Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The Emergence and Ionizing Feedback of Pop III.1 Stars as Progenitors for Supermassive Black Holes

T0 review · 4 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 The paper establishes Pop III.1 stars—supermassive first-generation stars in isolated minihalos—as viable progenitors of early supermassive black holes, with a predicted seed density of about $10^{-1}\,\mathrm{cMpc}^{-3}$ that matches…

desk verdict The HII region simulations are the real result; the n_SMBH number is not established because it assumes 100% seeding efficiency. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23004 v1 pith:3Q6T3Y2Z submitted 2025-07-30 astro-ph.GA

Mahsa Sanati , Jonathan C. Tan , Julien Devriendt , Adrianne Slyz , Sergio Martin-Alvarez , Matteo la Torre , Benjamin Keller , Maya A. Petkova
show 4 more authors
Pierluigi Monaco Vieri Cammelli Jasbir Singh Matthew Hayes
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords PopulationIIIstarssupermassiveblackholesheavyseedsradiativetransferHIIregionsminihaloscosmicdawnJWST
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the first supermassive black holes can be seeded by Pop III.1 stars: supermassive, roughly $10^5\,M_\odot$ first-generation stars that form in isolated, pristine dark matter minihalos and collapse directly into black holes. Using cosmological radiation-hydrodynamics simulations, it measures the ionized bubble such a star carves out before it dies, finding a comoving radius of about 1 cMpc that is nearly independent of environment and redshift. Treating that radius as an exclusion zone around each seed, and assuming every halo above $10^6\,M_\odot$ that satisfies the isolation criterion forms such a star, the paper derives a cosmic seed density of about $10^{-1}\,\mathrm{cMpc}^{-3}$ by redshift 14, consistent with observational estimates at both high and low redshift. If correct, this establishes heavy seeds from Pop III.1 stars as a viable route to the observed early black hole population without invoking super-Eddington accretion.

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing elements are the R-type expansion of the HII region around a Pop III.1 star and the isolation-distance criterion it sets. The comoving front radius $r_R=(3 t_* Q_{\rm H}/4\pi n_{\rm H})^{1/3}$ is nearly redshift-independent because the cosmic density evolution cancels in comoving units, giving $r_{\rm HII}\simeq 1$ cMpc for the fiducial photon rate $Q_{\rm H}=10^{53}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ and lifetime $t_*=10$ Myr. This single number is then applied as a constant exclusion radius of 1 cMpc in dark-matter-only boxes: halos above $10^6\,M_\odot$ with no neighbor within that radius are counted as SMBH seeds, and the halo mass function is converted into a predicted seed number density.

What would settle it

One decisive check is to run the same radiation-hydrodynamics setup for a sample of Pop III.1 stars across several environments and compare their HII bubbles: if the spread in $r_{\rm HII}$ around 1 cMpc is large, the constant-exclusion-radius counting breaks down. A second check is observational: a JWST census that puts the high-redshift black hole abundance several times below $n_{\rm SMBH}\sim 10^{-1}\,\mathrm{cMpc}^{-3}$ would rule out the assumed perfect seeding efficiency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Pop III.1 progenitors are viable candidates for the formation of the first supermassive black holes: a $10^5\,M_\odot$ star in an isolated minihalo, emitting about $10^{53}$ H-ionizing photons per second for roughly 10 Myr, drives an R-type ionization front that reaches a comoving radius $r_{\rm HII}\sim 1$ cMpc. When this radius is used as the minimum separation between seed halos in cosmological volumes, the resulting number density is $n_{\rm SMBH}\sim 10^{-1}\,\mathrm{cMpc}^{-3}$ by $z=14$, consistent with the abundances inferred from recent observations of the local and high-redshift universe.

Load-bearing premise

The bubble radius measured around one simulated star in one zoom-in region is treated as a universal, redshift-independent exclusion radius for every minihalo in the universe, and every halo that passes the mass and isolation cuts is assumed to form a $10^5\,M_\odot$ Pop III.1 star with perfect efficiency.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The predicted seed density of about $10^{-1}\,\mathrm{cMpc}^{-3}$ by redshift 14 matches observational estimates at both high and low redshift, so the early supermassive black hole population can be explained without super-Eddington accretion.
  • Because the comoving isolation distance is nearly redshift-independent, the seeded fraction of halos stays low and roughly constant, growing from about 5 to 6 percent of halos above $10^6\,M_\odot$ between $z=21$ and $z=14$.
  • Varying the ionizing photon rate from $10^{52}$ to $10^{54}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ shifts the HII radius from about 0.6 to 2.3 cMpc and moves the predicted seed density by roughly an order of magnitude.
  • A single Pop III.1 star suppresses further heavy-seed formation around it: the relic HII region persists for about 30 Myr after the star dies, keeping nearby minihalos from producing another supermassive star.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the isolation radius were recalibrated from a population of zoom-in regions rather than one, the predicted seed density could shift outside the observed range; this is a direct test with existing simulation tools.
  • The assumed perfect seeding efficiency is an upper bound, so fragmenting irradiated minihalos into lower-mass Pop III.2 stars would lower the seed density, and matching the observed abundance would then require a narrower range of permitted efficiencies.
  • The same isolation prescription could be extended to predict the black hole mass function at redshifts 6 to 9, connecting the seed density to the JWST AGN luminosity function without invoking any specific accretion-growth model.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses cosmological zoom-in radiation-magnetohydrodynamical simulations with the Ramses-RT code to follow the HII regions produced by a 10^5 Msun Population III.1 star formed in a primordial minihalo, varying the ionizing photon rate (Q_H = 10^52, 10^53, 10^54 s^-1) and the large-scale environment (average, overdense, underdense). It reports that the R-type ionized bubble reaches roughly redshift-independent comoving radii around 1 cMpc, and then uses this radius as an isolation distance d_iso in two dark-matter-only boxes to count minihalos above 10^6 Msun that are separated by more than d_iso. The resulting seeded-halo number density is n_SMBH ~ 0.3-0.6 cMpc^-3 between z = 21 and z = 14, from which the authors claim n_SMBH ~ 10^-1 cMpc^-3, consistent with JWST-based observational estimates, and conclude that Pop III.1 stars are viable SMBH progenitors.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a physically motivated heavy-seed route to the early SMBH population without invoking super-Eddington accretion. The simulations are technically substantial: they combine radiative transfer with MHD in a cosmological setting, resolve the escape of ionizing radiation from the minihalo, and the analytic R-type formula in Eq. (4) provides an independent cross-check on the simulated bubble radii. The exploration of Q_H and environment is a useful step beyond the semi-analytic PINOCCHIO-based estimates of earlier Pop III.1 work. However, the headline number density is an order-of-magnitude estimate whose value depends on an unmeasured 100% seeding efficiency, a hand-set isolation distance that is smaller than the simulated values, and small single-realization DMO volumes. These points need to be addressed before the consistency claim is established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4, Table 1] The adopted isolation distance d_iso = 1.0 cMpc is not the simulated r_HII for the fiducial Q_H = 10^53 s^-1 model. Table 1 lists r_HII = 1.49 cMpc (average-density), 1.29 cMpc (overdense), and 1.35 cMpc (underdense), while Eq. (4) gives r_R = 1.10 cMpc. Since seeded-halo counts scale roughly as d_iso^-3, replacing 1.0 cMpc with the simulated ~1.3-1.5 cMpc lowers n_SMBH by a factor of about 2-3. The text in §3.4 calls the method conservative relative to applying no isolation criterion, but the rounding to 1.0 cMpc is not conservative for the high-n_SMBH claim; the estimate should propagate the simulated d_iso and its environment dependence.
  2. [§4, §3.4] The central estimate assumes that 'all minihalos meeting the seeding criteria ... form a Pop III.1 star', i.e., 100% seeding efficiency. The zoom-in runs do not measure a formation fraction: the star is placed in the first collapsing minihalo by construction, and the DMO boxes contain no gas cooling, radiation, or collapse criteria. Because n_SMBH is linear in this efficiency, a 10% efficiency moves the prediction to ~10^-2 cMpc^-3, near the observational lower limit quoted in §1, and a 1% efficiency would make the scenario non-viable. The paper should either justify a formation efficiency from Pop III.1 physics or present n_SMBH as an explicit function of this unknown parameter.
  3. [§3.4, Table 2, Fig. 7] The number-density estimate rests on two small DMO boxes of side 11 and 7 cMpc, each a single realization. At z = 21 the seeded fraction differs by a factor of four between boxes (about 5% in the 11 Mpc box versus 20% in the 7 Mpc box), and the combined n_SMBH is an average over just two volumes. This level of sample variance is comparable to the factor of 2-3 introduced by the d_iso choice, so the claimed consistency with observations is currently only order-of-magnitude; additional realizations or larger volumes are needed to support a specific value.
  4. [§3.2] The isolation radius is operationally defined by the extent of roughly 1% ionization, but the paper itself notes that overdense minihalos within the HII region can maintain lower ionization fractions and 'could potentially form new Pop III.1 stars'. Since d_iso is the parameter that sets n_SMBH, the predicted number density should be tested against alternative ionization thresholds (for example, the ~50 kpc nearly fully ionized zone versus the 74 kpc 1% boundary) rather than adopting a single boundary without a model for how partial ionization suppresses Pop III.1 formation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2] The text 'about 74 pc (i.e., the size r_HII reported in Table 1)' should read 74 kpc; Table 1 reports 74.0 kpc.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The numerical coefficient 61.3 kpc for fiducial parameters is inconsistent with Table 1's r_S = 106.46 kpc; please verify the normalization of alpha_B and the derived constant.
  3. [Table 1] For the Avrg53 model, r_HII = 74.0 kpc proper at z_form = 22.5 corresponds to about 1.74 cMpc, not the listed 1.49 cMpc; please specify the redshift at which the proper radius is evaluated.
  4. [Fig. 7] The legend indicates that diamonds correspond to different Q_H values, but the text does not state whether the same halo selection is used for the diamonds as for the squares; please clarify whether only d_iso changes.
  5. [Eq. (3)] The two consecutive lines containing ((1+z_form)/31) and ((1+z_form)/31)^-1 appear to contain a typographical inconsistency; please check the redshift conversion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the n_SMBH estimate is conditional on explicit scenario assumptions and simulation-measured r_HII, not fitted to the observed abundance.

full rationale

The central claim is an estimate of the cosmic number density of SMBHs from Pop III.1 progenitors. The derivation chain is: (1) adopt a Pop III.1 source with Q_H ~ 10^53 s^-1 and t_* = 10 Myr; (2) run RT-MHD zoom-in simulations that measure an r_HII of about 1 cMpc; (3) apply this as an isolation distance d_iso = 1 cMpc to dark-matter-only halo catalogs with a mass threshold of 10^6 Msun; (4) count isolated halos, obtaining n_SMBH ~ 0.1-0.6 cMpc^-3; (5) compare with external observational estimates. The isolation distance is a genuine simulation output, and Eq. (4) provides an independent analytic cross-check that the simulation reproduces. n_SMBH is not obtained by inverting the observed number density; the observational value is not used to select d_iso or the mass threshold. The main caveats are that the fiducial Q_H and t_* come from the same group's prior review (Tan et al. 2024), and the 100% seeding efficiency is assumed rather than measured. The paper explicitly discloses the efficiency assumption in Section 4 and notes that overdense minihalos inside the HII region could still form Pop III.1 stars in Section 3.2. These are robustness limitations, not circular reductions: the simulation could in principle have produced a very different r_HII, and the DMO halo counts are independent of the observed SMBH abundance. The self-citation for source parameters is a provenance concern but does not make the prediction equivalent to its inputs.

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

The central n_SMBH estimate depends on the Pop III.1 source properties (Q_H, t_*, M_*) adopted from prior stellar-evolution work, and on the translation of a simulated HII radius into a hard, redshift-independent isolation distance with 100% seeding efficiency. The simulated r_HII itself is a genuine output, not a fit, which keeps circularity low; but the scenario-level assumptions are borrowed from the authors' own previous papers.

free parameters (5)
  • Q_H (Pop III.1 H-ionizing photon rate) = 10^53 s^-1 (fiducial); 10^52-10^54 s^-1 explored
    Sets the HII region size and isolation distance; adopted from the Pop III.1 stellar model of Tan et al. (2024), not measured here.
  • t_* (Pop III.1 lifetime) = 10 Myr
    Controls R-type expansion radius; chosen as a likely lifetime with WIMP heating; paper notes degeneracy with Q_H.
  • M_* (Pop III.1 star mass) = 10^5 Msun
    Most of the halo's baryonic mass; inserted as a single stellar particle; defines the heavy-seed scenario.
  • d_iso (isolation distance) = 1.0 cMpc
    Set from the simulated r_HII of ~1.3-1.5 cMpc but rounded down and held constant with redshift; directly determines n_SMBH via 1/d_iso^3 scaling.
  • M_halo,min (seeding halo mass threshold) = 10^6 Msun
    Minimum halo mass for primordial gas cooling and collapse, taken from prior simulation literature (Bromm et al. 2002; Abel et al. 2002; Katz et al. 2024).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pop III.1 stars of ~10^5 Msun exist and emit Q_H ~ 10^53 s^-1 for ~10 Myr
    The heavy-seed scenario is taken as given from prior work (Spolyar et al. 2008; Tan 2008; Tan et al. 2024); the simulations only model the consequences.
  • ad hoc to paper Every halo with M > 10^6 Msun and no neighbor within d_iso = 1 cMpc forms a Pop III.1 star
    Stated in §4: 'we assume efficient formation of supermassive stars, such that all minihalos meeting the seeding criteria... form a Pop III.1 star'. This assumption sets the n_SMBH normalization.
  • domain assumption The HII region radius (at ~1% ionization) is a hard exclusion zone that prevents further Pop III.1 formation
    Invoked in §3.2 to justify the isolation distance; the paper itself notes dense minihalos within the bubble may retain low ionization and could still form Pop III.1 stars.
  • domain assumption The reduced speed of light approximation (0.2c) is adequate for R-type ionization front propagation
    Adopted in §2 to keep the timestep feasible; could affect the simulated r_HII and thus d_iso.
  • domain assumption The 7 and 11 cMpc DMO boxes are representative for estimating the cosmic n_SMBH
    Small volumes and one environment realization imply cosmic variance; Appendix A checks HMF convergence but not seeded-halo robustness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Emergence and Ionizing Feedback of Pop III.1 Stars as Progenitors for Supermassive Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3Q6T3Y2Z

@misc{pith2026250723004,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Emergence and Ionizing Feedback of Pop III.1 Stars as Progenitors for Supermassive Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3Q6T3Y2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23004}
}
abstract

Recent observations by JWST reveal an unexpectedly abundant population of rapidly growing supermassive black holes (SMBHs) in the early Universe, underscoring the need for improved models for their origin and growth. Employing new full radiative transfer hydrodynamical simulations of galaxy formation, we investigate the local and intergalactic feedback of SMBH progenitors for the Population III.1 scenario, i.e., efficient formation of supermassive stars from pristine, undisturbed dark matter minihalos. Our cosmological simulations capture the R-type expansion phase of these Pop III.1 stars, with their H-ionizing photon luminosities of $\sim10^{53}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$ generating HII regions that extend deep into the intergalactic medium, reaching comoving radii of $r_{\rm HII}\sim 1\,{\rm cMpc}$. We vary both the Pop III.1 ionization flux and cosmological formation environments, finding the former regulates their final $r_{\rm HII}$, whereas the latter is more important in setting their formation redshift. We use the results from our radiation-hydrodynamics simulations to estimate the cosmic number density of SMBHs, $n_{\rm SMBH}$, expected from Pop III.1 progenitors. We find $n_{\rm SMBH}\sim10^{-1}\,{\rm cMpc}^{-3}$, consistent with the results inferred from recent observations of the local and high redshift universe. Overall, this establishes Pop III.1 progenitors as viable candidates for the formation of the first SMBHs, and emphasises the importance of exploring heavy mass seed scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23004 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Density weighted (top) and volume weighted (bottom) gas radial profile before and after the formation of the Pop III.1 star. The plot shows the evolution of the gas number density within a radius of 100 kpc as a function of distance from the centre of the minihalo hosting the Pop III.1 star. Note that the secondary peak at ∼ 6 kpc corresponds to a neighboring minihalo. The gray line represents the gas profile just b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Density-weighted projections of gas number density (top row, on a scale of 10 kpc proper distance centered on the Pop III.1 source), temperature (middle row, on a scale of 80 kpc proper distance), and hydrogen ionized fraction (bottom row, also on a scale of 80 kpc proper distance), from 10 to 37 Myr (columns left to right) after the formation of the Pop III.1 star. Although radiation from Pop III.1 star ceases afte… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Profiles of temperature (top row) and hydrogen ionized fraction (bottom row) before and after Pop III.1 star formation. Color codes are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the HII region radius (𝑟HII) in terms of comoving (top) and proper (bottom) distance as a function of time for the three different environments: an overdense, an average-density (blue), and an underdense (green) model The solid lines show the evolution of …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dark matter density projection in a 11 Mpc box at redshifts 𝑧 ∼ 21, 17, and 14. Seeded halos are marked with white circles, with the circle size scaled to the halo mass. To select halos eligible for SMBH seeding, we first select those with masses above 106 𝑀⊙, and then…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Halo mass function at different redshifts. Solid histogram lines represent the number density of halos with 𝑀halo ≳ 106 𝑀⊙. The num￾ber density in each mass bin, 𝑛halo (𝑧, 𝑀halo ), is calculated by combining the halo counts from both 7 and 11 Mpc simulation boxes and d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Number density of PopIII.1 progenitor SMBHs, 𝑛SMBHs, as a function of redshift. Circles show the number density of all halos with 𝑀halo ≳ 106 𝑀⊙, calculated as the average of the number densities of halos summed across both the 7 and 11 Mpc simulation boxes for each ma…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Flash Ionization of the Early Universe by Pop III.1 Supermassive Stars

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pop III.1 supermassive stars flash-ionize much of the early universe at z~20-30, adding tau~0.04 to the CMB optical depth and potentially easing Hubble tension and DESI anomalies.

  2. The Impact of Population III.1 Flash Reionization for CMB Polarization and Thomson Scattering Optical Depth

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An early 'Pop III.1 Flash' reionization phase shifts CMB polarization power from l<8 to l>8, allowing a higher optical depth τ≈0.08–0.09 while staying closer to Planck's low-l EE data than a standard tanh reionization model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    L., Norman M

    Abel T., Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., 2002, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1063991 , 295, 93

    doi:10.1126/science.1063991 2002

  2. [2]

    Ba \ n ados E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.553..473B 553, 473

    doi:10.1038/nature25180 2018

  3. [3]

    C., Monaco P., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty3298 , 483, 3592

    Banik N., Tan J. C., Monaco P., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty3298 , 483, 3592

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3298 2019

  4. [4]

    Barai P., Gallerani S., Pallottini A., Ferrara A., Marconi A., Cicone C., Maiolino R., Carniani S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2563 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4003B 473, 4003

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2563 2018

  5. [6]

    Bogd \'a n \'A ., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..126B 8, 126

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9 2024

  6. [7]

    Bromm V., Loeb A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/377529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...596...34B 596, 34

    doi:10.1086/377529 2003

  7. [8]

    S., Larson R

    Bromm V., Coppi P. S., Larson R. B., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...564...23B 564, 23

    doi:10.1086/323947 2002

  8. [9]

    Buchert T., Ehlers J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/264.2.375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993MNRAS.264..375B 264, 375

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/264.2.375 1993

Show all 90 references
  1. [10]

    arXiv:2501.17675

    Cammelli V., et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250117675C p. arXiv:2501.17675

    doi arXiv

  2. [11]

    C., Singh J., Fontanot F., De Lucia G., Hirschmann M., Xie L., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536..851C 536, 851

    Cammelli V., Monaco P., Tan J. C., Singh J., Fontanot F., De Lucia G., Hirschmann M., Xie L., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536..851C 536, 851

    doi

  3. [12]

    Catelan P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/276.1.115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.276..115C 276, 115

    1995 doi

  4. [13]

    Chiaki G., Chon S., Omukai K., Trinca A., Schneider R., Valiante R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.2845C 521, 2845

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    G., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1514 , 479, 2079

    Costa T., Rosdahl J., Sijacki D., Haehnelt M. G., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1514 , 479, 2079

    2018 doi

  6. [15]

    Dubroca B., Feugeas J., 1999, @doi [Academie des Sciences Paris Comptes Rendus Serie Sciences Mathematiques] 10.1016/S0764-4442(00)87499-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999CRASM.329..915D 329, 915

    1999 doi

  7. [16]

    J., Izzard R

    Eldridge J. J., Izzard R. G., Tout C. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12738.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384.1109E 384, 1109

    2008

  8. [17]

    A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..373F 61, 373

    Fan X., Ba \ n ados E., Simcoe R. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..373F 61, 373

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    arXiv:2504.08041

    Farcy M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08041 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250408041F p. arXiv:2504.08041

    2025 doi

  10. [19]

    S., 2012, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156 , 761, 156

    Federrath C., Klessen R. S., 2012, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156 , 761, 156

    2012 doi

  11. [20]

    J., Korista K

    Ferland G. J., Korista K. T., Verner D. A., Ferguson J. W., Kingdon J. B., Verner E. M., 1998, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316190 , 110, 761

    1998 doi

  12. [21]

    Fragione G., Pacucci F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad09e5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958L..24F 958, L24

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    A., Spolyar D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1563 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693.1563F 693, 1563

    Freese K., Gondolo P., Sellwood J. A., Spolyar D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1563 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693.1563F 693, 1563

    2009 doi

  14. [23]

    Fromang S., Hennebelle P., Teyssier R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...457..371F 457, 371

    2006 doi

  15. [24]

    Y., Abel T., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S1384-1076(01)00068-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001NewA....6..437G 6, 437

    Gnedin N. Y., Abel T., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S1384-1076(01)00068-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001NewA....6..437G 6, 437

    2001 doi

  16. [25]

    E., Strader J., Ho L

    Greene J. E., Strader J., Ho L. C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58..257G 58, 257

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...39G 964, 39

    Greene J. E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...39G 964, 39

    2024 doi

  18. [27]

    A., Freitag M., Rasio F

    G \"u rkan M. A., Freitag M., Rasio F. A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...604..632G 604, 632

    2004 doi

  19. [28]

    Hahn O., Abel T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415.2101H 415, 2101

    2011

  20. [29]

    Harikane Y., et al., 2023, A JWST / NIRSpec First Census of Broad - Line AGNs at z=4-7: Detection of 10 Faint AGNs with M \_BH 10 6-10 8 M \_sun and Their Host Galaxy Properties , http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11946

    2023 arXiv

  21. [30]

    J., et al., 2024, Glimmers in the Cosmic Dawn : A Census of the Youngest Supermassive Black Holes by Photometric Variability , http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16138

    Hayes M. J., et al., 2024, Glimmers in the Cosmic Dawn : A Census of the Youngest Supermassive Black Holes by Photometric Variability , http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16138

    2024 arXiv

  22. [31]

    G., Roper W

    Hu s ko F., Lacey C. G., Roper W. J., Schaye J., Briggs J. M., Schaller M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.537.2559H 537, 2559

    2025 doi

  23. [32]

    arXiv:2503.05537

    Inayoshi K., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.05537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250305537I p. arXiv:2503.05537

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [33]

    Irodotou D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.3768I 513, 3768

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    L., Bromm V., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09846.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366..247J 366, 247

    Johnson J. L., Bromm V., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09846.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366..247J 366, 247

    2006

  26. [35]

    L., Bromm V., 2007, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11275.x , 374, 1557

    Johnson J. L., Bromm V., 2007, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11275.x , 374, 1557

    2007

  27. [36]

    P., Cadiou C., Kimm T., Agertz O., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.07282 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241107282K p

    Katz H., Rey M. P., Cadiou C., Kimm T., Agertz O., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.07282 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241107282K p. arXiv:2411.07282

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    Kimm T., Cen R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788..121K 788, 121

    2014 doi

  29. [38]

    Kimm T., Katz H., Haehnelt M., Rosdahl J., Devriendt J., Slyz A., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx052 , 466, stx052

    2017 doi

  30. [39]

    Kokorev V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968...38K 968, 38

    2024 doi

  31. [41]

    A., Whalen D

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

    2022 doi

  32. [42]

    D., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0022-4073(84)90112-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JQSRT..31..149L 31, 149

    Levermore C. D., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0022-4073(84)90112-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JQSRT..31..149L 31, 149

    1984 doi

  33. [43]

    A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348788 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A.256L 686, A256

    Lupi A., Quadri G., Volonteri M., Colpi M., Regan J. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348788 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A.256L 686, A256

    2024 doi

  34. [44]

    The diverse population of infant Black Holes at 4 z 11: merging, tiny, poor, but mighty, http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01230

    Maiolino R., et al., 2023, JADES . The diverse population of infant Black Holes at 4 z 11: merging, tiny, poor, but mighty, http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01230

    2023 arXiv

  35. [45]

    Martin-Alvarez S., Slyz A., Devriendt J., G \' o mez-Guijarro C., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa1438 , 495, 4475

    2020 doi

  36. [46]

    Martin-Alvarez S., Katz H., Sijacki D., Devriendt J., Slyz A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.2517M 504, 2517

    2021 doi

  37. [47]

    Matthee J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...963..129M 963, 129

    2024 doi

  38. [48]

    McCaffrey J., Regan J., Smith B., Wise J., O'Shea B., Norman M., 2025, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.129138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025OJAp....8E..11M 8, 11

    2025 doi

  39. [49]

    F., Tan J

    McKee C. F., Tan J. C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587434 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...681..771M 681, 771

    2008 doi

  40. [50]

    Monaco A., 2002, @doi [Journal of Marine Systems] 10.1016/S0924-7963(02)00049-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002JMS....33....1M 33-34, 1

    2002 doi

  41. [51]

    K., Theuns T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.2389M 433, 2389

    Monaco P., Sefusatti E., Borgani S., Crocce M., Fosalba P., Sheth R. K., Theuns T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.2389M 433, 2389

    2013 doi

  42. [52]

    I., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699L.125M 699, L125

    Moretti M. I., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699L.125M 699, L125

    2009 doi

  43. [53]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.474..616M 474, 616

    Mortlock D. J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.474..616M 474, 616

    2011 doi

  44. [54]

    M., Bouchet F

    Moutarde F., Alimi J. M., Bouchet F. R., Pellat R., Ramani A., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...382..377M 382, 377

    1991 doi

  45. [55]

    arXiv:2410.17087

    Mummery A., van Velzen S., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241017087M p. arXiv:2410.17087

    2024 doi arXiv

  46. [56]

    G., Anselmi S., Borgani S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.4658M 465, 4658

    Munari E., Monaco P., Sefusatti E., Castorina E., Mohammad F. G., Anselmi S., Borgani S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.4658M 465, 4658

    2017 doi

  47. [57]

    C., O'Shea B

    Natarajan A., Tan J. C., O'Shea B. W., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...692..574N 692, 574

    2009 doi

  48. [58]

    A., Power C., Ward S., Brennan J., McCaffrey J., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.126010 , 7

    O'Brennan H., Regan J. A., Power C., Ward S., Brennan J., McCaffrey J., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.126010 , 7

    2024 doi

  49. [59]

    A., Brennan J., McCaffrey J., Wise J

    O'Brennan H., Regan J. A., Brennan J., McCaffrey J., Wise J. H., Visbal E., Norman M. L., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.00574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250200574O p. arXiv:2502.00574

    2025 doi arXiv

  50. [60]

    W., Abel T., Whalen D., Norman M

    O'Shea B. W., Abel T., Whalen D., Norman M. L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628L...5O 628, L5

    2005 doi

  51. [61]

    Padoan P., Nordlund A ., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/4010.48550/arXiv.0907.0248 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730...40P 730, 40

    2011

  52. [62]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...6P 641, A6

    2020 doi

  53. [63]

    H., Schechter P., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...187..425P 187, 425

    Press W. H., Schechter P., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...187..425P 187, 425

    1974 doi

  54. [64]

    Rasera Y., Teyssier R., 2006, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053116 , 445, 1

    2006 doi

  55. [65]

    E., Comastri A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2016.46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASA...33...54R 33, e054

    Reines A. E., Comastri A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2016.46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASA...33...54R 33, e054

    2016 doi

  56. [66]

    H., Freese K., Winget D

    Rindler-Daller T., Montgomery M. H., Freese K., Winget D. E., Paxton B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..210R 799, 210

    2015 doi

  57. [67]

    Rosdahl J., Teyssier R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.4380R 449, 4380

    2015 doi

  58. [68]

    Rosdahl J., Blaizot J., Aubert D., Stranex T., Teyssier R., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1722 , 436, 2188

    2013 doi

  59. [69]

    N., 1995, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/175303 , 440, 634

    Rosen A., Bregman J. N., 1995, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/175303 , 440, 634

    1995 doi

  60. [70]

    Schaye J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446..521S 446, 521

    2015 doi

  61. [71]

    Schleicher D. R. G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac926 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.6192S 512, 6192

    2022 doi

  62. [72]

    Schmidt M., 1959, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/146614 , 129, 243

    1959 doi

  63. [73]

    Scholtz J., et al., 2024, Net-zero gas inflow: deconstructing the gas consumption history of a massive quiescent galaxy with JWST and ALMA , http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19401

    2024

  64. [74]

    K., Mo H

    Sheth R. K., Mo H. J., Tormen G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04006.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.323....1S 323, 1

    2001

  65. [75]

    C., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2346 , 525, 969

    Singh J., Monaco P., Tan J. C., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2346 , 525, 969

    2023 doi

  66. [76]

    Spolyar D., Freese K., Gondolo P., 2008, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.051101 , 100, 051101

    2008 doi

  67. [77]

    R., Eldridge J

    Stanway E. R., Eldridge J. J., Becker G. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2661 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456..485S 456, 485

    2016 doi

  68. [78]

    C., 2008, in Hunt L

    Tan J. C., 2008, in Hunt L. K., Madden S. C., Schneider R., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 255, Low-Metallicity Star Formation: From the First Stars to Dwarf Galaxies. pp 24--32 ( @eprint arXiv 0808.3918 ), @doi 10.1017/S174392130802454X

    2008 arXiv

  69. [79]

    Tan J. C., Singh J., Cammelli V., Sanati M., Petkova M., Nandal D., Monaco P., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241201828T p. arXiv:2412.01828

    2024 doi arXiv

  70. [80]

    Teyssier R., 2002, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817 , 385, 337

    2002 doi

  71. [81]

    Teyssier R., Fromang S., Dormy E., 2006, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2006.01.042 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JCoPh.218...44T 218, 44

    2006 doi

  72. [82]

    Trakhtenbrot B., Lira P., Netzer H., Cicone C., Maiolino R., Shemmer O., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836....8T 836, 8

    2017 doi

  73. [83]

    Trebitsch M., Blaizot J., Rosdahl J., Devriendt J., Slyz A., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1060 , 470, 224

    2017 doi

  74. [84]

    R., Pontzen A., Anderson L., Bellovary J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1121T 470, 1121

    Tremmel M., Karcher M., Governato F., Volonteri M., Quinn T. R., Pontzen A., Anderson L., Bellovary J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1121T 470, 1121

    2017 doi

  75. [85]

    Trinca A., Schneider R., Valiante R., Graziani L., Zappacosta L., Shankar F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511..616T 511, 616

    2022 doi

  76. [86]

    Villaescusa-Navarro F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9d82 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..250....2V 250, 2

    2020 doi

  77. [87]

    Vogelsberger M., Zavala J., Simpson C., Jenkins A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1713 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.3684V 444, 3684

    2014 doi

  78. [88]

    Wang F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907L...1W 907, L1

    2021 doi

  79. [89]

    Wellons S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.5394W 520, 5394

    2023 doi

  80. [90]

    H., Regan J

    Wise J. H., Regan J. A., O'Shea B. W., Norman M. L., Downes T. P., Xu H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-019-0873-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.566...85W 566, 85

    2019 doi

  81. [91]

    Wu Q., Shen Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9ead , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..263...42W 263, 42

    2022 doi

  82. [92]

    Zeltyn G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966...85Z 966, 85

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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