Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

At least 70% of cosmic stellar mass formed with non-solar oxygen-to-iron ratios.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Most cosmic star formation occurred in gas with non-solar O/Fe; the cosmic mean [Fe/H] lags [O/H] by up to ~0.5 dex.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection The first iron-based cosmic star formation history is a useful, honest extension of the authors' earlier framework, but its central '≥70% non-solar O/Fe' claim leans on a redshift-invariant [O/Fe]–sSFR relation that the paper does not test. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.15782 v2 pith:QZNBJ6XT submitted 2025-11-19 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Trading oxygen for iron II. Oxygen- versus iron-dependent cosmic star formation history

Martyna Chru\'sli\'nska , Mirko Curti , Ruediger Pakmor , Annalisa De Cia , Jorryt Matthee , Aniket Bhagwat , Stephanie Monty This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords cosmic star formation history[O/Fe]–sSFR relationalpha enhancementiron abundanceoxygen abundancemetallicity-dependent star formationsolar abundance patternmetal-poor transients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 cosmic star formation history looks markedly different when measured in iron rather than oxygen, and that star formation with a solar oxygen-to-iron ratio has been rare throughout cosmic history. Using an observationally calibrated relation between a galaxy's [O/Fe] and its specific star formation rate, the authors convert oxygen-based metallicity distributions into iron-based ones and derive the iron-dependent cosmic star formation history. They find that at least 70% of the integrated stellar mass formed with O/Fe above the solar ratio, and that the cosmic average [Fe/H] is up to a factor of three lower than the average [O/H], with the gap widening to redshift z~3 and then plateauing near the core-collapse supernova ratio. This matters because oxygen and iron drive different physical processes—oxygen sets gas cooling, while iron controls stellar opacities, winds, feedback, and the rates of metal-poor transients—so solar-scaled modeling would systematically misrepresent most star formation.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that 'star formation with a near-solar [O/Fe] abundance is rare throughout cosmic history; the bulk (at least 70% across our variations) of the integrated stellar mass formed with O/Fe larger than the solar abundance ratio.' Across the explored model variations, the SFRD-weighted mean [Fe/H] is lower than the mean [O/H] at essentially all redshifts, the offset grows toward z~3 and then approaches a roughly constant value of [O/Fe]~0.4–0.5 dex, corresponding to the core-collapse enrichment ratio. The difference between iron- and oxygen-based cosmic star formation histories is largest in the low-metallicity, high-redshift regime, and the paper val

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the empirically calibrated [O/Fe]–specific star formation rate relation, introduced in the companion Paper I. It links the alpha-enhancement of a galaxy's star-forming gas to its sSFR, because sSFR sets how recently star formation has been producing iron via Type Ia supernovae relative to oxygen from core-collapse supernovae. The relation is parameterized by the CCSN oxygen-to-iron yield, the SN Ia formation efficiency, the SN Ia delay-time distribution, and the average iron mass ejected per CCSN. Combined with empirical distributions of galaxy sSFR, gas-phase oxygen abundance (through the mass-metallicity and fundamental metallicity relations), and the galaxy stellar ma

Load-bearing premise

The entire iron-dependent cosmic star formation history rests on assuming the [O/Fe]–sSFR relation is redshift-invariant and fully determined by sSFR, even though it is calibrated mainly at low redshift and anchored to Milky Way metal-poor stars; if the relation evolves with redshift or depends on additional galaxy properties, the derived iron distribution, the factor-of-three [Fe/H] deficit, and the 'at least 70% non-solar' fraction would all change.

What would settle it

Measure gas-phase [Fe/H] directly in a sample of star-forming galaxies at z~2–3 using rest-frame UV iron transitions or X-ray spectroscopy, and compare the SFRD-weighted mean to the predicted ~0.4–0.5 dex offset below [O/H]; finding [Fe/H] ≈ [O/H] (i.e., near-solar O/Fe) in such galaxies would falsify the framework. Alternatively, a large LGRB absorption sample at z>4 yielding a mean [Fe/H] systematically above the model predictions would challenge the central claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, solar-scaled stellar evolution and spectral synthesis models misrepresent the majority of star formation: iron-scaled effects such as hot-star winds, opacities, and feedback would be underpredicted by up to a factor of ~3, while oxygen-scaled cooling would be only slightly overpredicted.
  • The low-metallicity cosmic star formation history is larger and peaks at lower redshift when defined in [Fe/H] rather than [O/H], shifting the expected redshift distribution of metal-poor stellar populations.
  • Rates of events linked to metal-poor progenitors, such as long gamma-ray bursts and stellar black hole mergers, are underestimated when oxygen-based cosmic star formation histories are used instead of iron-based ones, by a redshift-dependent factor.
  • The Sun's abundances are consistent with formation in Milky Way-like galaxies at the solar birth epoch, but a slow-iron-enrichment scenario would make solar-O/Fe stars atypical even there, disfavoring that scenario if the Milky Way is representative.
  • Absorption-derived iron abundances from long gamma-ray burst hosts are broadly consistent with the model's iron-based SFRD-weighted averages, whereas oxygen-based averages lie systematically higher.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A concrete, testable extension the authors leave implicit: population synthesis and stellar spectral models should be re-run with separate O and Fe abundance scalings rather than a single Z/Z_sun, which would likely change predicted black hole masses and ionizing spectra in high-redshift galaxies.
  • The assumption that the [O/Fe]–sSFR relation is redshift-invariant and set only by sSFR could be tested directly with JWST-era rest-frame optical iron measurements in z>3 star-forming galaxies; any detected evolution would require recalibrating the framework.
  • The framework can be inverted: a larger sample of LGRB hosts at z>4, with robust dust-corrected [Fe/H], could constrain the Type Ia supernova delay-time distribution and core-collapse iron yields, since those parameters drive the model spread.
  • Gravitational-wave merger rate evolution should show a different redshift dependence than oxygen-based predictions; current and near-future detectors could distinguish these scenarios if the local merger rate is calibrated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a phenomenological framework to derive the iron-dependent cosmic star formation history (cSFH) from the oxygen-based cSFH of Chruślińska & Nelemans (2019) and Chruślińska et al. (2021), using the empirical [O/Fe]–sSFR relation from Chruślińska et al. (2024, Ch24). The key result is that star formation with near-solar O/Fe is rare: across model variations, at most 30% of the integrated stellar mass since z=10 formed with −0.15<[O/Fe]<0.05, so at least 70% formed non-solar. The model also predicts that the SFRD-weighted average [Fe/H] is lower than [O/H] by up to ∼0.5 dex, with the offset peaking near z=3, and that using oxygen-based metallicities biases stellar evolution, spectral, and transient-rate predictions. The framework is tested against RR Lyrae stars, Milky Way globular clusters, and absorption-based LGRB metallicities, and is accompanied by a large set of model variations and an explicit discussion of uncertainties.

Significance. If the central claim holds, it implies that solar-scaled abundance modeling is systematically biased for most of cosmic star formation, with consequences for stellar evolution models, population synthesis, galaxy spectral interpretation, and compact-object merger rates. The paper's strengths are its transparent construction from empirical scaling relations, the explicit bracketing of uncertainties through model variations, the sensitivity analysis of the intra-galaxy metallicity scatter (Appendix D), and the qualitative cross-checks against three independent samples. The redshift-invariance of the [O/Fe]–sSFR relation, however, is a load-bearing assumption that is not yet empirically tested at z≳2.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (1); Sec. 4, Fig. 4] The headline claim (≥70% integrated stellar mass with non-solar O/Fe) rests on the [O/Fe]–sSFR relation (Eq. 1), assumed redshift-invariant (Sec. 2, ingredient 1). The empirical constraints in Fig. 1 are mostly local; the high-sSFR plateau is anchored to old MW stars. The fast/mixed/slow variations do not test a systematic redshift dependence. A −0.2 dex offset at fixed sSFR for z>2 would shift the sensitive log10(sSFR)≈−9 locus (Sec. 4) toward the near-solar band and could push the near-solar fraction above the 30% cap. The LGRB comparison (Sec. 6) is admitted to be non-constraining. Please add a redshift-dependent normalisation variation (e.g., −0.2 dex at z>2) and show its effect on Fig. 4 and the integrated fraction.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Sec. 6] The independent cross-checks do not yet validate the Fe-dependent cSFH in the redshift and mass regime that drives the integrated fraction. RR Lyrae and globular clusters probe old, low-metallicity populations in low-mass galaxies, which contribute only a small part of the cosmic SFRD; the LGRB ⟨[Fe/H]⟩_HI comparison is explicitly non-constraining at z>3 (Sec. 6). Thus the main conclusion is an extrapolation of a locally-calibrated relation. The authors should state clearly what observations would be needed to verify the relation at z≈2–4, or demonstrate that the result is insensitive to the plausible range of redshift evolution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. G.3 caption] 'Same as Fig. G.3' should read 'Same as Fig. G.2' (self-reference typo).
  2. [Sec. 2.2] 'SMFR' should be 'SFMR' in the first paragraph; 'Sec. 2 3' is missing a dot.
  3. [Sec. 5.1] The consistency check against literature SFRD estimates uses a factor-of-10 tolerance; this is very generous and could hide real discrepancies. Please justify or tighten.
  4. [Appendix D] The fiducial choice σ_∇O/Fe = σ_∇O/H/4 is described as arbitrary. The paper handles this correctly, but a physical motivation (e.g., from MW star scatter at fixed [Fe/H]) would strengthen the analysis.
  5. [Abstract] The 'factor 3' deficit refers to linear abundance, not dex; consider stating 'logarithmic offset of ~0.5 dex' to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the Fe-dependent cSFH is a forward application of an empirically constrained [O/Fe]–sSFR relation from prior work, with independent validation; sensitivity is not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (≥70% of cosmic stellar mass formed with non-solar O/Fe) is derived by combining an assumed [O/Fe]–sSFR relation (Sec. 2.1, Eq. 1, from Ch24) with independent empirical distributions of sSFR, Z_O/H, and galaxy mass functions. The output is not an input in disguise: Ch24's relation is empirically constrained by galaxy observations and theoretical expectations, and is not fitted to the cosmic near-solar fraction. The paper explicitly treats this relation as an uncertain input ('The [O/Fe]–sSFR relation represents the dominant source of uncertainty in the ⟨[O/Fe]⟩_SFRD and in the fraction of the SFRD with near-solar O/Fe abundance ratios,' Sec. 4), and it cross-checks the resulting f_SFR(Z_Fe/H, z) against independent samples (RR Lyrae, MW globular clusters, LGRB hosts). The authors even note that the LGRB comparison is 'not constraining for our models' (Sec. 6), which is a stated limitation rather than a circular step. No equation reduces the output to the input by construction: the [O/Fe]–sSFR relation is not defined in terms of the cSFH, and the cSFH is not used to set the relation's normalization. Self-citation of Ch24 is load-bearing, but Ch24 is independently supported and externally falsifiable, so per the reviewing rules this does not constitute circularity. The sensitivity of the 'at least 70%' conclusion to the assumed redshift-invariance and normalization of the [O/Fe]–sSFR relation is a robustness/correctness concern, not a circularity concern.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on several empirical inputs inherited from prior work (notably Ch24, ChN19, Ch21): the [O/Fe]-sSFR relation, the FMR, the SFMR, and the low-mass GSMF. Many parameters are varied to bracket uncertainty, but they are still free inputs rather than derived quantities. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • [O/Fe]_CCSN = 0.52 dex
    Assumed average CCSN O/Fe, set from metal-poor MW stars; fixes plateau of [O/Fe]-sSFR and directly sets ⟨[O/Fe]⟩_SFRD.
  • m_Fe^CCSN (CCSN iron yield) = 0.03 / 0.05 / 0.10 M_sun
    Varied to bracket uncertainty in the relation slope; one of the most uncertain inputs in Eq. 1.
  • τ_Ia,min (minimum SN Ia delay) = 40 Myr / 400 Myr / Greggio mixed
    Sets turnover of [O/Fe]-sSFR; brackets fast vs slow iron enrichment.
  • ∇_FMR0 = 0.27 dex
    Strength of Z_O/H–sSFR anticorrelation in the FMR, adopted from Ch21.
  • Z_O/H;MZR0 (MZR normalization) = +0.2 dex relative to Curti et al. 2020; fiducial 9.0
    Systematic O calibration shift; sets absolute scale of both O and Fe abundances.
  • σ_∇O/H (intragalaxy O scatter) = 0.14 dex
    Gaussian dispersion of SFR in Z_O/H; affects low-metallicity tails.
  • σ_∇O/Fe = σ_∇O/H/4 ≈ 0.035 dex
    Arbitrary correlation between O and Fe scatter; only affects the near-solar fraction, with extremes tested.
  • a_SFR (SFMR slope) = 1.0 or 0.8
    Main-sequence slope at low masses; controls sSFR distribution and thus the [O/Fe] mapping.
  • α_GSMF(z) (low-mass slope) = -1.4 - 0.08 z (or fixed -1.45)
    Extrapolation of GSMF to 10^6 M_sun; major high-z uncertainty.
  • FMR normalization evolution at z>3 = -0.0357 dex per z
    Ad hoc linear decrease between z=3 and 10 to match possible evolution.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption The [O/Fe]-sSFR relation is redshift-invariant and depends only on sSFR.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1 as ingredient (1); if it evolves, the Fe mapping via Eq. 1 is invalid.
  • domain assumption The fundamental metallicity relation (FMR) is z-invariant at z≲3; at z>3 only an optional linear normalization decrease is applied.
    Sec. 2.2; JWST data allow but do not prove this, and it drives Z_O/H(z) and hence Z_Fe/H(z).
  • domain assumption SN Ia delay-time distribution is a power law f_Ia ∝ t^-1 (or Greggio 2010) with minimum delay τ_Ia,min, and CCSN yields set C_Ia/CC.
    Eq. 1; different f_Ia produce degenerate relations (Ch24), but τ_Ia,min and m_Fe^CCSN bracket the slope/turnover.
  • ad hoc to paper Within a 'galaxy' the SFR spreads normally in Z_O/H and Z_Fe/H with σ=0.14 dex; the O-Fe scatter σ_O/Fe is an arbitrary input.
    Sec. 2 and Appendix D; affects the near-solar O/Fe fraction, though extremes keep it <30%.
  • domain assumption The low-mass end of the galaxy stellar mass function is extrapolated as a power law to M*=10^6 M_sun.
    Appendix A; this extrapolation is essentially unconstrained and drives high-z, low-metallicity tails.
  • domain assumption Absorption-based [M/H]_tot of LGRB hosts with Zn-based dust corrections equals [Fe/H].
    Sec. 3.1.3; if not, the LGRB validation is biased, though they restrict to the Zn subset and note caveats.
  • domain assumption Mean [Fe/H] of RR Lyrae in local dwarfs represents iron enrichment of low-mass galaxies at z≳2-5.
    Sec. 3.1.1; used as a cross-check, not to fit the model.
  • domain assumption MW globular clusters probe high-SFRD regions of f_SFR(Z_Fe/H,z).
    Sec. 3.1.2; used as a cross-check only.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trading oxygen for iron II. Oxygen- versus iron-dependent cosmic star formation history." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QZNBJ6XT

@misc{pith2026251115782,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trading oxygen for iron II. Oxygen- versus iron-dependent cosmic star formation history},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QZNBJ6XT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.15782}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Due to their different nucleosynthetic origin, a stellar population produces oxygen (O) and iron (Fe) on different timescales and their relative abundance can deviate strongly from solar. Galaxy formation models should treat these elements separately, as they play a distinct role in shaping physical phenomena. For example, oxygen mainly sets the gas cooling rate, while the iron abundance sets stellar atmosphere opacities impacting stellar evolution, spectra and feedback. Observations of star-forming galaxies usually only constrain gas-phase oxygen abundance, vastly limiting our capabilities of separating the cosmic evolution of oxygen and iron. Here, we present an observationally-motivated framework to scale the cosmic evolution of O and Fe abundances. We apply the relation between the alpha-enhancement and galaxies' specific star formation rate ([O/Fe]-sSFR; Chruslinska et al. 2024) to derive the Fe and O-dependent cosmic star formation history (cSFH). We find that star formation with near-solar O/Fe is rare: at least 70% of the integrated cosmic stellar mass forms at non-solar O/Fe. The cosmic average metallicity is generally lower in [Fe/H] than in [O/H] (by up to a factor 3), with the offset increasing from redshifts z=0 to z~3 and then approaching the core-collapse O/Fe ratio. We validate our results against samples that probe the Fe-dependent cSFH in different regimes such as absorption-derived <[Fe/H]> from long gamma-ray bursts. Our results impact the interpretations of stellar and galaxy spectra and the predicted rates of transients, especially those linked to metal-poor progenitors (e.g., black hole mergers).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.15782 by Aniket Bhagwat, Annalisa De Cia, Jorryt Matthee, Martyna Chru\'sli\'nska, Mirko Curti, Ruediger Pakmor, Stephanie Monty.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: summarizes constraints on the [O/Fe] - sSFR relation derived by Ch24, who also show that most of current theoreti￾cal expectations are consistent with these constraints. The gray boxes in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of the gas-phase ZO/H-MZR in our model against z > 3 data. MZR(z>3) predicted based on the known evolution of the SFMR and z-invariant FMR (modelled as in Ch21) is consistent with the current data, but additional evolution may be present. Solid lines - MZR at z=0, 1,3 10 assuming a z-invariant FMR. Dashed line - MZR at z=10, assuming additional evolution in the FMR normalization at z > 3. Data po… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of the cosmic SFRD at different [Fe/H] and z (color scale), shown for an example variation described in Sec. 2 Black/brown lines: SFRD-weighted average [O/H] / [Fe/H] at each z. Black/brown contours enclose 90% of the SFRD to further show the offset between the fSFR([O/H],z) and fSFR([Fe/H],z). White solid lines: [Fe/H] below which M∗ < 108M⊙ galaxies contribute at least 10% of the SFRD (thin … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: The gray area indicates that, across our models, the frac￾tion of cosmic stellar mass formed since z=10 with near-solar [O/Fe] (between –0.15 and 0.05 dex) is at most 30%. Lines show the frac￾tion of the total SFRD(z) formed with near-solar [O/Fe]. Bottom: SFRD weighted mean [O/Fe] as a function of redshift/lookback time. At z < 4 (z > 4), the line styles distinguish between the assumptions about the … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows that the results discussed above are consistent with the MW being representative of the star-forming popula￾tion, and the Sun’s abundances being common for stars formed in such galaxies 4-5 Gyr ago. In our model, MW–like mass galaxies are among the dominant contributors to the cosmic SFRD at z ≲ 2, consistent with the view that the MW and its progenitors are L∗-like systems. Using the FMR ( [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Right: cSFH for different combinations of assumptions about the GSMF (solid/dashed lines: αGSMF steepening with z/ fixed), SFMR (thin/thick lines: P23 with aSFR=1/aSFR=0.8, dotted line: P23 with additional evolution at z > 2) and the contribution of SB (black/gray lines - negligible/high). Data points - observational estimates (see legend), red band - estimate from Madau & Fragos (2017). Where necessary, w… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SFRD as a function of redshift or lookback time. Gray: total; orange/blue: SFRD at [Fe/H]/[O/H] below -0.65 threshold, chosen to roughly select sub-SMC metallicity environments. Shaded regions span the range of results for different model variations with αGSMF(z). The left/right panels use lookback time/z as the primary x-axis to show assumptions most relevant at low/high z. Green dotted lines in the right… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SFRD-weighted mean ⟨[Fe/H]⟩SFRD as a function of redshift, spanned by our models (orange/purple regions) with selected variations shown as lines. The corresponding ⟨[O/H]⟩SFRD range is shown in pale blue (same in both panels). Top/bottom panels: assuming [O/Fe]–sSFR relation with “fast”/“slow” Fe enrichment. The vertical lines separate three z ranges where the line styles compare different assumptions (see… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. The impact of stellar binaries and star cluster dynamics on pair-instability supernovae

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Binary interactions and cluster dynamics boost PISN rates by up to 3x versus single stars, enabling constraints on stellar-wind mass loss and galaxy metallicity distributions.

  2. The impact of stellar binaries and star cluster dynamics on pair-instability supernovae

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 conditional novelty 7.0

    Binary evolution and cluster dynamics can change the cosmic PISN rate by more than an order of magnitude and already tension with SN 2018ibb limits unless Zmax is lowered.

  3. Inferring the role of binary neutron star mergers in r-process nucleosynthesis with multi-messenger observations using Cosmic Explorer and Einstein Telescope

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A new redshift-correlation technique with third-generation GW detectors can constrain the BNS contribution to cosmic r-process nucleosynthesis to 5-6% precision via Fisher forecasts on mock bright- and dark-siren data.

  4. The Stellar Winds Atlas II: Black Hole Formation at Solar Metallicity

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Black hole masses at solar metallicity are set by whether a star becomes a Wolf-Rayet star before collapse, and cool supergiant winds control that split.

  5. Can current models predict the local black hole merger rate?

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Theoretical predictions for local BBH merger rates exceed observations by a factor >10 under conservative SFRD and metallicity assumptions, indicating need for revisions in stellar evolution.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

238 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Algera, H. S. B., Inami, H., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6142

    2023

  2. [2]

    M., Nissen, P

    Amarsi, A. M., Nissen, P. E., & Skúladóttir, Á. 2019, A&A, 630, A104

    2019

  3. [3]

    Andrews, B. H. & Martini, P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 140 Arellano-Córdova, K. Z., Esteban, C., García-Rojas, J., & Méndez-Delgado, J. E. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1051

    2013

  4. [4]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141

    2021

  5. [5]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2009

  6. [6]

    K., Driver, S

    Baldry, I. K., Driver, S. P., Loveday, J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 621

    2012

  7. [7]

    E., Bulik, T., & O’Shaughnessy, R

    Belczynski, K., Holz, D. E., Bulik, T., & O’Shaughnessy, R. 2016, Nature, 534, 512

    2016

  8. [8]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04925

    Bellazzini, M., Muraveva, T., & Garofalo, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04925

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Belokurov, V . & Kravtsov, A. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3198

    2024

  10. [10]

    E., Cenko, S

    Berger, E., Penprase, B. E., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 979

    2006

  11. [11]

    E., et al

    Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., Whitaker, K. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 92

    2024

  12. [12]

    J., & Dopita, M

    Bian, F., Kewley, L. J., & Dopita, M. A. 2018, ApJ, 859, 175

    2018

  13. [13]

    & Fritze-v

    Bicker, J. & Fritze-v. Alvensleben, U. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 443, L19

    2005

  14. [14]

    I., Grogin, N., & Koekemoer, A

    Bisigello, L., Caputi, K. I., Grogin, N., & Koekemoer, A. 2018, A&A, 609, A82 Björklund, R., Sundqvist, J. O., Singh, S. M., Puls, J., & Najarro, F. 2023, A&A, 676, A109

    2018

  15. [15]

    2021, ApJ, 907, 110

    Boco, L., Lapi, A., Chruslinska, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 110

    2021

  16. [16]

    A., Brinchmann, J., Bouché, N., et al

    Boogaard, L. A., Brinchmann, J., Bouché, N., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A27

    2018

  17. [17]

    Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.-P., & Urbaneja, M. A. 2022, ApJ, 940, 32

    2022

  18. [18]

    A., et al

    Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.-P., Urbaneja, M. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 64

    2016

  19. [19]

    M., Fragos, T., Salafia, O

    Briel, M. M., Fragos, T., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A84

    2025

  20. [20]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151

    2004

  21. [21]

    S., Berger, E., Stevenson, S., et al

    Broekgaarden, F. S., Berger, E., Stevenson, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5737

    2022

  22. [22]

    & Loeb, A

    Bromm, V . & Loeb, A. 2003, Nature, 425, 812

    2003

  23. [23]

    mixed Fe en- richment

    Bromm, V . & Loeb, A. 2003, Nature, 425, 812 Article number, page 18 of 21 M. Chru´sli´nska , M. Curti, R. Pakmor, A. De Cia, J. Matthee, A. Bhagwat, S. Monty: cosmic evolution of O & Fe abundances Fig. G.2.Distribution of the cosmic SFRD at different [O/Fe] and look- back time (color scale), shown for our example variation, in particular, assuming the [O...

    2003

  24. [24]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

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

    2023

  25. [25]

    M., Eldridge, J

    Byrne, C. M., Eldridge, J. J., & Stanway, E. R. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2433

    2025

  26. [26]

    M., Stanway, E

    Byrne, C. M., Stanway, E. R., Eldridge, J. J., McSwiney, L., & Townsend, O. T. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5329

    2022

  27. [27]

    I., Deshmukh, S., Ashby, M

    Caputi, K. I., Deshmukh, S., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 45

    2017

  28. [28]

    2009, A&A, 505, 139

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R., & Lucatello, S. 2009, A&A, 505, 139

    2009

  29. [29]

    2011, A&A, 530, A138

    Casagrande, L., Schönrich, R., Asplund, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A138

    2011

  30. [30]

    M., Zavala, J

    Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., Spilker, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 77

    2018

  31. [31]

    2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Catelan, M. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 310, IAU Colloq. 193: Variable Stars in the Local Group, ed. D. W. Kurtz & K. R. Pollard, 113

    2004

  32. [32]

    2009, Ap&SS, 320, 261

    Catelan, M. 2009, Ap&SS, 320, 261

    2009

  33. [33]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.17110

    Chemerynska, I., Atek, H., Dayal, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.17110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    A., Stanway, E

    Chrimes, A. A., Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3479

    2020

  35. [35]

    2004, A&A, 425, 913 Chru´sli´nska, M

    Christensen, L., Hjorth, J., & Gorosabel, J. 2004, A&A, 425, 913 Chru´sli´nska, M. & Nelemans, G. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5300

    2004

  36. [36]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 5012 Chru´sli´nska, M., Nelemans, G., Boco, L., & Lapi, A

    Chruslinska, M., Nelemans, G., & Belczynski, K. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5012 Chru´sli´nska, M., Nelemans, G., Boco, L., & Lapi, A. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4994 Chru´sli´nska, M., Pakmor, R., Matthee, J., & Matsuno, T. 2024a, A&A, 686, A186 Chru´sli´nska, M., Pakmor, R., Matthee, J., & Matsuno, T. 2024b, A&A, 686, A186

    2019

  37. [37]

    2023, A&A, 674, A18

    Clementini, G., Ripepi, V ., Garofalo, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A18

    2023

  38. [38]

    Coelho, P. R. T. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1027

    2014

  39. [39]

    A., Price-Whelan, A

    Collaboration, T. A., Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip ˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The As- tronomical Journal, 156, 123

    2018

  40. [40]

    L., Margutti, R., Terreran, G., et al

    Coppejans, D. L., Margutti, R., Terreran, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, L23

    2020

  41. [41]

    2024, in Black Holes in the Era of Gravitational-Wave Astronomy, ed

    Costa, G., Chrušli´nska, M., Klencki, J., et al. 2024, in Black Holes in the Era of Gravitational-Wave Astronomy, ed. M. Arca Sedda, E. Bortolas, & M. Spera, 1–148

    2024

  42. [42]

    G., Bressan, A., et al

    Costa, G., Shepherd, K. G., Bressan, A., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A193

    2025

  43. [43]

    2019, A&A, 627, A42

    Cresci, G., Mannucci, F., & Curti, M. 2019, A&A, 627, A42

    2019

  44. [44]

    E., McLure, R

    Cullen, F., Shapley, A. E., McLure, R. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 903

    2021

  45. [45]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1384

    Curti, M., Cresci, G., Mannucci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1384

    2017

  46. [46]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 425

    Curti, M., D’Eugenio, F., Carniani, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 425

    2023

  47. [47]

    2024, A&A, 684, A75

    Curti, M., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A75

    2024

  48. [48]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 944 Davé, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B

    Curti, M., Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., & Maiolino, R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 944 Davé, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1354 De Cia, A., Ledoux, C., Mattsson, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A97 De Cia, A., Ledoux, C., Petitjean, P., & Savaglio, S. 2018, A&A, 611, A76 De Cia, A., Roman-Duval, J., Konstantopoulou, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A21...

    arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.16307

    Disberg, P., Lankreijer, A., Chru ´sli´nska, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.16307

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    T., McLure, R

    Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3222

    2024

  51. [51]

    Eldridge, J. J. & Stanway, E. R. 2022, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics, 60, 455

    2022

  52. [52]

    L., Patton, D

    Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, ApJ, 672, L107

    2008

  53. [53]

    K., Frankel, N., Lind, K., et al

    Feuillet, D. K., Frankel, N., Lind, K., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1742

    2019

  54. [54]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, L13

    2023

  55. [55]

    M., Civano, F., & Suh, H

    Fornasini, F. M., Civano, F., & Suh, H. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 771

    2020

  56. [56]

    S., Levan, A

    Fruchter, A. S., Levan, A. J., Strolger, L., et al. 2006, Nature, 441, 463

    2006

  57. [57]

    J., Vreeswijk, P

    Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., Van Paradijs, J., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670

    1998

  58. [58]

    Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S. D. M., & Tremonti, C. A. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 41

    2005

  59. [59]

    M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06254

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    J., Bestenlehner, J

    Garcia, M., Evans, C. J., Bestenlehner, J. M., et al. 2021, Experimental Astron- omy, 51, 887

    2021

  61. [61]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 2959

    Giacobbo, N., Mapelli, M., & Spera, M. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2959

    2018

  62. [62]

    2022, A&A, 663, A1 Götberg, Y ., de Mink, S

    Goswami, S., Silva, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A1 Götberg, Y ., de Mink, S. E., Groh, J. H., Leitherer, C., & Norman, C. 2019, A&A, 629, A134 Götberg, Y ., de Mink, S. E., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A134 Gräfener, G. & Hamann, W. R. 2008, A&A, 482, 945

    2022

  63. [63]

    F., Schady, P., & Fruchter, A

    Graham, J. F., Schady, P., & Fruchter, A. S. 2023, ApJ, 954, 13

    2023

  64. [64]

    S., & Kewley, L

    Grasha, K., Roy, A., Sutherland, R. S., & Kewley, L. J. 2021, ApJ, 908, 241

    2021

  65. [65]

    2005, A&A, 441, 1055

    Greggio, L. 2005, A&A, 441, 1055

    2005

  66. [66]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 22

    Greggio, L. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 22

    2010

  67. [67]

    & Sauval, A

    Grevesse, N. & Sauval, A. J. 1998, Space Sci. Rev., 85, 161 Grudi´c, M. Y ., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3239

    1998

  68. [68]

    2020, A&A, 643, A8

    Gruppioni, C., Béthermin, M., Loiacono, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A8

    2020

  69. [69]

    L., McLure, R

    Hamadouche, M. L., McLure, R. J., Carnall, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.09592

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    C., J., Johnson, B

    Hao, C.-N., Kennicutt, R. C., J., Johnson, B. D., Calzetti, D., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 741, 124

    2011

  71. [71]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  72. [72]

    R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J

    Hayden, M. R., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 132 Article number, page 19 of 21 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda

    2015

  73. [73]

    L., Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288

    2003

  74. [74]

    2023, in The Encyclopedia of Cosmology

    Heger, A., Müller, B., & Mandel, I. 2023, in The Encyclopedia of Cosmology. Set 2: Frontiers in Cosmology. V olume 3: Black Holes, ed. Z. Haiman, 61– 111

    2023

  75. [75]

    E., Brammer, G

    Heintz, K. E., Brammer, G. B., Giménez-Arteaga, C., et al. 2023, Nature Astron- omy, 7, 1517

    2023

  76. [76]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 143

    Henry, A., Rafelski, M., Sunnquist, B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 143

    2021

  77. [77]

    L., et al

    Hernandez, S., Aloisi, A., James, B. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 226

    2021

  78. [78]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19

    2013

  79. [79]

    2005, A&A, 443, 581

    Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2005, A&A, 443, 581

    2005

  80. [80]

    2003, Nature, 423, 847

    Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., Møller, P., et al. 2003, Nature, 423, 847

    2003

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.