Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 8 cited by

The paper claims that Population III starbursts in atomic-cooling halos at the end of the Epoch of Reionization can reach masses of 10^5–10^6 solar masses, but are capped below 10^6 solar masses by metal enrichment from the first supernovae

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 17:32 UTC pith:6NS7O3AD

load-bearing objection Plausible simulation-based cap on Pop III starburst masses (~1e6 Msun), but it hangs on a single halo assembly and prompt SN enrichment; well worth refereeing with a request to soften the universal claim. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.23209 v3 pith:6NS7O3AD submitted 2026-03-24 astro-ph.GA

How Massive Can a Population III Starburst Be? Simulating the First Galaxies with High Lyman-Werner Background

Tae Bong Jeong , Alessandra Venditti , Volker Bromm , Myoungwon Jeon , Tiger Yu-Yang Hsiao , Steven L. Finkelstein , John Chisholm This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Population III starsLyman-Werner backgroundatomic-cooling halosstarburstsgalaxy formationEpoch of Reionizationzoom-in simulationsJWST
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 paper asks how massive a burst of the first stars can be. Using zoom-in simulations of atomic-cooling halos at z≈7–8, it varies the strength of the Lyman-Werner background that dissociates molecular hydrogen. The paper finds that with an intense LW background (at least 10^3 times the standard intensity), star formation is delayed until the halo has accumulated enough dense gas to ignite a single massive burst of Population III stars. The burst can reach 10^5–10^6 solar masses, but never exceeds about one million: the first supernova explosions enrich the gas with metals, forcing a rapid transition to normal Population II star formation. This matters because such rare bursts could be observable with JWST, especially through gravitational lensing, and could explain some recent candidate detections.

Core claim

The paper argues that a Population III starburst in an atomic-cooling halo at z≈7–8—a galaxy with virial mass near 10^8 solar masses—can reach a total mass of 10^5 to 10^6 solar masses only if the Lyman-Werner background is extreme, at least 10^3 times the standard J_21 intensity. Under such radiation, molecular hydrogen is dissociated and star formation is delayed until the halo has grown and accumulated dense, cold gas. When star formation finally ignites, the high assumed star-formation efficiency (100% per free-fall time) converts this reservoir into a single burst of Pop III stars within roughly 3 million years. The burst cannot grow beyond about 10^6 solar masses, because the first sup

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is delayed star formation in atomic-cooling halos, driven by Lyman-Werner dissociation of H2 followed by H2 self-shielding in the dense core. This delay lets the halo grow and accumulate a large reservoir of cold, dense gas. A high cloud-scale star-formation efficiency (ε_ff = 1.0) then converts this gas into a single burst of Pop III stars before supernova feedback can quench it. The first supernovae enrich the gas above the Pop III metallicity threshold, ending the Pop III phase and setting the upper mass limit near 10^6 solar masses.

Load-bearing premise

The ceiling of ~10^6 solar masses is inferred from just two simulation runs that use the same pre-selected halo assembly history and an extreme star-formation efficiency of 100% per free-fall time; if a different assembly history allowed more gas to accumulate before feedback, or if the real cloud-scale efficiency is lower, the limit could move.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic detection of a galaxy at z≈6–8 with a pure Pop III stellar population (strong He II 1640 Å emission, no metal lines) and an inferred stellar mass above 10^6 solar masses, or a simulation with a different halo assembly history producing M_PopIII > 10^6 solar masses, would falsify the claimed upper limit.

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

If this is right

  • Pop III starbursts near the end of the Epoch of Reionization can be as massive as ~10^6 solar masses, matching the inferred masses of some JWST candidates but setting a hard ceiling above them.
  • Strongly lensed JWST surveys should find roughly 9 such bursts in a survey area similar to GLIMPSE; the most extreme LW cases may be detectable without lensing in deep fields.
  • The Pop III phase is short (a few million years), so 'pure' Pop III galaxies are rare; most systems should show a rapid transition to Pop II star formation within the same burst.
  • Ideal conditions are rare (about 4×10^-4 per cubic megaparsec), so future searches should target overdense regions near massive star-forming galaxies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the ceiling is set by the race between star-formation efficiency and supernova feedback, halos with different assembly histories or lower actual ε_ff could shift the limit; the paper's constraint is based on only two runs sharing one assembly history.
  • The same strong-LW, atomic-cooling condition is also the channel for direct-collapse black hole formation; if a black hole forms instead of a starburst, the mass ceiling may be circumvented or the burst suppressed entirely.
  • The hot/cold gas bifurcation found in the simulations implies that pristine pockets can survive inside galaxies that are otherwise metal-enriched, which could explain why Pop III signatures are seen alongside metal lines in some observed galaxies.
  • The metal-bubble timing analysis suggests that external metal pollution is not the limiting factor; internal enrichment sets the starburst mass, making the ceiling a local rather than environmental property.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses cosmological radiation-hydrodynamic zoom-in simulations of a single 10^8 Msun atomic-cooling halo at z~7 to ask how massive a Population III starburst can be when exposed to a strong Lyman-Werner background. Seven runs vary the LW intensity from J_LW=0 to 10^4 J_21 and the subgrid star-formation efficiency epsilon_ff=0.01 or 1.0. The authors find that only runs with J_LW >= 10^3 J_21 and epsilon_ff=1.0 produce Pop III starbursts of ~10^5-10^6 Msun, that these bursts are truncated by internal metal enrichment from the first supernovae ~3 Myr after onset, and that the resulting Pop III stellar mass is limited to <10^6 Msun. They also post-process the high-LW runs to predict JWST detectability and use an analytic halo-abundance argument to estimate the number of detectable Pop III starbursts in GLIMPSE and JADES.

Significance. If the central cap M★,PopIII < 10^6 Msun holds, it is an important anchor for interpreting JWST Pop III candidates such as AMORE6 and for planning lensed surveys. The paper has notable strengths: it uses a standard, internally consistent simulation pipeline with primordial chemistry, metal cooling, radiative transfer, SN feedback, and chemical enrichment; it spans a wide range of LW backgrounds; and it provides concrete mock SEDs, line luminosities, and UV magnitudes that can be compared with observations. The predicted He II/H-alpha ratios and magnitudes are falsifiable. However, the headline upper limit is, as the authors themselves partly acknowledge, derived from two runs of one assembly history with an extreme subgrid efficiency, and the analytic abundance estimate in Eq. (6) mixes inconsistent metallicity thresholds. These issues do not invalidate the simulations, but they do mean that the broad, abstract-level statement of a universal <10^6 Msun cap currently overreaches the evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2 and Table 1; abstract] The central claim that M★,PopIII < 10^6 Msun is a general upper limit rests on exactly two high-LW runs (LW1e3E100, LW1e4E100) that share the same initial conditions, same target halo, same assembly history, and the same extreme subgrid efficiency epsilon_ff=1.0. Section 4.2 explicitly states 'we only focused on a single galaxy and its environment.' The cap is set by the mass of cold gas that has assembled before the first SN explosions at ~3 Myr; a different merger history or a halo that assembled a larger cold core before first light could plausibly convert more than 10^6 Msun before enrichment. This limitation should be stated prominently and the abstract should be reworded to say 'in the simulated halo' rather than presenting the cap as universal.
  2. [§5, paragraph on Storck et al. 2025] The paper itself cites Storck et al. (2025), who find that some halos retain pristine gas and form large Pop III masses when the most massive stars collapse directly to black holes and do not enrich the ISM. This is a direct counterexample to the mechanism invoked to justify the <10^6 Msun cap. The conclusion should be softened to a model-dependent result, conditional on prompt CCSN/PISN enrichment of the first stars, or the authors need to argue quantitatively why the direct-collapse channel is negligible for their specific halo population.
  3. [§4.2, Eq. (6)] The abundance estimate mixes inconsistent metallicity thresholds. The factor (1-Q(>Z_thr)) is taken from Pallottini et al. (2014) with Z_thr = 10^-8 Zsun, but the simulations use a critical metallicity of Z_thr = 10^-5.5 Zsun (Section 2.2). The volume fraction of gas below 10^-8 Zsun is much larger than the fraction below 10^-5.5 Zsun, so the adopted pristine fraction of ~0.99 is not consistent with the simulation's own star-formation criterion. Using a simulation-consistent threshold would likely reduce N_GLIMPSE and N_JADES, possibly by a large factor. The authors should recompute Eq. (6) with the same Z_thr used in the simulations, or explicitly justify why the Pallottini value is the correct choice.
  4. [§2.1 and §3.2; Eq. (1)] The star-formation threshold is stated as n_H,thr = 100 cm^-3 in Section 2.2, but Eq. (1) evaluates tau_ff at n_H,thr = 500 cm^-3 and Section 3.2 states that star formation activates at n_H ~ 3x10^3 cm^-3 in the high-LW runs. This notational inconsistency makes it difficult to reproduce the quoted star-formation timescale and to determine which density actually controls the pre-SN mass buildup. The authors should define a single adopted threshold density and consistently use it in Eq. (1), or explain that star formation only occurs in cold gas that reaches a higher effective density.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (2)] The step-function LW background with J_LW=0 for z>30 and constant for z<=30 is a strong idealization. The authors do note this in Section 5, but a sentence in Section 2.3 explicitly stating that this neglects the rise and fall of the cosmic LW background and local source anisotropy would help readers understand the range of applicability.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (6)] The same symbol n is used for number density in Section 2 and for number counts/expected number in Eq. (6). This is confusing; a different symbol (e.g., N or <N>) would improve clarity.
  3. [Figure 7] The figure caption says 'panels in the middle row show AB magnitudes' but it is not immediately obvious which curves correspond to which survey and magnification. A legend or more explicit labeling would help.
  4. [§5] The paper cites both 'Jeon et al. 2025a,b,c' and 'Jeong et al. 2025' in several places; the close similarity of the author names may confuse readers. Please ensure all citations are consistently disambiguated.
  5. [§3.3, Fig. 6] The text in Section 3.3 states that gas-phase metallicity exceeds Z_thr after the first enrichment episode in all simulations, but the figure shows a wide spread in metallicity evolution. A brief explanation of why LW0E001 initially reaches high metallicity and then declines would aid interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Pop III starburst mass cap is an emergent simulation result, not an input or a self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (that high-LW atomic-cooling halos can host 10^5-10^6 M_sun Pop III starbursts but not exceed ~10^6 M_sun because internal metal enrichment follows the first SNe) is an emergent outcome of the radiation-hydrodynamic simulations, not an input. The star formation law (Eq. 1) sets the timescale tau_star = tau_ff/epsilon_ff, but it does not preset the total burst mass; the mass is determined by the simulated gas reservoir, assembly history, LW self-shielding, and the 3 Myr delay before SN feedback. The paper varies input LW intensity and epsilon_ff and reports the resulting masses; no parameter is fitted to the headline cap. Comparisons with Visbal et al. (2017) and Dijkstra et al. (2014) are external consistency checks, not calibration. The methodology is reused from Jeong et al. (2025), including the same code and subgrid recipes, but the claim of a mass ceiling is not defined in terms of that work; it is a dynamical result that could in principle have come out differently. The paper's own caveats (Section 4.2's 'we only focused on a single galaxy and its environment' and Section 5's uniform-LW approximation, DCBH alternative, IMF uncertainty, and citation of Storck et al. (2025) showing pristine-gas survival with direct-collapse BHs) qualify the universality of the cap but do not make the derivation circular. No equation or fitted parameter reduces the prediction to its inputs, so by the stated standard this is a clean, non-circular simulation study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several assumed subgrid prescriptions (epsilon_ff=1.0, top-heavy IMF, Z_thr) and a uniform LW background. None of these are fitted to observational data; they are chosen to bracket the physical extremes. The number count estimate additionally imports external fractions f_J and Q whose thresholds are not fully consistent with the simulation's Z_thr.

free parameters (6)
  • epsilon_ff = 1.0 (High group; 0.01 default)
    Star formation efficiency in Schmidt law; set to 1.0 for High-group runs to maximize burst. This is an assumed upper bound, not measured.
  • Pop III IMF slope and mass range = alpha=1.0, 10–150 M_sun
    Assumed top-heavy IMF for Pop III; sets SN feedback timing and yields, affecting the starburst cap.
  • Critical metallicity Z_thr = 1e-5.5 Z_sun (tested to 1e-3.5)
    Threshold for Pop III to Pop II transition; authors argue insensitive, but it sets when metal enrichment ends the burst.
  • LW background values = J_21,0 = 0,1,10,100,1000,10000
    The scanned LW intensities bracket possible backgrounds; High group uses 10^3–10^4, which are extreme.
  • Star particle mass = 500 M_sun
    Numerical resolution of stellar particles; influences the stochastic conversion of gas to stars.
  • SN feedback neighbor number = N_ngb=1
    Limits the number of gas particles receiving SN energy to avoid over-cooling; directly controls quenching strength.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The 13-species primordial chemistry network governs cooling of metal-free gas.
    Section 2.1; if omitted species (e.g., Li) or dust are important, cooling/star formation changes.
  • ad hoc to paper Pop III stars have a top-heavy IMF with slope 1.0 over 10–150 M_sun.
    Section 2.2; widely assumed but unproven; IMF affects lifetimes, SN timing, and metal yields.
  • ad hoc to paper The Lyman-Werner background is spatially uniform and constant below z=30 (step function), with only H2/HD self-shielding modulating it.
    Section 2.3; acknowledged caveat: real LW flux from nearby sources is anisotropic.
  • domain assumption No ionizing (hard) UV background is present at z<7.
    Section 2.3; argued appropriate since reionization is incomplete, but patchy ionizing radiation could alter results.
  • domain assumption Metal yields from Heger & Woosley (2002, 2010) and Portinari et al. (1998) describe Pop III and Pop II enrichment.
    Section 2.1; standard but with uncertainties for PISNe and high-mass CCSNe.
  • standard math Halo mass function of Tinker et al. (2008) adequately gives the abundance of M_vir~1e8 halos at z~6-8.
    Used in Eq. (6) for N_GLIMPSE prediction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27059 in / 15894 out tokens · 157892 ms · 2026-08-02T17:32:34.273737+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Observing the first generation of Population~III (Pop~III) stars is one of the most demanding challenges in astronomy. Indeed, Pop~III stars are expected to predominantly form within faint minihalos at early times with a top-heavy initial mass function, resulting in efficient metal enrichment and a fast transition to Pop~II-dominated systems. However, recent surveys with JWST have identified galaxies at the end of the Epoch of Reionization (EoR) with possible signatures of significant Pop~III star formation even at these later times. We here explore the physical conditions required to produce massive Pop~III starbursts during the EoR, using cosmological radiation-hydrodynamic zoom-in simulations. We specifically focus on galaxies with a virial (dynamical) mass of $M_{\rm vir}\approx10^{8}M_{\odot}$ at $7\lesssim z\lesssim8$, i.e., the atomic-cooling halos that could be potential sites for such maximal Pop~III starbursts. In particular, we vary the strength of Lyman-Werner (LW) background radiation up to $J_{\rm LW}\leq10^4J_{21}$, further imposing a high star formation efficiency ($\epsilon_{\rm ff}=1.0$). Our results show that Pop~III starbursts, observable in strongly-lensed survey fields like GLIMPSE, can occur in the presence of a sufficiently high LW flux (with $\gtrsim10^3J_{21}$), leading to delayed, but intense Pop~III star formation. However, even for such high LW fluxes, the Pop~III starburst mass is limited to $M_{\star,\rm Pop~III}<10^6M_{\odot}$, as strong internal metal enrichment occurs after the first Pop~III supernova explosions within the simulated galaxies. While the conditions favoring observable Pop~III starbursts are expected to be rare, we anticipate that future and ongoing large-volume surveys leveraging gravitational lensing will detect multiple cases of Pop~III starbursts in the EoR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.23209 by Alessandra Venditti, John Chisholm, Myoungwon Jeon, Steven L. Finkelstein, Tae Bong Jeong, Tiger Yu-Yang Hsiao, Volker Bromm.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mass evolution within our simulated galaxies. The left panel showcases the evolution of virial mass (𝑀vir, dashed), gas mass (𝑀gas, dotted), and stellar mass (𝑀★, solid) within the virial radius of the target halo as a function of time (or redshift), with the thick gray line indicating the threshold virial mass for an atomic-cooling halo (𝑀ACH; Prole et al. 2024) as a reference. The right panel further sho… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spatially resolved properties of the simulated galaxy from the LW1e3E100 run at 𝑧 ≈ 7.67 (top row), when the first star formation occurred, and 𝑧 ≈ 7.59 (bottom row), capturing the immediate post-starburst moment. From left to right, the panels show DM density, hydrogen number density, gas temperature, and gas metallicity along the same line of sight within 8𝑅vir from the center of the galaxy. For referenc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Gas properties of the target galaxy for the LW1e3E100 run before the starburst (left), mid-starburst (middle), and after the first SNe have exploded (right). Before the initial starburst, the 𝑇 − 𝑛 phase diagram bifurcates at high densities (𝑛H ≳ 10 cm−3 ) into a hot track (𝑇gas ≳ 104K), which is fully exposed to strong LW flux, and a cold one (𝑇gas < 104K), where the gas is self-shielded by H2. When gas p… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distance from the out-stars host halo to the metal bubble front as a function of time, followed until internal enrichment is trig￾gered within our simulated galaxy in order to constrain the external metal enrichment process. Each solid colored line shows the evolu￾tion of the bubble front for select metallicities: log(𝑍gas/ 𝑍⊙) > −6 (orange), log(𝑍gas/ 𝑍⊙) > −5 (blue), and log(𝑍gas/ 𝑍⊙) > −4 (black). The d… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the gas-phase metallicity within the virial radius of our simulated galaxies as a function of time and redshift. The dashed lines show the gas-phase metallicity contributed by the total amount of metals produced from both Pop III and Pop II stars, while the solid lines show the metallicity with the metals produced by Pop III stars only. We employ the same convention for the lines as in [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The post-processed SEDs and expected AB magnitudes for select JWST filters, based on our simulated galaxies during a starburst. The left panels correspond to the LW1e3E100 run, and the right panels to the LW1e4E100 run. While the top row shows the stellar mass evolution, marking three illustrative phases with colored square symbols, panels in the middle row show AB magnitudes calculated for select JWST NIR… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 𝑀UV,1500 evolution of simulated galaxies in High group as a function of redshift. The circle and star symbols indicate the LW1e3E100 and LW1e4E100 set, with colors indicating the same evolutionary phases as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gas properties within the LW10E100 target galaxy. The left panel exhibits properties of gas particles before the onset of the first star formation, while the right panel shows properties after the first SNe have occurred (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Temperature slice within 0.1𝑅vir for the LW1e3E100 run, when the bifurcation inside the phase-tracks begins to emerge (𝑧 ≈ 7.69, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.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 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Possible chemical signatures of first-star enrichment in a very metal-poor galaxy overdensity near the end of reionization

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Discovery of a very metal-poor galaxy overdensity of 17 members near a possible Pop III-enriched absorber at z=5.945, with estimated minimum halo mass of log(M_h,min/M_⊙)=10.68.

  2. A Pixel-by-Pixel Path to Population III Discovery with JWST

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Pixel-by-pixel SBI modeling recovers young massive Pop III clumps at up to 90 percent rate in favorable JWST-like configurations while integrated analyses fail due to contamination.

  3. NEFERTITI: Linking early galaxy formation to the assembly of the Milky Way

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    NEFERTITI simulations show that the Milky Way's most metal-poor stars largely come from a handful of accreted massive dwarf galaxies, while reproducing the JWST Hebe galaxy at z~11 as a pure Population III system.

  4. The Pristine HeII Emitter near GN-z11: Constraining the Mass Distribution of the First Stars

    astro-ph.GA 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    High-redshift HeII emitter observations confirm a >50% PopIII stellar mass fraction and favor top-heavy IMFs for the first stars with total masses 2e4 to 6e5 solar masses.

  5. On the detection of Population III galaxies: Emission Line Diagnostics for Hybrid Stellar Populations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Existing HeII emission-line diagnostics identify pure Pop III galaxies but fail for hybrid Pop III/Pop II systems, introducing spectral degeneracies that hide residual first stars.

  6. What is Powering the Enigmatic He II Emitter Hebe: The First Stars or Black Holes?

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 conditional novelty 4.0

    Cosmological simulations and SED modeling favor a Pop III star cluster of a few ×10^5 M_sun over an accreting SMBH as the power source for the He II emitter Hebe near GN-z11 at z=10.6.

  7. What is Powering the Enigmatic He II Emitter Hebe: The First Stars or Black Holes?

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A cluster of Population III stars at the upper limit of standard formation models, rather than an accreting black hole, powers the He II emission in the primordial object Hebe.

  8. How can we finally see the first light? Status and perspective in the search for Population III stars

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A review of theoretical models for the first stars and observational strategies including JWST searches, near-field studies, and lensing, noting growing candidates and narrowing parameter space.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [2]

    R., Iliev, I

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

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

  2. [3]

    L., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A

    Andalman, Z. L., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 3350, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf930 Atek,H.,Chisholm,J.,Kokorev,V.,etal.2025,JWST’sGLIMPSE: an overview of the deepest probe of early galaxy formation and cosmic reionization. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.07542

    arXiv 2025

  3. [4]

    Aykutalp, A., Barrow, K. S. S., Wise, J. H., & Johnson, J. L. 2020, ApJL, 898, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba62f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba62f 2020

  4. [5]

    2001, PhR, 349, 125, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00019-9

    Barkana, R., & Loeb, A. 2001, PhR, 349, 125, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00019-9

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(01)00019-9 2001

  5. [6]

    D., Bolton, J

    Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., Zhu, Y., & Hashemi, S. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1918

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1918 2024

  6. [7]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2013, ApJ, 762, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/109 2013

  7. [8]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada4a1

    Brauer, K., Emerick, A., Mead, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada4a1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada4a1 2025

  8. [9]

    2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/76/11/112901

    Bromm, V. 2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/76/11/112901

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/76/11/112901 2013

  9. [10]

    P., & Loeb, A

    Bromm, V., Kudritzki, R. P., & Loeb, A. 2001, ApJ, 552, 464, doi: 10.1086/320549

    doi:10.1086/320549 2001

  10. [11]

    Bromm, V., Yoshida, N., Hernquist, L., & McKee, C. F. 2009, Nature, 459, 49, doi: 10.1038/nature07990

    doi:10.1038/nature07990 2009

  11. [12]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 2023

  12. [13]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17820, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17820

    Cai, S., Li, M., Cai, Z., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17820, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17820

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.17820 2025

  13. [14]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  14. [15]

    2024, ApJL, 976, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dc9

    Chemerynska, I., Atek, H., Dayal, P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 976, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dc9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dc9 2024

  15. [16]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 4639, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1549

    Chon, S., Ono, H., Omukai, K., & Schneider, R. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4639, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1549

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1549 2022

  16. [17]

    C., Glover, S

    Clark, P. C., Glover, S. C. O., Smith, R. J., et al. 2011, Science, 331, 1040, doi: 10.1126/science.1198027

    doi:10.1126/science.1198027 2011

  17. [18]

    Conroy, C., & Gunn, J. E. 2010, FSPS: Flexible Stellar Population

    2010

  18. [19]

    J., McLeod, D

    Cullen, F., McLure, R. J., McLeod, D. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 14, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad073

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad073 2023

  19. [20]

    C., Scholte, D., et al

    Cullen, F., Carnall, A. C., Scholte, D., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 2176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf838 Dalla Vecchia, C., & Schaye, J. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 140, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21704.x

    arXiv 2025

  20. [21]

    C., Birnboim, Y., Mandelker, N., & Li, Z

    Dekel, A., Sarkar, K. C., Birnboim, Y., Mandelker, N., & Li, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1557

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1557 2023

  21. [22]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 2036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1007

    Dijkstra, M., Ferrara, A., & Mesinger, A. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1007

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1007 2014

  22. [24]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02465 2023

  23. [25]

    J., Korista, K

    Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761, doi: 10.1086/316190 Ferland,G.J.,Chatzikos,M.,Guzmán,F.,etal.2017,RMxAA,53, 385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.10877 1998

  24. [26]

    Population III star formation near high-redshift active galactic nuclei

    Fisk, E. M., Marshall, M. A., Upton Sanderbeck, P. R., & Johnson, J. L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.10986, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.10986

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.10986 2025

  25. [27]

    2012, ApJ, 759, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/115

    Frebel, A., & Bromm, V. 2012, ApJ, 759, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/115

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/2/115 2012

  26. [28]

    P., Chisholm, J., et al

    Fujimoto, S., Naidu, R. P., Chisholm, J., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.11678, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.11678

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.11678

  27. [29]

    P., et al

    Fujimoto, S., Asada, Y., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.11790. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.11790

    arXiv

  28. [30]

    H., & Bromm, V

    Greif, T. H., & Bromm, V. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 128, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11017.x

    arXiv 2006

  29. [32]

    H., Springel, V., White, S

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/75 2011

  30. [33]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/125 2012

  31. [35]

    J., & Loeb, A

    Haiman, Z., Rees, M. J., & Loeb, A. 1997, ApJ, 476, 458, doi: 10.1086/303647 16

    doi:10.1086/303647 1997

  32. [36]

    Hegde, S., & Furlanetto, S. R. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 147, doi: 10.33232/001c.145070

    doi:10.33232/001c.145070 2025

  33. [37]

    L., Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    doi:10.1086/375341 2003

  34. [38]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 532, doi: 10.1086/338487 —. 2010, ApJ, 724, 341, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/341

    doi:10.1086/338487 2002

  35. [39]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1220

    Hirano, S., & Bromm, V. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1220

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1220 2017

  36. [40]

    Y.-Y., Sun, F., Lin, X., et al

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y., Sun, F., Lin, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03873, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.03873

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.03873 2025

  37. [41]

    K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M

    Inoue, A. K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1805, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu936

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu936 2014

  38. [42]

    L., & Bromm, V

    Jaacks, J., Finkelstein, S. L., & Bromm, V. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2202, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1529

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1529 2019

  39. [43]

    Jeon, J., Bromm, V., Liu, B., & Finkelstein, S. L. 2025a, ApJ, 979, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9f3a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9f3a

  40. [44]

    J., et al

    Jeon, J., Liu, B., Taylor, A. J., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 988, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade2e1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade2e1

  41. [45]

    2025c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.14155, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.14155

    Jeon, J., Liu, B., Bromm, V., et al. 2025c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.14155, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.14155

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.14155

  42. [46]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8c80

    Jeon, M., Besla, G., & Bromm, V. 2017, ApJ, 848, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8c80

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8c80 2017

  43. [47]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 5939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz863

    Jeon, M., & Bromm, V. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz863

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz863 2019

  44. [48]

    H., Bromm, V., & Milosavljević, M

    Jeon, M., Pawlik, A. H., Bromm, V., & Milosavljević, M. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3288, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1980

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1980 2014

  45. [49]

    B., Jeon, M., Song, H., & Bromm, V

    Jeong, T. B., Jeon, M., Song, H., & Bromm, V. 2025, ApJ, 980, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada27d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada27d 2025

  46. [50]

    P., Frebel, A., & Bromm, V

    Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., & Bromm, V. 2014, ApJ, 782, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/95

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/2/95 2014

  47. [52]

    L., Dalla Vecchia, C., & Khochfar, S

    Johnson, J. L., Dalla Vecchia, C., & Khochfar, S. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1857, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts011

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts011 2013

  48. [53]

    L., Greif, T

    Johnson, J. L., Greif, T. H., & Bromm, V. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 26, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13381.x

    arXiv 2008

  49. [55]

    2013, Reviews of Modern Physics, 85, 809, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.85.809

    Karlsson, T., Bromm, V., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2013, Reviews of Modern Physics, 85, 809, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.85.809

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.85.809 2013

  50. [56]

    S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A

    Katz, H., Kimm, T., Ellis, R. S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1903

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1903 2023

  51. [57]

    S., & Glover, S

    Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 65, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-053453

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-053453 2023

  52. [58]

    A., Whalen, D., & Khochfar, S

    Latif, M. A., Whalen, D., & Khochfar, S. 2022, ApJ, 925, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3916

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3916 2022

  53. [59]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 1257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3198

    Lee, T., Jeon, M., & Bromm, V. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3198

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3198 2024

  54. [60]

    K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782 2008

  55. [61]

    Lewis, J. S. W., Ocvirk, P., Sorce, J. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2383

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2383 2022

  56. [62]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 2839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2143

    Liu, B., & Bromm, V. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2143

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2143 2020

  57. [64]

    2024, A&A, 687, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347087

    Maiolino, R., Übler, H., Perna, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347087

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347087 2024

  58. [65]

    2001, A&A, 370, 194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000247

    Marigo, P. 2001, A&A, 370, 194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000247

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000247 2001

  59. [66]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade2cd

    Mondal, C., Saha, K., Borgohain, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade2cd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade2cd 2025

  60. [67]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.10521

    Morishita, T., Liu, Z., Stiavelli, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.10521

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.10521 2025

  61. [68]

    P., Matthee, J., Kramarenko, I., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Kramarenko, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01874, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01874

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.01874 2024

  62. [69]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11846, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11846

    Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11846, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11846

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.11846 2025

  63. [70]

    2000, ApJ, 534, 809, doi: 10.1086/308776

    Omukai, K. 2000, ApJ, 534, 809, doi: 10.1086/308776

    doi:10.1086/308776 2000

  64. [71]

    2005, ApJ, 626, 627, doi: 10.1086/429955

    Omukai, K., Tsuribe, T., Schneider, R., & Ferrara, A. 2005, ApJ, 626, 627, doi: 10.1086/429955

    doi:10.1086/429955 2005

  65. [72]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 2498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu451

    Pallottini, A., Ferrara, A., Gallerani, S., Salvadori, S., & D’Odorico, V. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu451

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu451 2014

  66. [73]

    H., Milosavljević, M., & Bromm, V

    Pawlik, A. H., Milosavljević, M., & Bromm, V. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 731, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/731/1/54 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/1/54 2011

  67. [74]

    1998, A&A, 334, 505, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9711337

    Portinari, L., Chiosi, C., & Bressan, A. 1998, A&A, 334, 505, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9711337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9711337 1998

  68. [75]

    R., Clark, P

    Prole, L. R., Clark, P. C., Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4019, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3697

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3697 2022

  69. [76]

    R., Regan, J

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348903 2024

  70. [77]

    A., Johansson, P

    Regan, J. A., Johansson, P. H., & Wise, J. H. 2014, ApJ, 795, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/137

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/2/137 2014

  71. [78]

    Riaz, S., Hartwig, T., & Latif, M. A. 2022, ApJL, 937, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8ea6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8ea6 2022

  72. [79]

    Robitaille, T. P. 2011, A&A, 536, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117150

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117150 2011

  73. [80]

    2025, ApJL, 989, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf4e3

    Rusta, E., Salvadori, S., Gelli, V., et al. 2025, ApJL, 989, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf4e3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf4e3 2025

  74. [81]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 1669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2307 17

    Safranek-Shrader, C., Milosavljević, M., & Bromm, V. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2307 17

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2307 2014

  75. [82]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 3288, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2545

    Bromm, V. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3288, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2545

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2545 2016

  76. [83]

    2002, A&A, 382, 28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011619 —

    Schaerer, D. 2002, A&A, 382, 28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011619 —. 2003, A&A, 397, 527, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021525

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011619 2002

  77. [84]

    Schauer, A. T. P., Drory, N., & Bromm, V. 2020, ApJ, 904, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc0b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbc0b 2020

  78. [85]

    Schauer, A. T. P., Glover, S. C. O., Klessen, R. S., & Clark, P. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1953

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1953 2021

  79. [86]

    1959, ApJ, 129, 243, doi: 10.1086/146614

    Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243, doi: 10.1086/146614

    doi:10.1086/146614 1959

  80. [89]

    H., Gerasimov, R., et al

    Sharda, P., Menon, S. H., Gerasimov, R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf043

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf043 2025

Showing first 80 references.