pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20381 · v1 · pith:CHNGZ7YVnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.SR

Formation of intermediate-mass black holes in young massive clusters detected with JWST: analytic mass estimates

Viola Bocchi , Mat\'ias Liempi , Dominik R.G. Schleicher This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 07:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords intermediate-mass black holesrunaway stellar collisionsJWST high-redshift clustersblack hole seedsCosmic Gems arcstellar mass losscluster dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Analytic models show JWST high-redshift clusters form intermediate-mass black holes of 100 to 4000 solar masses.

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

The paper applies an analytic model of stellar collisions to dense clusters recently spotted by JWST at redshifts near 8 to 10. These systems have total masses between 100,000 and 10 million solar masses and half-mass radii as small as 0.4 parsecs, conditions that promote frequent collisions among stars. The calculations produce black hole seeds ranging from roughly 100 to 4000 solar masses at formation efficiencies of a few percent. Low metallicity proves essential because it limits mass loss from stellar winds and allows the seeds to grow larger, especially in the most compact examples. If accurate, the results supply a concrete route by which early dense clusters could supply the heavy seeds needed for the supermassive black holes already seen at high redshift.

Core claim

We estimate the masses of intermediate-mass black holes formed via runaway stellar collisions in young massive clusters detected by JWST using a Fokker-Planck model together with an analytical framework for runaway collisions and mass loss through winds. Our estimates yield typical IMBH masses in the range of approximately 100 to 4000 solar masses, implying typical formation efficiencies on the few percent level. The extreme compactness of the Cosmic Gems clusters with half-mass radii near 1 parsec facilitates the formation of black hole seeds with high masses of 1600 to 2700 solar masses. Low metallicity below 0.02 solar is a critical factor for retaining the seed mass against stellar winds

What carries the argument

The analytic framework for runaway stellar collisions and mass loss through winds, applied through a Fokker-Planck model to calculate IMBH masses in compact high-redshift clusters.

If this is right

  • These clusters can supply black hole seeds heavy enough to grow into the supermassive black holes already observed at high redshift.
  • Formation efficiencies of only a few percent mean that a small fraction of each cluster's mass ends up in the central black hole.
  • The most compact systems with half-mass radii near 1 parsec reach the upper end of the mass range, 1600 to 2700 solar masses.
  • Low metallicity is required to keep stellar winds from stripping mass and thereby to achieve the higher seed masses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the estimates hold, many early galaxies likely contained such compact clusters as sites for rapid black hole growth.
  • Dynamical or photometric signatures of these seeds could be searched for in the same JWST fields.
  • Applying the same approach to larger samples of high-redshift clusters would give a statistical prediction for the total number of heavy seeds.

Load-bearing premise

The analytic model for runaway collisions and wind mass loss that matches simulations of smaller nearby clusters also remains accurate for these much more massive, lower-metallicity, high-redshift systems.

What would settle it

Direct N-body simulations of a 10^6 solar-mass cluster with 1-parsec radius and metallicity 0.01 solar would produce final IMBH masses differing by more than a factor of two from the analytic prediction of roughly 2000 solar masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20381 by Dominik R.G. Schleicher, Mat\'ias Liempi, Viola Bocchi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of the black hole mass distribution. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of the black hole mass distribution. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mass of the core as a function of the core radius. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mass distribution of estimated black hole masses in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of estimated black hole masses for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mass distribution of estimated black hole masses for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has revealed a population of dense stellar systems at high redshift, including the "Cosmic Gems" arc ($z \sim 10.2$) and the "Firefly Sparkle" ($z \sim 8.3$). With masses in the range of $10^5$~M$_\odot$-$10^7$M$_\odot$ and half-mass radii in the range from $\sim0.4$-$15$ pc, these systems are ideally suited to form intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) via collision-based models. While direct N-body simulations are unfeasible for such a large population and given the high masses in many of the clusters, we estimate the IMBH masses formed via runaway stellar collisions in these specific environments utilizing a Fokker-Planck model together with an analytical framework for runaway collisions and mass loss through winds, which has been validated against direct N-body simulations of compact star clusters. We apply this model to a sample of massive high-redshift clusters observed with JWST. Our estimates yield typical IMBH masses in the range of $\sim10^2$ M$_\odot$ {\bf up to $\sim4\times 10^3$ M$_\odot$,} implying typical formation efficiencies on the few percent level. The extreme compactness of the Cosmic Gems clusters ($R_h \sim 1$ pc) facilitates the formation of black hole seeds with high masses of $1600-2700 {\rm M}_\odot$. Low metallicity ($Z \lesssim 0.02 \, {\rm Z}_\odot$) is a critical factor for retaining the seed mass against stellar winds. We further demonstrate that the efficiencies obtained here are consistent with expectations based on direct N-body simulations. Our results suggest that these dense, metal-poor clusters are viable factories for heavy seeds, capable of growing into the supermassive black holes observed in the early Universe.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies a Fokker-Planck model combined with an analytic treatment of runaway stellar collisions and wind-driven mass loss to estimate IMBH formation in JWST-detected high-redshift clusters with masses 10^5–10^7 M⊙ and half-mass radii 0.4–15 pc. The framework, previously validated against direct N-body simulations, yields typical IMBH masses of ∼10²–4×10³ M⊙ at few-percent formation efficiencies, with 1600–2700 M⊙ seeds favored in the compact, low-metallicity (Z ≲ 0.02 Z⊙) Cosmic Gems systems. The authors conclude these clusters are viable factories for heavy black-hole seeds capable of growing into early supermassive black holes.

Significance. If the scaling of collision rates and wind losses remains accurate when extrapolated to the higher-mass, lower-metallicity regime, the work supplies a computationally efficient route to IMBH mass estimates for an entire population of JWST clusters where full N-body integrations are infeasible. It supplies concrete, observationally testable predictions and explicitly checks consistency with existing N-body expectations, which is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. §3 (Model and Validation): The analytic framework is stated to have been validated against direct N-body runs of compact clusters, yet the manuscript provides no explicit statement of the mass range or metallicity range of those validation simulations. Because the quoted IMBH masses (e.g., 1600–2700 M⊙ for Cosmic Gems) and efficiencies rest directly on the collision-runaway timescale and the wind-mass-loss prescription, the absence of a demonstration that these scalings remain valid at cluster masses increased by 1–2 orders of magnitude and at Z ≲ 0.02 Z⊙ constitutes a load-bearing uncertainty.
  2. §4–5 (Application and Results): No sensitivity tests or error propagation are shown for key inputs (initial mass function, binary fraction, exact metallicity, or half-mass radius) when the model is applied to the JWST sample. The central numerical claims (typical masses ∼10²–4×10³ M⊙, efficiencies at the few-percent level) therefore lack quantified robustness against plausible variations in the high-mass, low-Z regime.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The half-mass radius is denoted both as Rh and R_h; a single consistent symbol should be adopted throughout.
  2. Abstract: The upper bound “up to ∼4×10³ M⊙” should be clarified as the sample maximum or the upper end of a typical range.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's detailed feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important aspects for strengthening the presentation of our analytic model and its application to JWST observations. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3 (Model and Validation): The analytic framework is stated to have been validated against direct N-body runs of compact clusters, yet the manuscript provides no explicit statement of the mass range or metallicity range of those validation simulations. Because the quoted IMBH masses (e.g., 1600–2700 M⊙ for Cosmic Gems) and efficiencies rest directly on the collision-runaway timescale and the wind-mass-loss prescription, the absence of a demonstration that these scalings remain valid at cluster masses increased by 1–2 orders of magnitude and at Z ≲ 0.02 Z⊙ constitutes a load-bearing uncertainty.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit statement of the validation ranges is necessary. In the revised manuscript, we will include details on the mass range and metallicity range of the N-body validation simulations, along with references to the relevant prior work. We will also discuss the applicability of the scalings to the JWST clusters' parameter space. While direct N-body validation for the entire range is not feasible, the model has been shown to reproduce N-body results in the regime of compact clusters. revision: partial

  2. Referee: §4–5 (Application and Results): No sensitivity tests or error propagation are shown for key inputs (initial mass function, binary fraction, exact metallicity, or half-mass radius) when the model is applied to the JWST sample. The central numerical claims (typical masses ∼10²–4×10³ M⊙, efficiencies at the few-percent level) therefore lack quantified robustness against plausible variations in the high-mass, low-Z regime.

    Authors: We concur that sensitivity tests would enhance the robustness of our results. In the revised manuscript, we will add sensitivity analyses for the key parameters mentioned, including variations in the initial mass function, binary fraction, metallicity, and half-mass radius. These will be presented in a new figure or table in §4 or an appendix, showing the impact on the estimated IMBH masses and formation efficiencies. This will allow readers to assess the quantified robustness of our central claims. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • The direct demonstration of model validity through N-body simulations at cluster masses of 10^6–10^7 M⊙ and metallicities Z ≲ 0.02 Z⊙, as full N-body integrations are computationally infeasible for such systems.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper applies an externally validated Fokker-Planck plus analytic runaway-collision and wind-loss framework to the observed JWST cluster parameters (masses 10^5-10^7 M⊙, radii ~0.4-15 pc, low Z) to compute IMBH seed masses and efficiencies. The framework is cited as validated against independent direct N-body simulations of compact clusters, and the present work only demonstrates consistency of the resulting efficiencies with those N-body expectations. No parameters are fitted to the JWST data inside this paper, no predictions reduce to inputs by construction, and no self-citation chain is invoked to forbid alternatives or smuggle ansatzes. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central estimates rest on the transferability of a previously validated collision-and-wind model to the observed high-redshift, low-metallicity clusters; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Fokker-Planck description of runaway stellar collisions plus analytic wind mass loss remains valid for clusters with masses 10^5-10^7 M⊙ and half-mass radii ~0.4-15 pc at Z ≲ 0.02 Z⊙.
    Invoked to generate the quoted IMBH mass estimates from the JWST cluster properties.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5905 in / 1350 out tokens · 66214 ms · 2026-05-21T07:15:29.285106+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., & Norman, M

    Abel, T., Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 2002, Science, 295, 93

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

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

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 37 Alister Seguel, P. J., Schleicher, D. R. G., Boekholt, T. C. N., Fellhauer, M., &

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Klessen, R. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2352 Arca Sedda, M., Kamlah, A. W. H., Spurzem, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 429

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    B., & Church, R

    Askar, A., Davies, M. B., & Church, R. P. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2631

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Begelman, M. C. & Shlosman, I. 2009, ApJ, 702, L5

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    2009, Physics Today, 62, 56

    Binney, J., Tremaine, S., & Freeman, K. 2009, Physics Today, 62, 56

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Boekholt, T. C. N., Schleicher, D. R. G., Fellhauer, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 366

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    S., & Larson, R

    Bromm, V ., Coppi, P. S., & Larson, R. B. 2002, ApJ, 564, 23

    work page 2002

  10. [10]

    & Loeb, A

    Bromm, V . & Loeb, A. 2003, ApJ, 596, 34

    work page 2003

  11. [11]

    & Gnedin, O

    Brown, G. & Gnedin, O. Y . 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5935

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Chang, J. S. & Cooper, G. 1970, Journal of Computational Physics, 6, 1

    work page 1970

  13. [13]

    & Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R

    Chassonnery, P. & Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3909

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    L., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al

    Chworowsky, K., Finkelstein, S. L., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 113

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    B., Miller, M

    Davies, M. B., Miller, M. C., & Bellovary, J. M. 2011, ApJ, 740, L42

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.07578

    Dekel, A., Dutta Chowdhury, D., Lapiner, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.07578

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    & V olonteri, M

    Devecchi, B. & V olonteri, M. 2009, ApJ, 694, 302

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    M., Colpi, M., & Portegies Zwart, S

    Devecchi, B., V olonteri, M., Rossi, E. M., Colpi, M., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1465

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.20453

    Escala, A., Zimmermann, L., Valdebenito, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.20453

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

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

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

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Gaete, B., Schleicher, D. R. G., Lupi, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A378

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    E., Pols, O

    Glebbeek, E., Gaburov, E., de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2009, A&A, 497, 255

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Glebbeek, E., Gaburov, E., Portegies Zwart, S., & Pols, O. R. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 3497

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    & Pols, O

    Glebbeek, E. & Pols, O. R. 2008, A&A, 488, 1017

    work page 2008

  25. [25]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39 Grudi´c, M. Y ., Hafen, Z., Rodriguez, C. L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1366

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    A., Pacucci, F., & Kocevski, D

    Guia, C. A., Pacucci, F., & Kocevski, D. D. 2024, Research Notes of the Ameri- can Astronomical Society, 8, 207 Gürkan, M. A., Freitag, M., & Rasio, F. A. 2004, ApJ, 604, 632

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    & Haiman, Z

    Inayoshi, K. & Haiman, Z. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1549 Jeˇrábková, T., Zonoozi, A. H., Kroupa, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A39

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Katz, H., Sijacki, D., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2352

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    M., Bullock, J

    Koushiappas, S. M., Bullock, J. S., & Dekel, A. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 292

    work page 2004

  30. [30]

    2026, in Encyclopedia of Astro- physics, V olume 2, V ol

    Kroupa, P., Gjergo, E., Jerabkova, T., & Yan, Z. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astro- physics, V olume 2, V ol. 2, 173–210

    work page 2026

  31. [31]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 5652 Labbé, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al

    Kroupa, P., Subr, L., Jerabkova, T., & Wang, L. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5652 Labbé, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    A., Bovino, S., Grassi, T., Schleicher, D

    Latif, M. A., Bovino, S., Grassi, T., Schleicher, D. R. G., & Spaans, M. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3163

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    A., Omukai, K., Habouzit, M., Schleicher, D

    Latif, M. A., Omukai, K., Habouzit, M., Schleicher, D. R. G., & V olonteri, M. 2016, ApJ, 823, 40

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    Latif, M. A. & Schleicher, D. R. G. 2015, A&A, 578, A118

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    A., Schleicher, D

    Latif, M. A., Schleicher, D. R. G., Schmidt, W., & Niemeyer, J. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1607

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    Liempi, M., Schleicher, D. R. G., Benson, A., Escala, A., & Vergara, M. C. 2025, A&A, 694, A42

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 3616

    Lupi, A., Colpi, M., Devecchi, B., Galanti, G., & V olonteri, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3616

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    & Kroupa, P

    Marks, M. & Kroupa, P. 2012, A&A, 543, A8

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

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

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.18705

    Messa, M., Vanzella, E., Loiacono, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.18705

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    2024, Nature, 632, 505

    Mowla, L. 2024, Nature, 632, 505

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.02664

    Pacucci, F., Hernquist, L., & Fujii, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.02664

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Plummer, H. C. 1911, MNRAS, 71, 460 Portegies Zwart, S. F. & McMillan, S. L. W. 2002, ApJ, 576, 899 Ramírez-Galeano, L., Charbonnel, C., Fragos, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A223

    work page 1911

  44. [44]

    J., & Iorio, G

    Rantala, A., Lahén, N., Naab, T., Escobar, G. J., & Iorio, G. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 2130

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    & Naab, T

    Rantala, A. & Naab, T. 2025, MNRAS, 542, L78

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.07917

    Rantala, A., Naab, T., Lahén, N., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.07917

    work page arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Reinoso, B., Schleicher, D. R. G., Fellhauer, M., Klessen, R. S., & Boekholt, T. C. N. 2018, A&A, 614, A14

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Reinoso, B., Schleicher, D. R. G., Fellhauer, M., Leigh, N. W. C., & Klessen, R. S. 2020, A&A, 639, A92

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02141

    Roman-Garza, J., Fragos, T., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02141

    work page arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    S., & Hirano, S

    Sakurai, Y ., Yoshida, N., Fujii, M. S., & Hirano, S. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1677

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 613

    Sassano, F., Schneider, R., Valiante, R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 613

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    Schleicher, D. R. G., Reinoso, B., & Klessen, R. S. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3972

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    Schleicher, D. R. G., Reinoso, B., Latif, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 6192

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    Schleicher, D. R. G., Spaans, M., & Glover, S. C. O. 2010, ApJ, 712, L69

    work page 2010

  55. [55]

    Shapiro, S. L. 2005, ApJ, 620, 59

    work page 2005

  56. [56]

    A., Reinoso, B., Schleicher, D

    Solar, P. A., Reinoso, B., Schleicher, D. R. G., Klessen, R. S., & Banerjee, R. 2025, A&A, 699, A64

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    S., Yung, L

    Somerville, R. S., Yung, L. Y . A., Lancaster, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.05442

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    1987, Dynamical evolution of globular clusters

    Spitzer, L. 1987, Dynamical evolution of globular clusters

    work page 1987

  59. [59]

    Suazo, M., Prieto, J., Escala, A., & Schleicher, D. R. G. 2019, ApJ, 885, 127

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 36

    Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Kocsis, B. 2020, ApJ, 892, 36

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 53

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

    work page 2023

  62. [62]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.18699

    Vanzella, E., Messa, M., Adamo, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.18699

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 10

    Vasiliev, E. 2017, ApJ, 848, 10

    work page 2017

  64. [64]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    C., Askar, A., Flammini Dotti, F., et al

    Vergara, M. C., Askar, A., Flammini Dotti, F., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.14260

    work page arXiv

  66. [66]

    C., Askar, A., Kamlah, A

    Vergara, M. C., Askar, A., Kamlah, A. W. H., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.07491

    work page arXiv

  67. [67]

    C., Escala, A., Schleicher, D

    Vergara, M. C., Escala, A., Schleicher, D. R. G., & Reinoso, B. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4224

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    C., Schleicher, D

    Vergara, M. C., Schleicher, D. R. G., Escala, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A34

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    Vergara, M. Z. C., Schleicher, D. R. G., Boekholt, T. C. N., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A160

    work page 2021

  70. [70]

    Vink, J. S. 2018, A&A, 615, A119

    work page 2018

  71. [71]

    H., Turk, M

    Wise, J. H., Turk, M. J., & Abel, T. 2008, ApJ, 682, 745

    work page 2008

  72. [72]

    2008, Science, 321, 669

    Yoshida, N., Omukai, K., & Hernquist, L. 2008, Science, 321, 669

    work page 2008

  73. [73]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25830, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25830

    Zhang, Y ., Ding, X., Yang, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25830 Article number, page 11

    work page arXiv 2025