overdense zoom-in region.

free parameters (3)
  • f_PBH (PBH-to-DM mass ratio) = 10^-4 and 10^-3 (target; actual 0.81 x 10^-4 and 0.998 x 10^-3)
    Chosen to bracket the upper limits of observational constraints (CMB, dwarf galaxy heating); the key threshold result depends on these two values.
  • Initial PBH mass = 1000 M_sun
    Monochromatic mass spectrum; inspired by observational constraints and chosen as a representative seed mass; not varied.
  • PBH accretion radius R_acc = 25 co-moving pc (5 x minimum cell length)
    Numerical choice tied to resolution; sets the region from which PBHs drain gas and affects accretion rates.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PBHs exist and can be modeled as collisionless sink particles with initial mass 1000 M_sun
    The simulation presumes the PBH hypothesis and a monochromatic mass function; the paper tests growth, not formation.
  • domain assumption Bondi-Hoyle accretion with Krumholz et al. vorticity correction describes accretion onto PBHs in the interstellar medium
    Equations (1)-(10); this subgrid model is adopted from prior literature and sets the growth rates.
  • standard math Lambda-CDM cosmology and Planck 2020 parameters
    Section 2.1; background cosmology and transfer functions from Eisenstein & Hu.
  • domain assumption The zoom-in region is an overdense region representative enough for threshold inference
    Section 4 acknowledges the box is over-dense; the claim that f_PBH = 10^-4 is insufficient relies on this region being at least as favorable as average.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Primordial black holes in cosmological simulations: growth prospects for supermassive black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KLWR5VUM

@misc{pith2026250611233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Primordial black holes in cosmological simulations: growth prospects for supermassive black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KLWR5VUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11233}
}
abstract

It has long been suggested that a fraction of the dark matter in the Universe could exist in the form of primordial black holes (PBHs) that have existed since the radiation dominated era. Recent studies have suggested that these PBHs may be the progenitors to the population of high-redshift, supermassive black holes (SMBHs) observed since the launch of JWST. For the first time, we have included PBHs in cosmological simulations, to test whether PBHs can sink to the center of collapsing halos, locate dense gaseous regions and experience significant growth. We tested PBH-to-DM mass ratios of $f_{\rm PBH}$ = $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-3}$, with an initial PBH mass of 1000 M$_\odot$, as inspired by recent observational constraints. We find that at $f_{\rm PBH} = 10^{-3}$, a number of PBHs were able to embed themselves in dense gas and grow to $10^{4}$-$10^{5}$ M$_\odot$ by $z=20$. These intermediate black holes (IMBHs) are possible progenitors to the highest redshift SMBH observations such as GNZ-11 ($10^{6}$ M$_\odot$ by $z=10$), outperforming light seed black hole (BH) growth seen in recent simulations without the need to invoke heavy seeding prescriptions. On the other hand, $f_{\rm PBH} = 10^{-4}$ resulted in no significant BH growth, emphasizing that the ability of PBHs to act as SMBH seeds is sensitive to the true value of $f_{\rm PBH}$ in the Universe, and showing that the $f_{\rm PBH} =10^{-4}-10^{-3}$ boundary marks the threshold above which SMBH seeding via 1000 M$_\odot$ PBHs becomes effective. This is the first step towards building a realistic PBH framework in cosmological simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11233 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. —: Values of fPBH adopted in this work with rela￾tion to the constrained upper limits of fPBH as a function of PBH mass. The shaded areas represent the regions of uncertainty in the limit from CMB measurements, con￾sidering PBHs with (orange) and without (blue) outflows (Piga et al. 2022). The the black dashed line gives con￾straints from dwarf galaxy heating (Lu et al. 2021). • They lie within each other’s accretio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. —: Growth of PBHs as a function of redshift for our fPBH = 10−3 run. To guide the eye, the blue shaded region represents the Eddington limited growth required to achieve JWST observed 106 M⊙ SMBH GNZ￾11 (Maiolino et al. 2023b) at z ∼ 10. We also show SMBH observations from CEERS 1019 (Larson et al. 2023), Abell2744-QSO1 (Furtak et al. 2024), UHZ1 (Bogd´an et al. 2024), ULAS J112001.48+064124.3 (Mortlock et al. 2011)… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. —: Redshift evolution of the mass averaged quan￾tities in the environment surrounding growing PBHs. From top to bottom - the mass of the PBH, the to￾tal gas mass within a 100 co-moving pc region around the PBHs, the average relative velocity between the sur￾rounding gas and the PBH, the average temperature of the gas and the estimated Bondi-Hoyle accretion rate. We show these values for all PBHs that grew beyond 104… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: —: Density projections of the fPBH = 10−3 sim￾ulation. Top - 10 kpc region centered on the growing PBHs, shown at the end of the simulation (z ∼ 21). Middle - the same region with all PBHs overplotted. We show PBHs with no significant growth (more than 50% of their ini…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: —: Clustering behavior of PBHs shown through histograms of the distance to the nearest neighboring PBH. We show a snapshot soon after the initial conditions at z = 126, and 4 snapshots equally spaced in terms of cosmic scale factor a = 1/(1 + z), from z = 40 to the end…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: —: Fractional growth of PBHs at fPBH = 10−4 as a function of redshift, compared for a DM mass resolution of 1600 and 200 M⊙. The blue shaded region indicates a doubling of the initial PBH mass. expected as the higher resolution allows smaller sub-halos to form, increas…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Novel Formation Channel for Supermassive Black Hole Binaries in the Early Universe via Primordial Black Holes

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Massive primordial black holes with strong gas-dark matter streaming can trigger direct-collapse black hole formation in their wake, producing early supermassive black hole binaries.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., Abbott, R., Abouelfettouh, I., et al

    Abac, A. G., Abbott, R., Abouelfettouh, I., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb 2024

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 818, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/L22

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/l22 2016

  3. [3]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 160, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1973

    Agarwal, B., & Khochfar, S. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 160, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1973

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1973 2015

  4. [5]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 4209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw929

    Agarwal, B., Smith, B., Glover, S., Natarajan, P., & Khochfar, S. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 4209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw929

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw929 2016

  5. [6]

    2024, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024, 003, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/003

    Agius, D., Essig, R., Gaggero, D., et al. 2024, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024, 003, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/003

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/003 2024

  6. [7]

    R., Iliev, I

    Ahn, K., Shapiro, P. R., Iliev, I. T., Mellema, G., & Pen, U.-L. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 695, 1430, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1430

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/2/1430 2009

  7. [8]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2024, COSMOS-Web: The over-Abundance and Physical Nature of ”Little Red Dots”–Implications for Early Galaxy and SMBH Assembly, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10341 Alister Seguel, P. J., Schleicher, D. R. G., Boekholt, T. C. N.,

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.10341 2024

  8. [9]

    Fellhauer, M., & Klessen, R. S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 2352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa456 Andr´ es-Carcasona, M., Iovino, A. J., Vaskonen, V., et al. 2024, Physical Review D, 110, 023040, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023040

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa456 2020

Show all 83 references
  1. [10]

    2021, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 119, 103865, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103865

    Arbey, A., & Mahmoudi, F. 2021, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 119, 103865, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103865

    2021

  2. [11]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 2277, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1657

    Ardaneh, K., Luo, Y., Shlosman, I., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 2277, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1657

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    2023, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 131, 104040, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104040 Ba˜ nados, E., Venemans, B

    Auffinger, J. 2023, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 131, 104040, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104040 Ba˜ nados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 473, doi: 10.1038/nature25180

    2023

  4. [13]

    M., Cleary, C

    Bellovary, J. M., Cleary, C. E., Munshi, F., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 2913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2842

    2019 doi

  5. [14]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 686, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449321

    Bhatt, M., Gallerani, S., Ferrara, A., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 686, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449321

    2024 doi

  6. [15]

    K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 4311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1386 Bogd´ an,´A., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    2024 doi

  7. [16]

    1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    Bondi, H. 1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    1952 doi

  8. [17]

    J., & Hawking, S

    Carr, B. J., & Hawking, S. W. 1974, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 168, 399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/168.2.399

    1974 doi

  9. [18]

    E., Stasyszyn, F., & Padilla, N

    Colazo, P. E., Stasyszyn, F., & Padilla, N. 2024, Structure Formation with Primordial Black Holes to Alleviate Early Star Formation Tension Revealed by JWST, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.13110

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    H., Fields, B

    Cyburt, R. H., Fields, B. D., & Olive, K. A. 2003, Physics Letters B, 567, 227, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2003.06.026

    2003 doi

  11. [20]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 690, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451481

    Dayal, P. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 690, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451481

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    2025, The Properties of Primordially-Seeded Black Holes and Their Hosts in the First Billion Years: Implications for JWST, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08116

    Dayal, P., & maiolino, R. 2025, The Properties of Primordially-Seeded Black Holes and Their Hosts in the First Billion Years: Implications for JWST, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08116

    2025 doi

  13. [23]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6b

    Du, P., Zhang, Z.-X., Wang, K., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6b

    2018 doi

  14. [24]

    2004, New Astronomy Reviews, 48, 843, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001

    Edgar, R. 2004, New Astronomy Reviews, 48, 843, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001

    2004 doi

  15. [25]

    J., & Hu, W

    Eisenstein, D. J., & Hu, W. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 496, 605, doi: 10.1086/305424

    1998 doi

  16. [26]

    J., Labb´ e, I., Zitrin, A., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Labb´ e, I., Zitrin, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 57, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8

    2024 doi

  17. [27]

    Glover, S. C. O. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 2082, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1059

    2015 doi

  18. [28]

    Glover, S. C. O., & Abel, T. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 388, 1627, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13224.x

    2008

  19. [29]

    T., Smith, B

    Gordon, S. T., Smith, B. D., Khochfar, S., & Beckmann, R. S. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 674, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf054

    2025 doi

  20. [30]

    T., Smith, B

    Gordon, S. T., Smith, B. D., Khochfar, S., & Regan, J. A. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 604, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae566

    2024 doi

  21. [31]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f

    2024 doi

  22. [32]

    H., Springel, V., White, S

    Greif, T. H., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2011a, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/75

    doi

  23. [33]

    H., White, S

    Greif, T. H., White, S. D. M., Klessen, R. S., & Springel, V. 2011b, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/147

    doi

  24. [34]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    Hahn, O., & Abel, T. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    2011

  25. [35]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

    Harikane, Y., Zhang, Y., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

    2023 doi

  26. [36]

    Hawking, S. W. 1975, Communications in Mathematical Physics, 43, 199, doi: 10.1007/BF02345020

    1975 doi

  27. [37]

    2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    2020 doi

  28. [38]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 929, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae686

    Jin, P., Zhang, G., Zhang, Y., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 929, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae686

    2024 doi

  29. [39]

    D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al

    Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 954, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0 Kov´ acs, O. E., Bogd´ an,´A., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 965, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad391f

    2023 doi

  30. [40]

    R., McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Klein, R. I. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 399, doi: 10.1086/421935 —. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 638, 369, doi: 10.1086/498844

    2004 doi

  31. [41]

    Lambrides, E., Garofali, K., Larson, R., et al. 2024, The Case for Super-Eddington Accretion: Connecting Weak X-ray and UV Line Emission in JWST Broad-Line AGN During the First Gyr of Cosmic Time, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.13047

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [42]

    L., Finkelstein, S

    Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 953, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace619

    2023 doi

  33. [43]

    Woods, T. E. 2022, Nature, 607, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04813-y LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 125, 101102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

    2022 doi

  34. [44]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 2376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1472

    Liu, B., Zhang, S., & Bromm, V. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 2376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1472

    2022 doi

  35. [45]

    B., et al

    Lu, P., Takhistov, V., Gelmini, G. B., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdcb6

    2021 doi

  36. [46]

    Lupi, A., Quadri, G., Volonteri, M., Colpi, M., & Regan, J. A. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 686, A256, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348788

    2024 doi

  37. [47]

    2023a, JADES

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023a, JADES. The Diverse Population of Infant Black Holes at 4, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230 9

    doi arXiv

  38. [48]

    2023b, A Small and Vigorous Black Hole in the Early Universe, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.12492 —

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2023b, A Small and Vigorous Black Hole in the Early Universe, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.12492 —. 2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [49]

    2025, A Black Hole in a Near-Pristine Galaxy 700 Million Years after the Big Bang, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.22567

    Maiolino, R., Uebler, H., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025, A Black Hole in a Near-Pristine Galaxy 700 Million Years after the Big Bang, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.22567

    2025 doi arXiv

  40. [50]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0216

    Matsuoka, Y., Onoue, M., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0216

    2019 doi

  41. [51]

    A., et al

    Matthee, J., Mackenzie, R., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc846

    2023 doi

  42. [52]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    2024 doi

  43. [53]

    A., & Prole, L

    Mehta, D., Regan, J. A., & Prole, L. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, doi: 10.33232/001c.126629

    2024 doi

  44. [54]

    H., & Ferrans, S

    Mone, E., Pries, B., Wise, J. H., & Ferrans, S. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb4f7

    2025 doi

  45. [55]

    J., Warren, S

    Mortlock, D. J., Warren, S. J., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 616, doi: 10.1038/nature10159 Mr´ oz, P., Udalski, A., Szyma´ nski, M. K., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 273, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad452e O’Brennan, H., Regan, J. A., Po...

    2011 doi

  46. [56]

    J., Whalen, D

    Patrick, S. J., Whalen, D. J., Elford, J. S., & Latif, M. A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1179

    2023 doi

  47. [57]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 3047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw505

    Pezzulli, E., Valiante, R., & Schneider, R. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 3047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw505

    2016 doi

  48. [58]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 1732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae851

    Piana, O., Pu, H.-Y., & Wu, K. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 1732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae851

    2024 doi

  49. [59]

    2022, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022, 016, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/12/016

    Piga, L., Lucca, M., Bellomo, N., et al. 2022, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022, 016, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/12/016

    2022 doi

  50. [60]

    2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.17863/CAM.33675

    Planck-Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.17863/CAM.33675

    2020 doi

  51. [61]

    R., Clark, P

    Prole, L. R., Clark, P. C., Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 4019, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3697

    2022 doi

  52. [62]

    Regan, J. A. 2024a, Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, doi: 10.21105/astro.2310.10730

    arXiv

  53. [63]

    R., Regan, J

    Prole, L. R., Regan, J. A., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2024b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348903

    doi

  54. [64]

    R., Schauer, A

    Prole, L. R., Schauer, A. T. P., Clark, P. C., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 2081, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad188

    2023 doi

  55. [65]

    Qin, Y., Mesinger, A., Park, J., Greig, B., & Mu˜ noz, J. B. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1131

    2020 doi

  56. [66]

    2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 018, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/018

    Raidal, M., Spethmann, C., Vaskonen, V., & Veerm¨ ae, H. 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 018, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/018

    2019 doi

  57. [67]

    2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 10.21105/astro.2210.04899, doi: 10.21105/astro.2210.04899

    Regan, J. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 10.21105/astro.2210.04899, doi: 10.21105/astro.2210.04899

    2023 arXiv

  58. [68]

    A., Wise, J

    Regan, J. A., Wise, J. H., O’Shea, B. W., & Norman, M. L. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 3021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa035

    2020 doi

  59. [69]

    Schauer, A. T. P., Glover, S. C. O., Klessen, R. S., & Clark, P. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 1775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1953

    2021 doi

  60. [70]

    Schauer, A. T. P., Regan, J., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 4878, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1915

    2017 doi

  61. [71]

    Skinner, D., & Wise, J. H. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 4386, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa139

    2020 doi

  62. [72]

    Sugimura, K., Omukai, K., & Inoue, A. K. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1778

    2014 doi

  63. [73]

    P., et al

    Suh, H., Scharw¨ achter, J., Farina, E. P., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 271, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02402-9

    2025 doi

  64. [74]

    V., Pilipenko, S

    Tkachev, M. V., Pilipenko, S. V., & Yepes, G. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 4854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3103

    2020 doi

  65. [75]

    2021, Universe, 7, 18, doi: 10.3390/universe7010018

    Trashorras, M., Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, J., & Nesseris, S. 2021, Universe, 7, 18, doi: 10.3390/universe7010018

    2021 doi

  66. [76]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 694, 879, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/879

    Trenti, M., & Stiavelli, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 694, 879, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/879

    2009 doi

  67. [77]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 869, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf1d2

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 869, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf1d2

    2018 doi

  68. [78]

    H., Abel, T., Turk, M

    Wise, J. H., Abel, T., Turk, M. J., Norman, M. L., & Smith, B. D. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 311, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21809.x

    2012

  69. [79]

    H., Regan, J

    Wise, J. H., Regan, J. A., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 566, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0873-4

    2019 doi

  70. [80]

    C., et al

    Yang, X., Yao, S., Gallo, L. C., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad343c

    2024 doi

  71. [81]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 667, L117, doi: 10.1086/522202

    Yoshida, N., Omukai, K., & Hernquist, L. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 667, L117, doi: 10.1086/522202

    2007 doi

  72. [82]

    2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acc2be

    Yue, M., Fan, X., Yang, J., & Wang, F. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acc2be

    2023 doi

  73. [83]

    2025, How Do Massive Primordial Black Holes Impact the Formation of the First Stars and Galaxies?, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.17585

    Zhang, S., Liu, B., Bromm, V., et al. 2025, How Do Massive Primordial Black Holes Impact the Formation of the First Stars and Galaxies?, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.17585

    2025 doi arXiv

  74. [84]

    2025, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025, 040, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/040 Zumalac´ arregui, M., & Seljak, U

    Ziparo, F., Gallerani, S., & Ferrara, A. 2025, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025, 040, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/040 Zumalac´ arregui, M., & Seljak, U. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, 141101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.141101

    2025 doi

  75. [85]

    Zwicky, F. 1933, Helvetica physica acta, 6, 110 APPENDIX DARK MATTER MASS RESOLUTION The ability of PBHs to embed themselves within halos may be affected by the mass resolution of DM particles. For example, if DM particles are lower mass than PBHs, they may collapse around PBH...

    1933

Pith tools

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