Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Dating N loud AGNs at high redshift: GS3073 as a snapshot of wCen like evolution of a nuclear star cluster

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GS3073's extreme nitrogen is undiluted AGB ejecta, dating its central black hole to 270-440 Myr rather than ~1 Gyr.

desk verdict A plausible and interesting framework, but the 270–440 Myr age rests on undiluted ejecta and needs a mixture/dilution uniqueness test. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06311 v1 pith:7EVU2LKL submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

F. D'Antona , P. Ventura , A.F. Marino , A.P. Milone , E. Vesperini , F. Calura , M. Tailo , R. Valiante
show 3 more authors
V. Caloi A. D'Ercole F. Dell'Agli
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords AGNhigh-redshiftgalaxiesnitrogenabundancesasymptoticgiantbranchstarsnuclearstarclusterssupermassiveblackholegrowthomegaCentauriGS3073
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

Recent observations have found galaxies in the first billion years of cosmic history whose gas is unusually rich in nitrogen, often in the neighborhood of a growing supermassive black hole. This paper argues that in the galaxy GS3073 the extreme nitrogen-to-oxygen ratio, $\log(\mathrm{N/O}) = +0.42$, is the undiluted wind of dying intermediate-mass stars (asymptotic giant branch, or AGB, stars) belonging to an unseen nuclear star cluster. If that identification is right, the composition dates the system: the AGB stars have ages of $170$--$340$ Myr, and adding a delay of about $100$ Myr between the first stellar population and these stars yields a total age of $270$--$440$ Myr, much shorter than the $\sim1$ Gyr age implied by the galaxy's redshift of $5.5$. The same scheme gives GN-z11 an age of $\sim150$--$230$ Myr. These ages matter because black hole growth has to explain how a $\sim1.6\times10^8$ solar mass black hole came to exist so early; the paper concludes that early accretion was intermittent and super-Eddington, settling to low rates after the first half-billion years.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the 'yellow strip' in the $\log(\mathrm{N/O})$ versus $\log(\mathrm{O/H})+12$ plane: the locus of the pure ejecta of asymptotic giant branch stars undergoing hot bottom burning. GS3073's UV-dense point sits on this strip. Matching its N/O, C/O, and Fe/O to ejecta models for $3$--$4\,M_\odot$ AGB stars at [Fe/H] $\approx -1.5$ to $-1.2$ yields AGB ages of $170$--$340$ Myr, and the $\omega$ Centauri analogy supplies a delay of about $100$ Myr between the birth of the nuclear star cluster and the formation of those AGB progenitors. The sum is the claimed total age.

What would settle it

A high signal-to-noise spectrum of the UV-dense region that finds a C/O or Fe/O ratio inconsistent with the $3$--$4\,M_\odot$ AGB ejecta at [Fe/H]$\approx -1.5$ to $-1.2$, or that detects the abundance signature of very massive hot stars or primordial supernovae in the same gas, would rule out the dating. A direct test is imaging: the model requires a nuclear star cluster of roughly $3.6\times10^6\,M_\odot$ in intermediate-mass stars; resolving the host light and finding a much smaller stellar mass would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the extreme nitrogen enhancement in GS3073's UV-dense region is the pure, undiluted chemical signature of massive asymptotic giant branch stars, not a mixture, and not the product of the very hot winds of the most massive stars or primordial supernova ejecta. Matching the observed N/O, C/O, and Fe/O with AGB ejecta models at metallicities [Fe/H]$\approx -1.5$ and $-1.2$, the paper identifies the polluting stars as $3$--$4\,M_\odot$ AGBs and dates their ejecta to $170$--$340$ Myr. Adding a delay of about $100$ Myr, estimated from the recurrence of extreme populations in $\omega$ Centauri, gives a total age of $270$--$440$ Myr for GS3073, far below the $\sim1$ Gyr redshift age. Applying the same scheme to GN-z11 gives a total age of $\sim150$--$230$ Myr. From these two points the paper infers that the black hole in such systems first grows through intermittent super-Eddington accretion phases and then accretes at much lower rates after roughly half a gigayear.

Load-bearing premise

The entire dating rests on the assumption that the extremely nitrogen-rich gas near GS3073's black hole is pure, undiluted ejecta from $3$--$4\,M_\odot$ AGB stars, untainted by other nitrogen sources or by infalling gas, and that the roughly $100$ Myr delay between the first stellar generation and these AGB progenitors is correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ages hold, the GS3073 black hole reached $\sim1.6\times10^8\,M_\odot$ in just 270-440 Myr, so its early growth must have involved phases of accretion above the Eddington rate.
  • Accretion cannot have been steady; the paper requires intermittent super-Eddington bursts separated by quiescent intervals during which AGB winds replenish the gas, explaining why nitrogen-rich gas is seen close to some AGNs.
  • The revised age for GN-z11 of 150-230 Myr places the formation of its nuclear star cluster at redshifts about 17.7-14.3, roughly 190-310 Myr after the Big Bang.
  • Systems lying on the AGB ejecta strip can be read as AGNs caught while resuming accretion from pure ejecta, while N-rich systems below the strip are accreting a mixture of ejecta and infalling gas.
  • In omega Centauri, the recurring extreme stellar populations at increasing metallicity are attributed to the central black hole periodically sweeping gas out of the cluster core.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the model predicts a spatial gradient in N/O: the nitrogen-rich gas should be confined to the region recently swept by the black hole, with normal abundances outside it; high-resolution mapping of GS3073's emission lines would test this directly.
  • Extension: the same abundance-dating method could be applied to the other N-loud AGNs with measured N/O, C/O, and Fe/O; those with undiluted ejecta should fall on the yellow strip, forming a sample of the youngest growing black holes.
  • Extension: the required stellar mass of the unseen cluster, roughly $3.6\times10^6\,M_\odot$ under a standard initial mass function, is measurable with deep near-infrared imaging; finding far less mass would falsify the scenario.
  • Extension: if N-loud AGNs are indeed caught just after super-Eddington bursts, the fraction of N-loud systems among young AGNs should track the duty cycle of intermittent accretion, giving an observational handle on accretion physics.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the extreme nitrogen enrichment observed in the UV-dense gas close to the active galactic nucleus (AGN) of GS3073, log(N/O)=+0.42, is undiluted ejecta from massive asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars in a putative nuclear star cluster (NSC). By matching the observed N/O, C/O, and Fe/O to AGB model ejecta at [Fe/H] = -1.5 and -1.2, the authors infer an age of 170-340 Myr for the currently evolving AGB stars; adding a delay of about 100 Myr derived from a schematic model of omega Centauri gives a total age of 270-440 Myr, much smaller than the ~1 Gyr age corresponding to z=5.5. The same scheme is applied to GN-z11, yielding a total age of about 150-230 Myr. These ages are then used to argue that the central black hole must have undergone intermittent super-Eddington accretion in its early phases and sub-Eddington accretion later. The paper also proposes that the extreme, helium-rich populations of omega Centauri formed recurrently from pure AGB ejecta in a core periodically swept by the central black hole.

Significance. If the identification is correct, the paper offers an independent, abundance-based dating method for high-redshift AGN hosts, connecting the well-studied multiple-population chemistry of globular clusters and NSCs to JWST-era observations of N-loud AGN. It also provides a concrete constraint on black-hole growth histories, potentially favoring intermittent super-Eddington accretion. The analysis benefits from using an AGB yield grid that is externally anchored to globular-cluster abundances, so the N/O match is not a fitting artifact; combining N/O, C/O, and Fe/O narrows the allowed stellar mass range. The paper is also commendably explicit about its assumptions. However, the central age conclusion rests on two load-bearing premises that are not fully tested: that the observed gas is undiluted ejecta from a single AGB mass range, and that the omega-Centauri-derived time delay applies to GS3073. The significance is therefore conditional on these premises being validated by the additional analysis recommended below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 and Fig. 4] The age dating reduces to a single-mass identification: the observed log(N/O)=+0.42 and log(C/O)=-0.38 are matched to the ejecta of individual AGB initial masses, but the paper does not test whether a mixture of ejecta from different initial masses, or a modest amount of dilution, can reproduce the same abundance pair. Figure 4 shows that N/O and C/O vary non-monotonically with initial mass, so a mass-averaged mixture can plausibly mimic a single-mass point. The quoted 170-340 Myr AGB age, and hence the total age range 270-440 Myr, is therefore not unique, and the super-Eddington accretion requirement in Sec. 5 inherits this non-uniqueness. The error budget currently includes only the observational formal errors, not model yield uncertainties or the mixing degeneracy. Please add an explicit exploration of mixing across the 2.5-7.5 Msun grid and of partial dilution with infalling gas, and state how the resulting age range changes.
  2. [Sec. 3.4 and Sec. 4.1] The total age of GS3073 is obtained by adding t_delay ~ 100 Myr, which is estimated from a schematic model of omega Centauri rather than measured in GS3073. The argument that the lowest-metallicity bins of omega Cen lack extreme stars because higher-metallicity populations are not yet old enough to host evolving AGBs is plausible but qualitative, and it is then used as a lower limit for a different system. The final age range 270-440 Myr should carry an explicit uncertainty in t_delay, and the sensitivity of the total age (and of the black-hole growth conclusions in Sec. 5) to this parameter should be quantified. If t_delay is shorter, the system could be younger and the contrast with the redshift age, while still present, would be weakened.
  3. [Sec. 2.4 and Sec. 4.3] The scenario requires a nuclear star cluster in GS3073 that is not directly detected; the mass estimate of 3.6e6 Msun in Sec. 4.3 is a self-consistency check derived from the assumption that all the N-rich gas is undiluted 3-4 Msun ejecta with a Kroupa IMF, rather than an independent constraint. The paper should state explicitly that the existence of an NSC in GS3073 is a prediction of the model, and discuss what JWST observations could test it. This would clarify the evidential status of the 'putative NSC' on which the age and accretion conclusions rest.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 6] The fiducial log(N/O) is quoted as +0.42 in the abstract and +0.43 in the conclusions; please harmonize the value.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption refers to 'GH3073' but the object is GS_3073 throughout the rest of the paper.
  3. [Sec. 5] There is a typo in 'we assume 200 Myr (z=19.5) as formation epoch for the seed BHs, at and plot the growing ages as red squares'—the word 'at' appears to be a leftover fragment and should be removed.
  4. [Sec. 4.3] The sentence 'an initial mass of of 3.6e6 Msun' contains a duplicated 'of'.
  5. [Sec. 2.2] The relation for the yellow strip, log(N/O) = (4.05 +/- 0.2) - 0.46 (log(O/H)+12), is referenced as an equation in the text but is not numbered; please number it for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GS3073 age estimate is a model-dependent inversion of externally anchored AGB yields, not a by-construction reduction; the t_delay is an unverified assumption but does not force the central result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that GS3073 has a total age of 270–440 Myr—is derived by matching the observed N/O, C/O, and Fe/O to precomputed AGB ejecta yields (Ventura et al. 2013) and then reading off the initial-mass–age relation from the same stellar models. This is a standard inverse problem, not a circular identity: the yields are not fitted to the GS3073 abundances, and the models are independently anchored to globular cluster abundance patterns (e.g., Marino et al. 2012). The mass ranges 4–3.5 Msun ([Fe/H]=–1.5) and 4–3.0 Msun ([Fe/H]=–1.2) are selected by matching the observed abundance ratios, and the corresponding ages (170–230 Myr and 170–340 Myr) are outputs of the stellar models. The additional t_delay ~100 Myr is estimated from the authors' schematic omega Cen model (Sec. 3.4) and added to obtain the total age. This is a model-dependent assumption rather than a fitted parameter of the target, and the qualitative conclusion that the age is much smaller than the redshift age survives even if t_delay is reduced. The paper does not test degeneracies such as mixtures of different AGB masses or dilution with infalling gas that could mimic the observed abundances; this is a uniqueness/correctness risk, not circularity under the definitions used here. Self-citations to the authors' AGB models and omega Cen interpretation are present, but the models are externally falsifiable against globular cluster data and the central claim retains independent content. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the AGB polluter interpretation and the omega Cen analogy; both are model assumptions rather than measured facts. The t_delay, polluter mass range, seed formation epoch, and seed mass are the main chosen inputs.

free parameters (5)
  • t_delay between NSC formation and birth of AGB progenitors = >= 100 Myr
    Adopted from a schematic omega Cen model (Sec. 3.4) and added to AGB ages to get the GS3073 total age of 270 to 440 Myr; no direct measurement in GS3073.
  • Initial mass and metallicity of polluting AGB stars = M = 4 to 3.5 Msun at [Fe/H] = -1.5, or M = 4 to 3.0 Msun at [Fe/H] = -1.2
    Selected by matching modeled ejecta N/O and C/O to GS3073 fiducial abundances (Sec. 4.1); determines the stellar age range.
  • NSC and seed BH formation epoch = 200 Myr after Big Bang (z = 19.5)
    Assumed in Sec. 5 and Fig. 5 as the zero point for the BH growth track; not directly derived.
  • Initial seed BH mass at start of accretion = ~1000 Msun, formed from 30 Msun remnants in 30 Myr
    Chosen as the standard assumption in Sec. 5.1 to calculate required accretion rates.
  • Accretion efficiency and duty cycle = epsilon = 0.1, f_duty = 1
    Standard values used in Eq. 2 to interpret the BH growth rates; they are assumed, not fitted to the two dated systems.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The UV-dense gas close to the SMBH in GS3073 is undiluted AGB ejecta
    Invoked in Sec. 2.4 and Sec. 4.3 to map abundances to a stellar age; not directly verified.
  • domain assumption GS3073 hosts an unresolved nuclear star cluster that produced the AGB winds and the BH seed
    Motivated by the omega Cen analogy and needed for the mass budget in Sec. 4.3; no direct detection.
  • domain assumption Ventura et al. (2013) AGB models with their mass loss and convection prescriptions are the correct yields
    Underlies the yellow strip and the mass-age conversion in Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 4.1.
  • domain assumption omega Cen is a stripped NSC and its extreme populations formed from pure AGB ejecta in recurring cycles
    Used in Sec. 3 to identify the yellow strip with observed omega Cen stars and to set t_delay about 100 Myr.
  • ad hoc to paper The central BH periodically sweeps gas from the NSC core, so pure AGB ejecta can dominate
    Proposed in Sec. 2.4 and Sec. 3.4; essential for both undiluted ejecta and omega Cen extreme populations.
invented entities (1)
  • Nuclear star cluster in GS3073
    purpose: Supplies the 3 to 4 solar mass AGB stars whose winds produce the observed N/O and provides the dynamical site for seed BH formation.
    No NSC has been detected in GS3073; its presence is inferred from the AGB interpretation and the omega Cen analogy (Sec. 2.5, Sec. 4.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dating N loud AGNs at high redshift: GS3073 as a snapshot of wCen like evolution of a nuclear star cluster." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7EVU2LKL

@misc{pith2026250706311,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dating N loud AGNs at high redshift: GS3073 as a snapshot of wCen like evolution of a nuclear star cluster},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7EVU2LKL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06311}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we address two major questions raised by recent James Webb Space Telescope observations of the young Universe, namely: 1) what are the seed initial masses, and how rapidly have supermassive black holes (BHs) with masses of 1e6-1e8Msun grown in active galactic nuclei (AGN) hosted by very young galaxies? 2) What are the plausible explanations for the super solar abundances of nitrogen in a fraction of young galaxies at high redshift, both with and without evidence of a massive central black hole? We focus mainly on the system GS3073. This system shows an exceptionally large log(N/O)=+0.42(+0.13/-0.10) in the gas close to the AGN. We show here that this abundance is consistent with the composition of gas ejected from massive asymptotic giant branch stars. Moreover, this system shows chemical properties matching those expected at a specific point of the evolution of the abundances in the extreme populations of the former nuclear star cluster wCentauri (wCen). This analogy, along with the N/O, C/O and Fe/O abundances in GS3073, lead to an estimate of an age range of 270-440 Myr for this object, much smaller than the redshift (z=5.5) age of about 1 Gyr. We also adopt the same criteria to estimate an age for GNz11. These two determinations constrain the BH mass versus age relation: accretion on the BH must proceed at intermittent superEddington rates in the first phases, and at a much lower rate after the first half gigayear of life of the Universe. The intermittency of accretion is also a fundamental requirement to allow the formation of the extreme (N rich, O depleted, He rich) populations today observed in wCen for a large range of metallicities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06311 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Abundances in GN-z11, GHz9, CEERS 1019 and GS_3073 compared with models. Panel a: diagram log(N/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the plane log(N/O) versus log(O/H)+12 we show as triangles the abundances in a sample of ωCen giants by Marino et al. (2012), for [Fe/H] according to the scale at the right of the figure. Abundances in GN-z11, GHz9, CEERS 1019 and GH3073 are displayed as in Fig.1. The yellow diagonal strip rep￾resents the locus of pure AGB ejecta of intermediate masses, for a large range of metallicities, defined by the models sh… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The range of lower limits for log(Fe/O) for GS_3073 are compared with the model ejecta values for the different sets of metallicities from Z=0.0003 (lower line) to Z=0.004 (upperline). of GN-z11 requires dilution with pristine gas, and interpreted the observed abundances assuming the system was similar to a simple GC. Nevertheless, the NSC in this system may be as com￾1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 lo g(N / O) [Fe/H] = 1.2 [Fe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the abundance of ejecta as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic view of the growth of the seed BH through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abramowicz, M. A. & Lasota, J. P. 1995, Comments on Astrophysics, 18, 141

    1995

  2. [2]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513

    2024

  3. [3]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 5008

    Antonini, F., Gieles, M., & Gualandris, A. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5008

    2019

  4. [4]

    R., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., et al

    Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 605, L125

    2004

  5. [5]

    P., Anderson, J., et al

    Bellini, A., Milone, A. P., Anderson, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 164

    2017

  6. [6]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Belokurov, V . & Kravtsov, A. 2023, MNRAS

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A88

    2023

  8. [8]

    2019, MN- RAS, 489, 3269

    Calura, F., D’Ercole, A., Vesperini, E., Vanzella, E., & Sollima, A. 2019, MN- RAS, 489, 3269

    work page 2019

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    J., Katz, H., Rey, M

    Cameron, A. J., Katz, H., Rey, M. P., & Saxena, A. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3516

    2023

  2. [10]

    S., & Lin, D

    Cantiello, M., Jermyn, A. S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2021, ApJ, 910, 94

    2021

  3. [11]

    2009, A&A, 508, 695

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R., D’Orazi, V ., & Lucatello, S. 2009, A&A, 508, 695

    2009

  4. [12]

    2016, A&A, 592, A111

    Chantereau, W., Charbonnel, C., & Meynet, G. 2016, A&A, 592, A111

    2016

  5. [13]

    2023, A&A, 673, L7

    Charbonnel, C., Schaerer, D., Prantzos, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, L7

    2023

  6. [14]

    & Lin, D

    Chen, Y .-X. & Lin, D. N. C. 2024, ApJ, 967, 88

    2024

  7. [15]

    A., Endsley, R., et al

    Chisholm, J., Berg, D. A., Endsley, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2633

    2024

  8. [16]

    & Omukai, K

    Chon, S. & Omukai, K. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2561

    2025

  9. [17]

    C., Wang, Z., et al

    Clontz, C., Seth, A. C., Wang, Z., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.09783

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    & Huré, J

    Collin, S. & Huré, J. M. 2001, A&A, 372, 50 D’Antona, F. & Caloi, V . 2008, MNRAS, 390, 693 D’Antona, F., D’Ercole, A., Marino, A. F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 5 D’Antona, F., Vesperini, E., Calura, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, L19 D’Antona, F., Vesperini, E., D’Ercole, A., et al....

    2001

  11. [19]

    Dittmann, A. J. & Cantiello, M. 2025, ApJ, 979, 245

    2025

  12. [20]

    J., Cantiello, M., & Jermyn, A

    Dittmann, A. J., Cantiello, M., & Jermyn, A. S. 2021, ApJ, 916, 48 D’Silva, J. C. J., Driver, S. P., Lagos, C. D. P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03081

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    J., Cantiello, M., Perna, R., & Samsing, J

    Fabj, G., Dittmann, A. J., Cantiello, M., Perna, R., & Samsing, J. 2025, ApJ, 981, 16

    2025

  14. [22]

    Fan, X., Bañados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373

    2023

  15. [23]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 2410

    Ferrara, A., Salvadori, S., Yue, B., & Schleicher, D. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2410

    2014

  16. [24]

    K., Karakas, A

    Fishlock, C. K., Karakas, A. I., Lugaro, M., & Yong, D. 2014, ApJ, 797, 44

    2014

  17. [25]

    S., Wang, L., Tanikawa, A., Hirai, Y ., & Saitoh, T

    Fujii, M. S., Wang, L., Tanikawa, A., Hirai, Y ., & Saitoh, T. R. 2024, Science, 384, 1488

    2024

  18. [26]

    Garcia, F. A. B., Ricotti, M., & Sugimura, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.08779

    2025

  19. [27]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 3150

    Giersz, M., Leigh, N., Hypki, A., Lützgendorf, N., & Askar, A. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3150

    2015

  20. [28]

    2017, A&A, 603, A69

    Gilli, R., Calura, F., D’Ercole, A., & Norman, C. 2017, A&A, 603, A69

    2017

  21. [29]

    2019, A&A Rev., 27, 8 Häberle, M., Neumayer, N., Seth, A., et al

    Gratton, R., Bragaglia, A., Carretta, E., et al. 2019, A&A Rev., 27, 8 Häberle, M., Neumayer, N., Seth, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 631, 285

    2019

  22. [30]

    & Ferland, G

    Hamann, F. & Ferland, G. 1993, ApJ, 418, 11

    1993

  23. [31]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 39

    Harikane, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 39

    2023

  24. [32]

    & Renzini, A

    Iben, Jr., I. & Renzini, A. 1983, ARA&A, 21, 271

    1983

  25. [33]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

    2020

  26. [34]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.12091

    Isobe, Y ., Maiolino, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.12091

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 100 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Isobe, Y ., Ouchi, M., Tominaga, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 100 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no. gs3073

    2023

  28. [36]

    I., Schaerer, D., Worseck, G., et al

    Izotov, Y . I., Schaerer, D., Worseck, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1228

    2023

  29. [37]

    I., Thuan, T

    Izotov, Y . I., Thuan, T. X., & Guseva, N. G. 2012, A&A, 546, A122

    2012

  30. [38]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 881

    Ji, X., Übler, H., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 881

    2024

  31. [39]

    I., Pilachowski, C

    Johnson, C. I., Pilachowski, C. A., Michael Rich, R., & Fulbright, J. P. 2009, ApJ, 698, 2048

    2009

  32. [40]

    C., et al

    Kacharov, N., Neumayer, N., Seth, A. C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1973

    2018

  33. [41]

    Karakas, A. I. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1413

    2010

  34. [42]

    R., Bedin, L

    King, I. R., Bedin, L. R., Cassisi, S., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 5

    2012

  35. [43]

    & Ferrara, A

    Kobayashi, C. & Ferrara, A. 2024, ApJ, 962, L6

    2024

  36. [44]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231 Lahén, N., Naab, T., Rantala, A., & Partmann, C

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231 Lahén, N., Naab, T., Rantala, A., & Partmann, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18620

    2001

  37. [45]

    L., Finkelstein, S

    Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, L29

    2023

  38. [46]

    2025, A&A, 694, A248

    Latour, M., Kamann, S., Martocchia, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A248

    2025

  39. [47]

    W., Joo, J

    Lee, Y . W., Joo, J. M., Sohn, Y . J., et al. 1999, Nature, 402, 55

    1999

  40. [48]

    V ., Milone, A

    Legnardi, M. V ., Milone, A. P., Armillotta, L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 735

    2022

  41. [49]

    O., Pérez-Villegas, A., et al

    Limberg, G., Souza, S. O., Pérez-Villegas, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 109

    2022

  42. [50]

    & Chieffi, A

    Limongi, M. & Chieffi, A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 13

    2018

  43. [51]

    2014, ApJ, 784, L38

    Madau, P., Haardt, F., & Dotti, M. 2014, ApJ, 784, L38

    2014

  44. [52]

    & Rees, M

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

    2001

  45. [53]

    2015, A&A, 576, A56

    Maeder, A., Meynet, G., & Chiappini, C. 2015, A&A, 576, A56

    2015

  46. [54]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 14

    2012

  47. [55]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 64

    2011

  48. [56]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Renzini, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3815

    2019

  49. [57]

    Milone, A. P. & Marino, A. F. 2022, Universe, 8, 359

    2022

  50. [58]

    P., Piotto, G., Renzini, A., et al

    Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., Renzini, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3636

    2017

  51. [59]

    L., Gnedin, O

    Muratov, A. L., Gnedin, O. Y ., Gnedin, N. Y ., & Zemp, M. 2013, ApJ, 773, 19

    2013

  52. [60]

    2024, A&A, 688, A142

    Nandal, D., Sibony, Y ., & Tsiatsiou, S. 2024, A&A, 688, A142

    2024

  53. [61]

    J., Latif, M

    Nandal, D., Whalen, D. J., Latif, M. A., & Heger, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.04435

    2025

  54. [62]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.18763

    Napolitano, L., Castellano, M., Pentericci, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.18763

    2024

  55. [63]

    2020, A&A Rev., 28, 4

    Neumayer, N., Seth, A., & Böker, T. 2020, A&A Rev., 28, 4

    2020

  56. [64]

    F., & Tsang, B

    Pascale, M., Dai, L., McKee, C. F., & Tsang, B. T. H. 2023, ApJ, 957, 77

    2023

  57. [65]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 2514

    Pfeffer, J., Lardo, C., Bastian, N., Saracino, S., & Kamann, S. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2514

    2021

  58. [66]

    R., Anderson, J., et al

    Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., Anderson, J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 661, L53 Portegies Zwart, S. F. & McMillan, S. L. W. 2002, ApJ, 576, 899

    2007

  59. [67]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, L117

    Renzini, A. 2023, MNRAS, 525, L117

    2023

  60. [68]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05363

    Rizzuti, F., Matteucci, F., Molaro, P., Cescutti, G., & Maiolino, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.05363

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    2024, A&A, 691, A284

    Rossi, M., Romano, D., Mucciarelli, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A284

    2024

  62. [70]

    2024, A&A, 687, L11

    Schaerer, D., Marques-Chaves, R., Xiao, M., & Korber, D. 2024, A&A, 687, L11

    2024

  63. [71]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 3250

    Schneider, R., Valiante, R., Trinca, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3250

    2023

  64. [72]

    P., et al

    Senchyna, P., Plat, A., Stark, D. P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 92

    2024

  65. [73]

    J., & Rees, M

    Syer, D., Clarke, C. J., & Rees, M. J. 1991, MNRAS, 250, 505

    1991

  66. [74]

    J., Hainline, K., et al

    Tacchella, S., Eisenstein, D. J., Hainline, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 74

    2023

  67. [75]

    2016, MN- RAS, 457, 4525

    Tailo, M., Di Criscienzo, M., D’Antona, F., Caloi, V ., & Ventura, P. 2016, MN- RAS, 457, 4525

    2016

  68. [76]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 4753

    Trinca, A., Schneider, R., Maiolino, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4753

    2023

  69. [77]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14248 Übler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al

    Trinca, A., Valiante, R., Schneider, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14248 Übler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A145

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 53

    Vanzella, E., Claeyssens, A., Welch, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 53

    2023

  71. [79]

    2001, ApJ, 550, L65

    Ventura, P., D’Antona, F., Mazzitelli, I., & Gratton, R. 2001, ApJ, 550, L65

    2001

  72. [80]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 3642

    Ventura, P., Di Criscienzo, M., Carini, R., & D’Antona, F. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 3642

    2013

  73. [81]

    2016, MN- RAS, 458, 3466

    Vincenzo, F., Belfiore, F., Maiolino, R., Matteucci, F., & Ventura, P. 2016, MN- RAS, 458, 3466

    2016

  74. [82]

    Vink, J. S. 2023, A&A, 679, L9 V olonteri, M. 2010, A&A Rev., 18, 279 V olonteri, M., Habouzit, M., & Colpi, M. 2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 732 V olonteri, M., Silk, J., & Dubus, G. 2015, ApJ, 804, 148

    2023

  75. [83]

    J., van der Marel, R

    Walcher, C. J., van der Marel, R. P., McLaughlin, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 618, 237

    2005

  76. [84]

    C., Li, Y .-R., & Du, P

    Wang, J.-M., Liu, J.-R., Ho, L. C., Li, Y .-R., & Du, P. 2021, ApJ, 916, L17 Article number, page 12 of 12

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.