Mass distribution of Pop III star clusters: A-SLOTH predictions for JWST observability

Boyuan Liu; Ralf S. Klessen; Simon C.O.Glover; Veronika Lipatova

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Mass distribution of Pop III star clusters: A-SLOTH predictions for JWST observability

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST will not detect Balmer series emission from Population III star-forming halos at z=5–11 without gravitational magnification of about 10x, because modeled feedback caps young Pop III stellar masses at 10^1–10^4 M_sun.

desk verdict A useful, honest negative forecast for Pop III Balmer emission, but the headline claim leans more on A-SLOTH's feedback prescription than the paper always admits. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09331 v2 pith:H3HJMVQ5 submitted 2025-08-12 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Veronika Lipatova , Simon C.O.Glover , Ralf S. Klessen , Boyuan Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO

keywords PopulationIIIstarsBalmerlinesJWSTNIRSpecA-SLOTHfirstgalaxiesstarformationfeedbackreionization

open problems Dark Matter

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish whether the Balmer series recombination lines from the first generation of stars, Population III, can be seen with JWST. Using the semi-analytical model A-SLOTH with three different dark-matter merger trees, it predicts H$\alpha$ fluxes of $\sim10^{-21}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ at $z=5$–$11$, two to three orders of magnitude below the NIRSpec detection threshold of $\sim6\times10^{-19}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ for a $10^4$ s exposure. The shortfall comes from the model's feedback prescription: radiative and supernova feedback terminate Pop III star formation in short episodes, leaving only $10^{1}$–$10^4$ $M_\odot$ of young stars per halo, whereas detectable Balmer emission would require roughly $3\times10^6$ $M_\odot$. Varying the ionizing-photon escape fraction, the strongest lever, raises fluxes by about an order of magnitude but still leaves them undetectable. The paper concludes that only strong gravitational lensing (magnification $\mu\gtrsim10$) could bring these sources within JWST's reach.

What carries the argument

A-SLOTH is the central machinery: a publicly available semi-analytical model that runs baryonic physics—gas cooling, star formation efficiencies, outflow feedback, and ionizing-photon escape—on dark matter merger trees from the extended Press-Schechter formalism, the Caterpillar N-body suite (Milky Way-like halos), and an 8 Mpc/h cosmological box. For each star-forming episode, SEVN stellar tracks give the ionizing photon luminosity; the fraction retained in the halo, $1-f_{\rm esc,III}$, powers recombination line emission through $L_{\rm H\alpha} = 0.45 \times 3\times10^{-12}\,{\rm erg}\,R_{\rm ion}$, with the higher Balmer lines scaled by Case B ratios from Hummer & Storey (1987). The JWST

What would settle it

A JWST/NIRSpec observation of a high-redshift source (lensed or unlensed) that shows a Balmer line at $z=5$–$11$ with an inferred Pop III stellar mass below $\sim3\times10^6\,M_\odot$ would contradict the model; conversely, a hydrodynamical simulation that assembles a $>10^5\,M_\odot$ Pop III cluster under realistic radiative and supernova feedback would invalidate the mass cap that drives the non-detection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that typical Pop III star-forming halos at redshift $5\le z\le 11$ do not produce enough Balmer line flux for JWST/NIRSpec detection in a $10^4$ s exposure at S/N=5. In A-SLOTH, Pop III star formation occurs in short, feedback-regulated episodes that are terminated by radiative and supernova feedback, yielding young stellar masses of only $\sim10^{1}$–$10^4\,M_\odot$ per halo. The halo stellar masses needed to reach the detection threshold are estimated at $\sim3.6\times10^6\,M_\odot$ (EPS tree), $\sim3.0\times10^6\,M_\odot$ (Caterpillar tree), and $\sim7.7\times10^6\,M_\odot$ (8 Mpc/h box), values that never occur in any of the three merger-tree models. Among the eleven

Load-bearing premise

The prediction collapses if A-SLOTH's feedback prescription is wrong: if Pop III star formation can sustain longer, more massive bursts and build clusters of $10^5$–$10^6\,M_\odot$, the Balmer fluxes would rise above the JWST threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

JWST surveys that search for unlensed Pop III Balmer emission at $z=5$–$11$ will return non-detections; detection strategies should concentrate on strongly lensed fields with magnification $\mu\gtrsim10$.
A confirmed Balmer detection would imply a Pop III stellar mass of at least $\sim3\times10^6\,M_\odot$ in a single halo, a mode of star formation that the calibrated A-SLOTH model does not produce.
Because NIRSpec sensitivity scales only as $t^{-1/2}$, exposures longer than the adopted $10^4$ s cannot practically close the factor-of-$10^2$–$10^3$ gap.
The higher Balmer lines are weaker than H$\alpha$ by fixed Case B ratios, so H$\alpha$ at $z\lesssim7$ remains the most promising—yet still undetectable—transition.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's mass threshold of $\sim3$–$8\times10^6\,M_\odot$ gives a concrete target for theoretical models: scenarios that assemble such massive Pop III clusters (for example, atomically cooled halos or suppressed feedback) are the only ones JWST can test through Balmer lines.
The strong dependence on $f_{\rm esc,III}$ implies that better measurements or simulations of the ionizing-photon escape fraction in pristine gas would sharpen the flux prediction by up to an order of magnitude.
The same A-SLOTH machinery could be extended to predict other nebular lines (e.g., He II or Ly$\alpha$), whose different escape physics might offer a more promising detection channel.
If future hydrodynamical simulations form coherent $>10^5\,M_\odot$ Pop III clusters under realistic feedback, the mass cap driving this non-detection would be falsified and the Balmer line searches would become live again.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Quick take: this is a solid model-based negative result that should be taken seriously. The abstract oversells slightly, and the load-bearing assumption is the feedback prescription, not the photometry.

What's new: earlier studies (Oh 1999; Johnson et al. 2009; Trussler et al. 2023) fixed the Pop III cluster mass as an input. This paper replaces that with a self-consistent prediction from A-SLOTH, a semi-analytic model calibrated to external observables (reionization history, MW satellites, cosmic SFRD). That is a genuine step forward. The ETC sensitivity calculation and the Case B conversion are standard and correct. The parameter scan is thorough; f_esc,III has the largest effect, and even then fluxes stay below threshold. The paper is transparent about model dependence.

Soft spots. First, the abstract and body disagree on peak flux (10^-20 vs 10^-21 erg s^-1 cm^-2) and the gap (1-2 orders vs 2-3 orders). That needs fixing. Second, the required-mass threshold is obtained by extrapolating a percentile fit beyond the simulated mass range. Minor statistical issue, because the conclusion does not hinge on the exact threshold. Third, and more important: the core reason for undetectability is that A-SLOTH never forms more than ~10^4 Msun of young Pop III stars because feedback terminates star formation. That is a model prescription. Calibration to aggregate observables does not strongly constrain the peak instantaneous stellar mass in a single halo. So the strong phrasing "will be undetectable" goes beyond what the model can establish. To the paper's credit, it repeatedly says "in our models," and the stress-test concern about this is fair but not fatal. It is the central assumption, and the parameter scan does not vary the feedback termination physics itself.

This paper is for the Pop III observational subfield and for anyone planning JWST surveys for the first stars. It deserves a serious referee: the analysis is clear, the code is public, and the negative result is useful even if future feedback models revise it.

Recommendation: send to peer review. Fix the abstract inconsistency and moderate the language on the feedback prescription, but the work is sound on its own terms.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper models Balmer-series (Hα through Hδ) nebular line fluxes from Population III star-forming halos using the semi-analytic code A-SLOTH with three merger-tree inputs (EPS, Caterpillar, and an 8 Mpc/h cosmological box) and compares the predicted fluxes with JWST/NIRSpec ETC sensitivity limits for 10^4 s exposures at S/N=5. The authors find that, for their default model parameters, the most luminous Pop III halos produce Hα fluxes around 10^-21 erg s^-1 cm^-2, falling 2-3 orders of magnitude below the JWST detection threshold, because the modeled feedback-regulating star formation limits young Pop III stellar masses to ~10^1-10^4 M_sun. They further show that f_esc,III is the most impactful parameter, but even the most favorable value leaves the lines undetectable. The paper concludes that JWST cannot detect Pop III Balmer emission without strong lensing, and that detectable emission would require Pop III stellar masses ≳10^6 M_sun.

Significance. If the model's feedback prescription is accepted, this is a valuable and well-posed negative result: it goes beyond earlier studies that simply assumed Pop III cluster masses by asking whether clusters of the required mass can actually form. The use of three different merger-tree inputs, a parameter study covering the full set of 11 model parameters, and ETC-based sensitivity calculations are concrete strengths. The prediction is falsifiable, the A-SLOTH code is public, and the prior calibration of the model to nine independent observables (reionization history, Milky Way satellites, SFRD) substantially reduces circularity concerns. The main caveat, discussed below, is that the central conclusion is conditional on the model's microphysical description of Pop III star formation feedback, which is not directly constrained by the observables used for calibration.

major comments (3)

[Abstract (header vs body) and Section 3] The two versions of the abstract quote different peak Hα fluxes: the header abstract states ~10^-20 erg s^-1 cm^-2 and a 1-2 order gap, while the body abstract and Section 3 state ~10^-21 erg s^-1 cm^-2 and a 2-3 order gap. This is not cosmetic: the conclusion 'undetectable without strong lensing (µ≳10)' is consistent with the header numbers, but with the body numbers a magnification of µ~600 would be required to reach the ~6×10^-19 erg s^-1 cm^-2 threshold. The inconsistency must be resolved and the magnification statement reconciled with the adopted flux scale.
[Section 3, Fig. 5] The required stellar mass to reach the JWST threshold (3.0-7.7×10^6 M_sun) is obtained by extrapolating the 96th-percentile flux-mass fit by two orders of magnitude beyond the simulated mass range (10^3-10^4 M_sun). Because the x-axis is cumulative stellar mass, the relation may flatten at high masses as ionizing populations age; the extrapolation is load-bearing for the conclusion that 'the massive Pop III stellar systems required for detectability do not form.' I recommend deriving the threshold from the underlying stellar population synthesis (SEVN) tables, or at minimum quantifying the extrapolation uncertainty and showing that the threshold remains above any plausible mass cap.
[Sec. 2.1, Sec. 4] The central undetectability result depends on A-SLOTH's treatment of Pop III star formation as short, feedback-terminated episodes that cap young stellar masses at ~10^4 M_sun. This is a microphysical prescription, not a derived result. The model's calibration to reionization history, Milky Way satellites, and cosmic SFRD constrains the aggregate star formation history, but not the maximum instantaneous stellar mass within individual halos. The parameter study in Appendix A varies efficiencies and outflow parameters, but does not alter the fundamental feedback termination mechanism. The abstract's universal phrasing 'will be undetectable by JWST' therefore overreaches; the conclusion should either be explicitly conditional on the A-SLOTH feedback prescription, or the authors should test an alternative prescription that permits sustained Pop III star formation (e.g., reduced supernova cou

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 2.2, Eq. (4)] Please clarify that L_ion,II and L_ion,III are ionizing photon rates (photons s^-1), not energy luminosities; the text calls them 'luminosities' while the equation divides by the escape fraction. Adding explicit units would avoid confusion.
[Fig. 5 caption] The 'shaded band indicating the mass range used for fitting' should be defined numerically in the caption, together with the functional form of the fit and its uncertainty.
[Sec. 2.1.2] Typo: 'trees wer constructed' should read 'trees were constructed'.
[Sec. 2.3] For reproducibility, please report the ETC version or access date and briefly describe the synthetic source model (line width, continuum, aperture) used for the sensitivity calculations.
[Introduction] The reference 'Zackrisson et al. 2011, arXiv preprint' could be updated to the published version if one exists, and the placeholder 'arXiv preprint arXiv:1109.1556' in the bibliography should follow the journal's reference style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Balmer flux predictions are independent outputs of an externally calibrated model, not restatements of its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that Pop III Balmer emission is undetectable with JWST because A-SLOTH produces only low-mass young Pop III clusters. This is a model output, not an input. The Balmer luminosity calculation (Eqs. 4–7) is a standard physical conversion from ionizing photon production to Case B recombination emission; it is not fitted to the detection threshold or to JWST observability. The model parameters, including f_esc,III and the IMF, come from Hartwig et al. (2024), which calibrated A-SLOTH to external observables such as the reionization history, Milky Way satellites, and cosmic star formation rate density—not to Balmer fluxes. The paper explicitly varies f_esc,III across its full range and shows that even the most favorable case remains below the ETC threshold, demonstrating that the undetectability conclusion is not forced by a single fitted parameter. The feedback prescription that caps cluster masses is a physical assumption imported from prior work, but it is not a disguised reuse of the target result: the prior calibration does not include Balmer-line detectability, and the A-SLOTH code is public and reproducible. While the paper relies on self-citations for code provenance and calibration, these are independent support under the stated rules because the model is externally falsifiable and calibrated to data outside the present prediction. The paper is also transparent about the model dependence, using phrases like 'in our models' and 'than predicted in our models.' Therefore, no step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs, and there is no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the A-SLOTH model's calibrated subgrid parameters (11 in total) plus standard recombination and cosmology assumptions. No new entities are introduced. The key dependency is the feedback prescription that limits Pop III stellar masses.

free parameters (11)

f_esc,III (Pop III ionizing photon escape fraction) = 0.525 (best-fit); 0.1-0.9 explored
Calibrated in Hartwig et al. (2024); strongest lever on predicted Balmer fluxes via Eq. (4).
eta_III (Pop III star formation efficiency) = 8.15 (best-fit); 0.3-87.6
Controls total stellar mass formed per halo; affects flux normalization.
alpha_III (Pop III IMF slope) = 1.77 (best-fit); 0.2-2.3
Affects integrated ionizing photon output and hence line luminosity.
M_min (Pop III IMF lower mass limit) = 13.6 M_sun (best-fit); 3-42
Lower IMF cutoff; influences ionizing photon yield.
M_max (Pop III IMF upper mass limit) = 197 M_sun (best-fit); 100-320
Upper IMF cutoff; larger masses increase ionizing output but saturate above ~100 M_sun.
v_sv/sigma_sv (streaming velocity) = 1.75 (best-fit MW); 0.8-2.2
Delays star formation in minihalos; weak non-monotonic effect on fluxes.
f_esc,II (Pop II ionizing photon escape fraction) = 0.175 (best-fit); 0.1-0.3
Secondary role in Pop III flux predictions; affects Pop II contribution to R_ion.
eta_II (Pop II star formation efficiency) = 0.237 (best-fit); 0.1-1.7
Weakly affects Pop III fluxes via Pop II star formation and feedback.
alpha_out (outflow efficiency slope) = 2.59 (best-fit); 1-5
Regulates baryon loss; minimal influence on the upper flux envelope.
M_out,0 (outflow efficiency normalization) = 8.39e9 M_sun (best-fit); (6-11)e9
Negligible influence on Pop III Halpha fluxes.
c_ZIGM (IGM metallicity clumping factor) = 3.32 (best-fit); 2.5-4
Minor effect on predicted Pop III fluxes; shapes global enrichment trends.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Case B recombination with T_e = 2e4 K, n_e = 100 cm^-3 yields Halpha intensity of 0.45 photons per recombination and constant ratios Hbeta/Halpha=0.36, Hgamma/Halpha=0.17, Hdelta/Halpha=0.096
Used in Eqs (4)-(6) to convert ionizing photon rate to Balmer line luminosities; standard but temperature/density dependent within ~10%.
domain assumption A-SLOTH's baryonic prescriptions (gas cooling, radiative and SN feedback) accurately describe Pop III star formation in minihalos and limit the total stellar mass per halo
Central to the result that massive clusters (10^6 M_sun) do not form; this is the weakest assumption; see Section 2.1 and Figs 4-5.
domain assumption JWST NIRSpec ETC sensitivity limits for point sources at S/N=5 in 10^4 s represent the achievable detection threshold
Used to define detectability (Fig 2); relies on the STScI ETC tool and the point-source approximation.
domain assumption The merger trees (EPS with fixed seed, Caterpillar zoom-in, 8 Mpc/h box) sample the halo population relevant for Pop III at z=5-11
The three tree types are meant to cover MW-like and average environments; this limits generality of the non-detection forecast.
standard math Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with Planck 2018 parameters
Used for luminosity distance (Eq 7).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mass distribution of Pop III star clusters: A-SLOTH predictions for JWST observability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H3HJMVQ5

@misc{pith2026250809331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mass distribution of Pop III star clusters: A-SLOTH predictions for JWST observability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H3HJMVQ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09331}
}

abstract

This study aims to model the expected luminosities of the first four Balmer-series transitions from Pop.\,III star-forming halos and assess their detectability with JWST/NIRSpec across $5 \le z \le 11$, while testing whether the massive Pop.\,III stellar systems required for detectability are physically expected to form. We use the semi-analytical code A-SLOTH with merger trees constructed from the extended Press-Schechter (EPS) formalism and cosmological $N$-body simulations targeting Milky Way-like halos and the halo population in an 8~Mpc$/h$ box. Predicted line fluxes are compared to JWST detection limits derived from the Exposure Time Calculator (ETC), assuming a 10\,000~s NIRSpec exposure at a signal-to-noise ratio of 5. For our default model parameters, Pop.\,III H$\alpha$ fluxes peak at $\sim10^{-20}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$, 1--2 orders of magnitude below the JWST detection threshold ($\sim6\times10^{-19}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$). The other Balmer lines are weaker than H$\alpha$ and are likewise undetectable. This is because, in our models, the massive Pop.\,III stellar systems required to generate detectable Balmer emission do not form. Pop.\,III star formation proceeds in short, feedback-regulated episodes that are terminated by radiative and supernova feedback, yielding young Pop.\,III stellar masses of only $\sim10^{1}$--$10^{4}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$. In contrast, detectable Balmer emission would require Pop.\,III stellar masses of $M_{\star,\mathrm{III}}\gtrsim 10^{5}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$, depending on the observable redshift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.09331 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Observed wavelengths of the first few Balmer lines (Hα, Hβ, Hγ, Hδ) as a function of redshift, compared with the wavelength range accessible using the PRISM mode of JWST’s NIRSpec instrument (Jakobsen et al. 2022). Hα is only detectable using NIRSpec out to z ∼ 7, while the higher Balmer transitions remain potentially detectable out to z ∼ 10 − 11. & Hummer 1995) and are widely adopted in nebular diagnostics. The … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Minimum flux required for a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of 5 detection with JWST/NIRSpec under a total exposure time of ∼ 104 s as a function of redshift for the first four Balmer lines (Hα, Hβ, Hγ, Hδ) based on Exposure Time Calculator (ETC) simulations. The calculations assume a synthetic high-redshift halo emitting these lines. This plot illustrates the sensitivity of NIRSpec across redshifts z = 5 − 11, indicat… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Separated by population Hα flux (erg cm−2 s −1 ) as a function of redshift for Pop. II (bottom row) and Pop. III (upper row) stellar populations, modeled using a-sloth under three different frameworks. Left column: merger tree generated by the Extended Press-Schechter (EPS) formalism; middle column: merger tree from the Caterpillar simulation suite (Griffen et al. 2016, CTP); right column: Cosmologically representa… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Observed flux as a function of cumulative stellar mass for Pop. III star-forming halos, derived from the a-sloth model using EPS merger tree. Each point represents a model halo, color-coded by redshift in the range 5 ≤ z ≤ 11. While the most massive Pop. III systems (…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Hα flux versus cumulative stellar mass for Pop. III star-forming halos in three modeling approaches: EPS on the left, CTP in the center, and 8Mpc box on the right. Colored points show individual halos, with redshift encoded by the color bar. The red dashed line marks t…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Upper envelope of the Pop. III flux distribution vs redshift for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....
[3]

M., Lim , P

Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167

2022
[4]

R., et al

Behroozi, P., Knebe, A., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 3020

work page 2015
[5]

S., Wechsler, R

Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 762, 109

work page 2012
[6]

R., Cole , S., Efstathiou , G., & Kaiser , N

Bond , J. R., Cole , S., Efstathiou , G., & Kaiser , N. 1991, , 379, 440

work page 1991
[7]

S., & Larson , R

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

work page 2002
[8]

2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 597, L13

Cen, R. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 597, L13

work page 2003

Show all 70 references

[9]

2003, , 115, 763

Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763

2003
[10]

S., & Glover, S

Chen , L.-H., Hartwig, T., Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2022 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 6140

2022
[11]

2022 b , , 513, 934

Chen , L.-H., Magg , M., Hartwig , T., et al. 2022 b , , 513, 934

2022
[12]

2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 425

Curti, M., d’Eugenio, F., Carniani, S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 425

2023
[13]

S., & White, S

Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. 1985, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 292, May 15, 1985, p. 371-394. Research supported by the Science and Engineering Research Council of England and NASA., 292, 371

1985
[14]

2005, , 117, 445

Glover , S. 2005, , 117, 445

2005
[15]

Greif , T. H. 2015, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 2, 3

2015
[16]

H., Johnson , J

Greif , T. H., Johnson , J. L., Klessen , R. S., & Bromm , V. 2009, , 399, 639

2009
[17]

H., White , S

Greif , T. H., White , S. D. M., Klessen , R. S., & Springel , V. 2011, , 736, 147

2011
[18]

F., Ji , A

Griffen , B. F., Ji , A. P., Dooley , G. A., et al. 2016, , 818, 10

2016
[19]

S., et al

Haemmerl \'e , L., Mayer , L., Klessen , R. S., et al. 2020, , 216, 48

2020
[20]

Hartwig , T., Lipatova , V., Glover , S. C. O., & Klessen , R. S. 2024, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/535/1/516/7815909, 535, 516

2024
[21]

2022, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac7150, 936, 45

Hartwig , T., Magg , M., Chen , L.-H., et al. 2022, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac7150, 936, 45

2022 doi
[22]

2016, https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/460/1/L74/2589670, 460, L74

Hartwig , T., Volonteri , M., Bromm , V., et al. 2016, https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/460/1/L74/2589670, 460, L74

2016
[23]

& Furlanetto , S

Hegde , S. & Furlanetto , S. R. 2023, , 525, 428

2023
[24]

Hummer, D. G. & Storey, P. J. 1987, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 224, 801

1987
[25]

Ishiyama, T., Enoki, M., Kobayashi, M. A. R., et al. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 67, 61

2015
[26]

2016, , 826, 9

Ishiyama , T., Sudo , K., Yokoi , S., et al. 2016, , 826, 9

2016
[27]

L., & Bromm , V

Jaacks , J., Finkelstein , S. L., & Bromm , V. 2019, , 488, 2202

2019
[28]

2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A80

Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A80

2022
[29]

J., et al

Jeon , J., Liu , B., Taylor , A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14703

2025 arXiv
[30]

L., Greif, T

Johnson, J. L., Greif, T. H., Bromm, V., Klessen, R. S., & Ippolito, J. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 37

2009
[31]

Kennicutt, R. C. 1998, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 189

1998
[32]

2014, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/442/4/2963/1338478, 442, 2963

Kinugawa , T., Inayoshi , K., Hotokezaka , K., Nakauchi , D., & Nakamura , T. 2014, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/442/4/2963/1338478, 442, 2963

2014
[33]

2019, in Formation of the First Black Holes, ed

Klessen , R. 2019, in Formation of the First Black Holes, ed. M. Latif & D. Schleicher (World Scientific Publishing), 67--97

2019
[34]

Klessen , R. S. & Glover , S. C. O. 2023, , 61, 65

2023
[35]

2001, , 322, 231

Kroupa , P. 2001, , 322, 231

2001
[36]

Kulkarni , M., Visbal , E., & Bryan , G. L. 2021, , 917, 40

2021
[37]

& Cole, S

Lacey, C. & Cole, S. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 627

1993
[38]

& Bromm , V

Liu , B. & Bromm , V. 2020, , 495, 2475

2020
[39]

2024 a , , 534, 290

Liu , B., Gurian , J., Inayoshi , K., et al. 2024 a , , 534, 290

2024
[40]

S., et al

Liu , B., Hartwig , T., Sartorio , N. S., et al. 2024 b , , 534, 1634

2024
[41]

2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4417

Magg , M., Hartwig , T., Chen , L.-H., & Tarumi , Y. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4417

2022
[42]

Magg , M., Hartwig , T., Glover , S. C. O., Klessen , R. S., & Whalen , D. J. 2016, , 462, 3591

2016
[43]

2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 269, 33

Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Isobe, Y., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 269, 33

2023
[44]

Oh, S. P. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 527, 16

1999
[45]

P., Haiman, Z., & Rees, M

Oh, S. P., Haiman, Z., & Rees, M. J. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 553, 73

2001
[46]

Osterbrock, D. E. & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics Of Gas Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei (University science books)

2006
[47]

2020, https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/09/aa33910-18/aa33910-18.html, 641, A6

Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/09/aa33910-18/aa33910-18.html, 641, A6

2020
[48]

Press , W. H. & Schechter , P. 1974, , 187, 425

1974
[49]

Riaz , S., Hartwig , T., & Latif , M. A. 2022, , 937, L6

2022
[50]

H., Wright, G

Rieke, G. H., Wright, G. S., B \"o ker, T., et al. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 584

2015
[51]

J., Kelly, D

Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Horner, S., et al. 2005, Proceedings of the SPIE, 5904, 59040J

2005
[52]

J., Maturi , M., et al

Rydberg , C.-E., Whalen , D. J., Maturi , M., et al. 2020, , 491, 2447

2020
[53]

2013, , 429, 3658

Rydberg , C.-E., Zackrisson , E., Lundqvist , P., & Scott , P. 2013, , 429, 3658

2013
[54]

2023, , 524, 307

Santoliquido , F., Mapelli , M., Iorio , G., et al. 2023, , 524, 307

2023
[55]

2002, , 382, 28

Schaerer , D. 2002, , 382, 28

2002
[56]

Schauer , A. T. P., Glover , S. C. O., Klessen , R. S., & Ceverino , D. 2019, , 484, 3510

2019
[57]

Schauer , A. T. P., Glover , S. C. O., Klessen , R. S., & Clark , P. 2021, , 507, 1775

2021
[58]

& Wise , J

Skinner , D. & Wise , J. H. 2020, , 492, 4386

2020
[59]

2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 4086

Spera, M., Mapelli, M., & Bressan, A. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 4086

2015
[60]

2022, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

Spera, M., Mapelli, M., & Bressan, A. 2022, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

2022
[61]

2011, , 730, L1

Stacy , A., Bromm , V., & Loeb , A. 2011, , 730, L1

2011
[62]

& Hummer, D

Storey, P. & Hummer, D. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 272, 41

1995
[63]

A., & Kinugawa , T

Tanikawa , A., Susa , H., Yoshida , T., Trani , A. A., & Kinugawa , T. 2021, , 910, 30

2021
[64]

Trussler , J. A. A., Conselice , C. J., Adams , N. J., et al. 2023, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/525/4/5328/7251489, 525, 5328

2023
[65]

& Hirata , C

Tseliakhovich , D. & Hirata , C. 2010, , 82, 083520

2010
[66]

& Hartwig, T

Uysal, B. & Hartwig, T. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 3229

2023
[67]

E., Agarwal , B., Bromm , V., et al

Woods , T. E., Agarwal , B., Bromm , V., et al. 2019, , 36, e027

2019
[68]

2003, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/375810, 592, 645

Yoshida , N., Abel , T., Hernquist , L., & Sugiyama , N. 2003, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/375810, 592, 645

2003 doi
[69]

2024, , 533, 2727

Zackrisson , E., Hultquist , A., Kordt , A., et al. 2024, , 533, 2727

2024
[70]

K., Rydberg, C.-E., & Duval, F

Zackrisson, E., Inoue, A. K., Rydberg, C.-E., & Duval, F. 2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1109.1556

2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

[3] [3]

M., Lim , P

Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167

2022

[4] [4]

R., et al

Behroozi, P., Knebe, A., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 3020

work page 2015

[5] [5]

S., Wechsler, R

Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 762, 109

work page 2012

[6] [6]

R., Cole , S., Efstathiou , G., & Kaiser , N

Bond , J. R., Cole , S., Efstathiou , G., & Kaiser , N. 1991, , 379, 440

work page 1991

[7] [7]

S., & Larson , R

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

work page 2002

[8] [8]

2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 597, L13

Cen, R. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 597, L13

work page 2003