A quasi-star is born: formation and evolution of accreting quasi-stars as a pathway to Little Red Dots at non-zero metallicity

C. Charbonnel; D. Schaerer; E. Cenci; J. Roman-Garza; M. Xiao; P. Oesch; R. Marques-Chaves; T. Fragos

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 32 references

A quasi-star is born: formation and evolution of accreting quasi-stars as a pathway to Little Red Dots at non-zero metallicity

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quasi-stars—black holes wrapped in bloated stellar envelopes—formed from stars that accrete at least 0.1 solar masses per year can account for the rest-optical emission of Little Red Dots, at any metallicity.

desk verdict A serious, clearly-scoped modeling exploration of accreting quasi-stars as LRD sources; the GRI-to-BH link is assumed, not shown, but the paper is honest about that. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.21714 v2 pith:ROZP66W5 submitted 2026-03-23 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

J. Roman-Garza , C. Charbonnel , D. Schaerer , T. Fragos , E. Cenci , R. Marques-Chaves , P. Oesch , M. Xiao This is my paper

classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

keywords quasi-starsLittleRedDotssupermassivestarsgeneral-relativisticinstabilityblackholeaccretionstellarevolutionJWSTEddingtonluminosity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tackles a JWST puzzle: Little Red Dots are compact, luminous sources at high redshift whose optical light looks like a hot, dense blackbody, not a normal galaxy. The authors argue these are quasi-stars—giant stellar envelopes held up not by fusion but by the radiation of a central black hole eating the envelope from inside. They show the path starts with a low-mass protostar that gains mass faster than ~0.1 solar masses per year: the star stays cool and fully mixed, swells to tens of thousands of solar masses, then its core collapses by the general-relativistic instability while the envelope survives. The quasi-star then outshines and outlives its birth phase by 100–1000 times, shining at the Eddington luminosity of its total mass and matching the luminosities and temperatures of Little Red Dots. Crucially, the scenario works from zero to a few percent metallicity, so it needs no pristine, metal-free gas—consistent with the metal lines seen in these objects.

What carries the argument

The engine is the quasi-star: a stellar-mass envelope in hydrostatic equilibrium around a central black hole, supported by the radiation pressure of accretion. Formation is triggered by the general-relativistic instability (GRI)—a relativistic correction to the adiabatic index Γ1 that marks the mass at which the supermassive star's core collapses; the paper assumes this collapse yields a black hole, not a supernova. The envelope then feeds the hole at a convection-limited Bondi accretion rate, whose characteristic timescale τ′ ≈ 10^8 yr sets the quasi-star lifetime. The mass-luminosity relation L ≈ L_Edd = 3.7×10^4 (M/M_sun) L_sun then maps an observed LRD luminosity directly onto a total qu

What would settle it

A numerical stellar-evolution calculation at Z~0.01 with accretion ≥0.1 M_sun/yr that follows the GRI past its onset and finds a general-relativistic instability supernova (no surviving envelope) would falsify the formation step. Observationally, a clean sample of LRD-like sources with well-measured SEDs lying below L~10^9 L_sun at the predicted Teff ~4000–9000 K would contradict the minimum-accretion-rate floor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A quasi-star forms when a rapidly accreting supermassive star (built from a low-mass protostar at mass gain rates ≥ 0.1 M_sun/yr) hits the general-relativistic instability at ~3.5×10^4–6.6×10^4 M_sun, collapses its core to a black hole, and leaves the envelope behind. The envelope is supported by the black hole's accretion luminosity, and the object shines near the Eddington luminosity L ≈ 3.7×10^4 (M/M_sun) L_sun for 10^7–10^8 yr—100–1000 times longer than its stellar birth phase. Comparing these tracks to the observed Little Red Dots, the paper finds their luminosities L_bol ≈ 10^9.5–10^11.5 L_sun correspond to quasi-star masses 10^4.5–10^6.5 M_sun, and the minimum observed luminosity (~10

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the general-relativistic instability converts the supermassive star's core into a black hole while leaving a bloated envelope to become the quasi-star; the paper explicitly excludes the alternative outcome, a general-relativistic instability supernova that would destroy the star entirely.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Little Red Dots at z<4.5 with bolometric luminosities 10^9.5–10^11.5 L_sun correspond to quasi-star total masses of 10^4.5–10^6.5 M_sun, making the observed luminosity a direct tracer of quasi-star mass.
Since the quasi-star phase lasts 100–1000 times longer than the supermassive-star phase, the sky should be dominated by quasi-stars rather than their progenitors; the bright stellar 'flash' is a brief, rare phase.
The sharp minimum observed luminosity of ~10^9 L_sun translates to a minimum progenitor accretion rate of ~0.1 M_sun/yr; no LRD should be fainter unless a slower-accreting quasi-star channel exists.
Estimates of black hole masses in Little Red Dots that assume Eddington-limit scaling may overestimate the true black hole mass by up to two orders of magnitude, because the quasi-star mass is only an upper limit to the black hole mass.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: the model predicts a luminosity cut-off in the LRD population around 10^9 L_sun; deep surveys that push below this threshold should see a steep drop in number counts unless a slower-accreting channel exists.
Inference: metallicity-independence implies LRD abundance at fixed luminosity should not track the gas metallicity of their environments; if such a correlation appears, it would favor metal-free channels over this one.
Inference: in the continuous-accretion branch, a quasi-star fed at 1 M_sun/yr can in principle grow toward 10^8 M_sun and 10^13 L_sun, suggesting a possible continuum between Little Red Dots and the brightest high-redshift quasars—an extrapolation the paper notes but does not develop.
Inference: the cool quasi-blackbody SED (Teff 4000–9000 K) with no AGN broad lines is a distinctive prediction; prism spectra of bright LRDs can test whether the temperature-luminosity track holds.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Plain take: this is a solid model paper, not a discovery. The new piece is the parameter space: non-zero metallicity and continued accretion onto the quasi-star after GRI, plus an explicit comparison to the de Graaff LRD sample. The MESA runs are standard and the paper is transparent about where the numerics stop and where analytic extrapolation begins. They don't fit anything to the LRD data; the mass-luminosity relation is Eddington, and alpha is varied rather than tuned. That earns credit.

The main product is a testable claim: if rapidly accreting SMSs (Mdot >= 0.1 Msun/yr) reach GRI while on the main sequence, the surviving envelope can shine at L ~ 1e9.5-1e11.5 Lsun for 1e7-1e8 yr, matching LRD bolometric luminosities, with masses 1e4.5-1e6.5 Msun. The metallicity dependence is weak, though 'independent' is a stretch: MGRI changes by a factor ~2 from Z=0 to Z=0.01.

Now the soft spots, in order.

First, the GRI-to-BH transition is assumed. The runs stop at about 70% of the true fGR=1 instability mass, they 'expect' the core to collapse to a BH, and they explicitly exclude the GRISN branch. If the real outcome for these accretion rates is a GRISN, the quasi-star never forms and the whole LRD connection collapses. This is the founding assumption of the quasi-star picture, not a new flaw, but the paper should have flagged it more prominently than an appendix remark. A check against Nagele et al. criteria or a collapse calculation would materially strengthen it.

Second, the late QS evolution rests on an analytic formula with a free alpha (0.5-1.5) and an opacity taken from the simulations. The authors admit Eq. B.2 underestimates the simulated BH accretion rate, so lifetimes are upper limits. That is honest, but it means the quoted lifetimes and maximum BH masses are uncertain by factors of a few.

Third, the LRD comparison is qualitative: no error bars on the inferred Teff and Lbol, no selection function, and the HRD overlap is plausible rather than quantified. That is okay for a letter, but it limits the claim.

There are also minor internal inconsistencies: the abstract quotes 6.8e4 Msun for the 1 Msun/yr GRI, while the text and table say 6.6e4; the intro lists a 0.001 Msun/yr case that is never discussed. These are typos, not substantive.

Bottom line: the paper is a serious, well-documented model with a load-bearing but explicit assumption. It deserves peer review and will be useful as a reference point for LRD/SMS discussions. I would send it to a good referee, with the request that the GRI question be addressed or at least clearly separated as a model assumption.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper models the formation and evolution of quasi-stars (QSs) as a pathway to explain the rest-optical emission of Little Red Dots (LRDs). Using MESA, the authors evolve accreting proto-stars with maximum mass-gain rates of 0.01, 0.1, and 1 M_sun/yr and metallicities Z = 0 to 0.01, allowing them to reach the supermassive-star (SMS) regime. They identify the general-relativistic instability (GRI) at masses ~3.5e4–6.6e4 M_sun and luminosities ~1e9 L_sun, then match the post-GRI evolution to a BH-supported QS phase using the MESA-QUEST module and an analytic extrapolation for BH growth (Appendix B). They find QS lifetimes ~1e7–1e8 yr, roughly 100–1000 times the progenitor lifetimes, and compare the tracks to LRD samples, inferring QS masses of ~1e4.5–1e6.5 M_sun and a minimum progenitor accretion rate of ~0.1 M_sun/yr. The proposed scenario is claimed to be essentially metallicity-independent.

Significance. If the formation step is robust, this paper offers an appealing, metallicity-independent framework for LRD optical emission that avoids the need for metal-free DCBH or Pop III SMS channels. Its strengths include the systematic exploration of accretion rates and metallicities, the use of a standard stellar-evolution code, and the fact that no parameter is fitted to the observed LRDs; the luminosity–mass relation is essentially the Eddington relation and the parameter alpha in the BH-accretion extrapolation is varied rather than tuned. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions, e.g. a minimum LRD luminosity set by the minimum progenitor accretion rate and the existence of rare low-luminosity SMS/QS objects. The main weakness is that the central step—the conversion of the SMS into a BH-enclosed QS—is not simulated but assumed, and the end-of-life QS properties rely on an analytic extrapolation whose uncertainty is not fully propagated into the observational claims.

major comments (3)

[Appendix A, Eq. (A.2)] The entire QS formation channel rests on the assumption that the GRI leads to a central BH while the envelope survives, yet the paper does not compute this transition. The MESA runs stop at f_GR=1.5, i.e. at ~70% of the mass required for the true f_GR=1 instability, and the text only 'expects' collapse, citing Loeb & Rasio (1994), Volonteri & Rees (2005), and Begelman et al. (2006). The GRISN branch is explicitly excluded, but the stated caveat concerns post-main-sequence GRI; the models here reach GRI on the main sequence. Since Sec. 3.3 uses the existence of QSs to explain LRDs, this is load-bearing. Please either demonstrate, by comparison with the collapse/GRISN criteria of Nagele et al. (2022) or by a dedicated collapse calculation for these tracks, that a BH is formed, or restrict the conclusions to tracks for which this is established.
[Appendix B, Eq. (B.2)] The reported QS lifetimes and final BH masses—and hence the inferred QS mass range in Sec. 3.3—are obtained from an analytic integration of Eq. (B.2) with a free parameter alpha=0.5–1.5 and an assumed opacity κ=0.38 cm^2/g. The authors themselves note that Eq. (B.2) underestimates the simulated Mdot_BH, so tau'~1e8 yr is an upper limit and the extrapolated values in Table D.1 are not direct MESA results. Because Fig. 2 extends tracks well beyond the computed regime (up to L~1e13 L_sun), the quantitative claims about lifetimes and masses need explicit uncertainty estimates or more conservative wording. The qualitative L–M Eddington relation is robust, but the specific ranges 1e7–1e8 yr and 1e4.5–1e6.5 M_sun should be presented as provisional to this extrapolation.
[Appendix E / Sec. 3.2] The metallicity-independence claim is tested only up to Z=0.01, yet the LRD population often shows metal lines and likely higher metallicities. The linear dependence of the key opacity κ (used in Eq. B.2) on Z is not discussed; if κ varies significantly at higher Z, the analytic QS lifetime would change. The caption of Fig. E.1 also says 'Z=0 to 0.1', inconsistent with the models described (Z=0 to 0.01). Please clarify the actual tested range and comment on the expected opacity dependence at higher Z.

minor comments (3)

[Sec. 2 / Appendix A] The initial BH mass in the MESA-QUEST models is set to 10 M_sun immediately after GRI. The choice is not justified in the text; while a 10 M_sun seed is likely negligible compared to the envelope mass, the authors should state whether this assumption affects the early QS luminosity or envelope survival.
[Table D.1] The table is difficult to read: the column headers mix quantities and units, and the 'Acc.' column is not explained. Please restructure with clear legends and consistent units.
[General] Several passages use informal phrasing such as 'the crashing points' and 'MESArelease' (missing space). Please proofread for terminology and formatting, especially in Appendix D and around Eq. (B.6).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the QS/LRD comparison is a forward model, not a fit; minor self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in any of the enumerated senses. The stellar evolution models are computed with MESA from stated initial conditions (2 Msun proto-star, constant entropy; Sec. 2) and mass-gain rates 0.01-1 Msun/yr; the GRI criterion is adopted from Nagele et al. (2022) (Eq. A.2) and no parameter is fitted to the LRD photometry. The BH accretion rate (Eq. B.2) uses epsilon=0.1, kappa=0.38 cm^2/g taken from the simulations, and the free alpha is varied (0.5,1,1.5) rather than tuned; the QS luminosity-mass relation (Eq. C.1) is the standard Eddington relation, independently checkable, and the comparison with the de Graaff et al. (2025) sample maps observed L_bol to QS masses via that relation rather than deriving the relation from the data. Self-citations (Martins et al. 2020; Gieles et al. 2018; Ramirez-Galeano et al. 2025; Cenci & Habouzit 2025) supply background/supporting environment, but the central result is not reduced to them. The genuinely weak point is the Appendix A assumption that GRI produces a central BH: runs are stopped at f_GR=1.5 (~70% of the f_GR=1 instability mass) and the GRISN branch is excluded ('For this work we do not explore the cases where the GRISN is triggered'), so BH formation is an input, not a demonstrated outcome. That is a correctness risk, not an equation-level circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the quasi-star model (a known but unproven phenomenon), the GRI-to-BH conversion assumption, and several numeric choices (accretion rates, α, initial BH mass, efficiencies). These are not fitted to LRD data, but they are assumptions the reader must accept to trust the derived masses and lifetimes.

free parameters (6)

Maximum mass gain rate Ṁ_max,acc = 0.01, 0.1, 1 Msun/yr
Chosen sampling of accretion rates; not derived from first principles, used to span plausible environments.
BH accretion-rate parameter α = 0.5, 1, 1.5
Free factor in Eq. B.2 to bracket uncertainties in Ṁ_BH due to angular momentum/magnetic fields; varied, not fitted.
Initial BH mass after GRI = 10 Msun
Assumed seed mass for the QS phase; not derived from the collapse calculation.
Opacity κ = 0.38 cm²/g
Extracted from the simulations and used in the analytic lifetime estimate; an internal model output, not an external measurement.
Convective/radiative efficiencies = 0.1
Set in the MESA-QUEST Bondi accretion module; not calibrated to observations.
f_GR = 1.5
Numerical stopping factor in the GRI criterion (Eq. A.2); chosen to avoid numerical instability.

assumptions (6)

standard math General relativity is approximated by the first-order TOV correction (Eq. A.1) in the Schwarzschild metric.
Standard approximation for the relativistic correction to the gravitational field.
domain assumption The general relativistic instability criterion of Nagele et al. (2022) (Eq. A.2) marks the collapse of the supermassive star.
Adopted from literature; if the criterion is wrong, GRI masses would shift.
domain assumption After GRI, the core collapses to a BH and the envelope survives as a quasi-star supported by BH accretion luminosity (Begelman et al. 2008).
Central physical picture; the GRISN alternative (no BH) is excluded by assumption (Appendix A).
domain assumption The envelope accretes at the convection-limited Bondi rate with efficiencies 0.1 and luminosity 0.11 Ṁ c².
Adopted from Santarelli et al. (2026a); not independently verified here.
ad hoc to paper Initial proto-star is 2 Msun, 200 Rsun, constant entropy, central T~1e5 K.
Chosen initial conditions; the evolutionary outcome could depend on this choice.
ad hoc to paper Mass gain follows the Haemmerlé et al. (2019) luminosity-dependent prescription, increased a hundredfold, until a constant maximum rate.
A numerical device to reach high accretion rates; not based on a specific physical environment.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A quasi-star is born: formation and evolution of accreting quasi-stars as a pathway to Little Red Dots at non-zero metallicity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ROZP66W5

@misc{pith2026260321714,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A quasi-star is born: formation and evolution of accreting quasi-stars as a pathway to Little Red Dots at non-zero metallicity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ROZP66W5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.21714}
}

abstract

The recently discovered Little Red Dots identified by the James Webb Space Telescope are compact high-redshift sources whose properties have motivated models involving black holes embedded within optically thick gaseous envelopes. We investigate their rest-frame optical emission by modeling quasi-stars, i.e. stellar envelopes powered by accretion onto a central black hole, formed from rapidly accreting proto-stars that reach the supermassive star regime ($>10^4$~\Msun) before undergoing general relativistic instability. We compute stellar evolution models with mass gain rates of 0.01, 0.1, and 1~\Msun/yr and metallicities $Z=0$-$0.01$. For accretion rates $\ge0.1$~\Msun/yr, stars remain nearly fully convective with $T_\mathrm{eff}\sim4000$-$9000$~K. General relativistic instability occurs at $M_\star\sim3.5\times10^4$~\Msun\ ($6.8\times10^4$~\Msun) for $\dot{m}=0.1$~\Msun/yr (1~\Msun/yr), at $L\sim10^9$~\Lsun. Assuming the black hole supports the envelope until complete accretion ($M_{\rm BH,max}/M_{\rm QS}=1$), quasi-stars reach maximum lifetimes of $10^7$-$10^8$~yr, $\sim100$-$1000$ times longer than their progenitors. Their formation and evolution are nearly independent of metallicity. Matching our models to Little Red Dots at $z<4.5$ ($L_\mathrm{bol}\sim10^{9.5}$-$10^{11.5}$~\Lsun) implies quasi-star masses of $10^{4.5}$-$10^{6.5}$~\Msun, while the minimum observed luminosity requires progenitor accretion rates $\gtrsim0.1$~\Msun/yr. Our models support quasi-stars as the origin of Little Red Dot optical emission and constrain their masses, lifetimes, progenitor environments, and luminosities. Our models offer a framework supporting quasi-stars as the source of Little Red Dot optical emission, and provide insights into their lifetimes, composition, progenitor's environment as well on their minimum and maximum observed luminosities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.21714 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

[1]

Baggen, J. F. W., Scoggins, M. T., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02702

arXiv 2026
[2]

Ball, W. H. 2012, arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.5972

arXiv 2012
[3]

Begelman, M. C. & Dexter, J. 2026, ApJ, 996, 48

2026
[4]

C., Rossi, E

Begelman, M. C., Rossi, E. M., & Armitage, P. J. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1649

2008
[5]

C., V olonteri, M., & Rees, M

Begelman, M. C., V olonteri, M., & Rees, M. J. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 289

2006
[6]

2025, ApJ, 984, L55

Bellovary, J. 2025, ApJ, 984, L55

2025
[7]

& Habouzit, M

Cenci, E. & Habouzit, M. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2597 de Graaff, A., Hviding, R. E., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.21820 D’Eugenio, F., Nelson, E., Ji, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.00101

arXiv 2025
[8]

Gieles, M., Charbonnel, C., Krause, M. G. H., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2461

2018

Show all 32 references

[9]

E., Setton, D

Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 996, 129 Haemmerlé, L., Eggenberger, P., Ekström, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A137 Haemmerlé, L., Woods, T. E., Klessen, R. S., Heger, A., & Whalen, D. J. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2757

2026
[10]

1961, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 13, 450

Hayashi, C. 1961, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 13, 450

1961
[11]

P., Whalen, D

Herrington, N. P., Whalen, D. J., & Woods, T. E. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 463

2023
[12]

Inayoshi, K. & Ho, L. C. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.03130

2025
[13]

& Maiolino, R

Inayoshi, K. & Maiolino, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, L27

2025
[14]

S., Bauer, E

Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJ Supplement Series, 265, 15

2023
[15]

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

Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, L4 Labbé, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266 Lahén, N., Naab, T., Rantala, A., & Partmann, C. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 1023

2023
[16]

& Rasio, F

Loeb, A. & Rasio, F. A. 1994, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9401026

1994 arXiv
[17]

E., V olonteri, M., et al

Ma, Y ., Greene, J. E., V olonteri, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.02662

2025 arXiv
[18]

2020, A&A, 633, A9

Martins, F., Schaerer, D., Haemmerlé, L., & Charbonnel, C. 2020, A&A, 633, A9

2020
[19]

P., Brammer, G., et al

Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129

2024
[20]

2022, MN- RAS, 517, 1584

Nagele, C., Umeda, H., Takahashi, K., Yoshida, T., & Sumiyoshi, K. 2022, MN- RAS, 517, 1584

2022
[21]

P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al

Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16596

2025 arXiv
[22]

& Loeb, A

Nandal, D. & Loeb, A. 2026, ApJ, 998, 124

2026
[23]

A., Woods, T

Nandal, D., Regan, J. A., Woods, T. E., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A155

2023
[24]

Pacucci, F., Ferrara, A., & Kocevski, D. D. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.14368

2026
[25]

2010, ApJ Supplement Series, 192, 3

Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2010, ApJ Supplement Series, 192, 3

2010
[26]

2013, ApJ Supplement Series, 208, 4

Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJ Supplement Series, 208, 4

2013
[27]

2015, ApJ Supplement Series, 220, 15

Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJ Supplement Series, 220, 15

2015
[28]

B., et al

Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJ Supplement Series, 234, 34

2018
[29]

2019, ApJ Supplement Series, 243, 10 Pérez-González, P

Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJ Supplement Series, 243, 10 Pérez-González, P. G., Barro, G., Carniani, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.20247 Ramírez-Galeano, L., Charbonnel, C., Fragos, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A223

2019
[30]

2024, MNRAS, 531, 3770

Rantala, A., Naab, T., & Lahén, N. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3770

2024
[31]

H., et al

Sneppen, A., Watson, D., Matthews, J. H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18864 V olonteri, M. & Rees, M. J. 2005, ApJ, 633, 624

2026
[32]

Zwick, L., Tiede, C., & Mayer, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.22014 Article number, page 4 J.Roman-Garza et al.: Formation and evolution of accreting QSs at non-zero metallicities as a pathway to LRDs Appendix A: Physical assumptions To account for general relativistic ef...

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Baggen, J. F. W., Scoggins, M. T., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02702

arXiv 2026

[2] [2]

Ball, W. H. 2012, arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.5972

arXiv 2012

[3] [3]

Begelman, M. C. & Dexter, J. 2026, ApJ, 996, 48

2026

[4] [4]

C., Rossi, E

Begelman, M. C., Rossi, E. M., & Armitage, P. J. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1649

2008

[5] [5]

C., V olonteri, M., & Rees, M

Begelman, M. C., V olonteri, M., & Rees, M. J. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 289

2006

[6] [6]

2025, ApJ, 984, L55

Bellovary, J. 2025, ApJ, 984, L55

2025

[7] [7]

& Habouzit, M

Cenci, E. & Habouzit, M. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2597 de Graaff, A., Hviding, R. E., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.21820 D’Eugenio, F., Nelson, E., Ji, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.00101

arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

Gieles, M., Charbonnel, C., Krause, M. G. H., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2461

2018