Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 111 references

Can Dark Stars account for the star formation efficiency excess at very high redshifts?

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dark stars above ~10^3 solar masses can match JWST's star formation efficiency excess at z~11-14, but their relic black holes would overpopulate halos under current MACHO bounds, so dark stars can only be a minor contributor.

desk verdict A timely test of dark stars vs the JWST SFE excess, but the MACHO exclusion argument skips halo growth and overstates the relic BH abundance. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07119 v3 pith:XINA3ROR submitted 2025-01-13 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-ex

Lei Lei , Yi-Ying Wang , Guan-Wen Yuan , Tong-Lin Wang , Martin A. T. Groenewegen , Yi-Zhong Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-ex
keywords high-redshiftgalaxiesdarkstarsWIMPmatterstarformationefficiencyUVluminosityfunctionMACHOsPopulationIIIJWST
topics 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

The paper asks whether dark stars—supersized first-generation stars fueled by WIMP annihilation instead of nuclear fusion—can explain the anomalously high star formation efficiency (SFE) inferred from JWST galaxies at redshifts 11-14. It finds that a population of dark stars with masses above roughly $10^3\,M_\odot$, powered by captured weakly interacting massive particles, can reproduce the observed ultraviolet luminosity function excess at these redshifts. However, the same population, if its top-heavy mass function extends to $10^4\!-\!10^5\,M_\odot$, collapses into black holes whose halo abundance would exceed current MACHO constraints from microlensing and stellar dynamics. The paper therefore concludes that dark stars can contribute only a small fraction of the excess, and that Population III stars, which have a similar UV output per unit star formation, are a more plausible candidate for the bulk.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the two-channel star formation efficiency decomposition, $f_{\rm tot} = f_S + f_{DS}$, where the normal star efficiency $f_S$ is a double power law in halo mass fit at $z\sim4{-}9$ and the dark star efficiency is a power law $f_{DS} = \epsilon_{DS}(M_h/M_1)^{\gamma_{DS}}$, which is used to map halo mass to ultraviolet luminosity and hence to the UV luminosity function. The second load-bearing piece is the dark star UV conversion factor $K_{\rm UV}$, computed from a top-heavy IMF with $\phi(m) \propto m^{-0.17}$, which makes dark stars roughly as efficient as Pop III stars in producing UV light. The third piece is the relic black hole halo fraction, $\psi(m) = \epsilon_{DS,\rm eff} f_b [\xi_0 \phi(m) m^2 / M_{\rm tot}]$, which is compared with MACHO constraints from strong-lensing caustic crossings, ultra-faint dwarf heating, and gravitational scattering heat transfer.

What would settle it

Measure the UV luminosity function at $z\sim13$ with high spectroscopic completeness and fit a model that lets the Pop II SFE parameters $\epsilon_N$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ evolve freely beyond $z\sim9$; if the data are explained without any dark star component, the claimed dark star excess is not needed. Alternatively, a direct search for dark star spectral signatures in galaxies like JADES-GS-z13-0, combined with a measurement of the resulting black hole mass function in the $10^3\!-\!10^5\,M_\odot$ range, would test whether the inferred relic abundance actually exceeds MACHO bounds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that a population of dark stars with $M \gtrsim 10^3\,M_\odot$, sustained by WIMP capture and annihilation, has a UV luminosity-to-star-formation conversion factor ($K_{\rm UV}$) close to that of Population III stars and noticeably higher than normal Population II stars, so the JWST star formation efficiency excess at $z\sim 11{-}14$ can be reproduced without exhausting the baryon budget. Yet the top-heavy IMF of these dark stars, with $\phi(m) \propto m^{+0.17}$, means their remnants become massive black holes; comparing the resulting relic black hole halo fraction with microlensing and dynamical constraints shows that a full dark star explanation is excluded unless dark star masses are confined to roughly $500\!-\!945\,M_\odot$, which supplies too little UV light. The paper's conclusion is that dark stars are not the dominant origin of the excess, while Population III stars—which share the same SFE model and a similar $K_{\rm UV}$—remain a viable alternative.

Load-bearing premise

The entire residual UV luminosity at $z\sim11{-}14$ is attributed to dark stars (or Pop III stars) through a power-law efficiency while ordinary Pop II star formation efficiency is assumed to stop evolving beyond $z\sim9$; if the Pop II efficiency continues to rise with redshift, or the residual comes from dust, IMF variation, or AGN contamination, the fitted dark star fraction and the MACHO exclusion built on it would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If dark stars with $M \gtrsim 10^3\,M_\odot$ exist at $z\sim11{-}14$, they are efficient primary UV sources and lower the star formation efficiency required per host halo.
  • The same population cannot have a top-heavy IMF extending to $10^4\!-\!10^5\,M_\odot$ without producing relic black holes that violate current MACHO constraints.
  • To survive those constraints, dark star masses must be squeezed into $500\!-\!945\,M_\odot$, a range that cannot account for the observed SFE excess.
  • Population III stars, with nearly the same $K_{\rm UV}$ and the same assumed efficiency model, can mimic dark stars in UV LF fits while avoiding the MACHO overproduction problem.
  • The UV LF data at $z\sim11{-}14$ require an extra component beyond the extrapolated Pop II efficiency, with the tension growing to about 2 dex at $z\sim13$ and 3 dex at $z\sim14$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If future JWST data show that the high-redshift UV excess declines with better photometric completeness or is explained by redshift-evolving dust, IMF, or AGN contamination, the dark star (and Pop III) attribution of the residual would lose its observational basis.
  • Editorial inference: The same fitting framework could be used the other way around—if dark stars are confirmed, the spectrum fit favoring temperatures near $5.75\times10^4$ K and WIMP masses from tens of GeV to a few TeV would add a new, independent probe of WIMP dark matter properties.
  • Editorial inference: The MACHO exclusion of very massive dark stars assumes that essentially all dark stars above $500\,M_\odot$ collapse to black holes with minimal mass loss; if a substantial fraction instead disrupt in pair-instability-like events or lose mass before collapse, the relic black hole abundance would be overestimated.
  • Editorial inference: The power-law ansatz $f_{DS} \propto M_h^{\gamma_{DS}}$ is an untested placeholder; zoom-in simulations of dark star formation in minihalos could directly test whether the monotonic halo-mass dependence and the fitted normalization are physical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. Using the JWST/HST UV luminosity functions at z≈4–14, the authors fit a two-component star-formation-efficiency (SFE) model: a Pop II component calibrated at z=4–9 and a dark-star (or Pop III) power-law component that accounts for the residual at z=11–14. They report that dark stars with M≳10^3 M_sun can reproduce the z≈11–14 SFE excess, with WIMP masses from tens of GeV to a few TeV. They then convert the best-fit z≈14 dark-star SFE into a relic black-hole mass fraction and compare it with MACHO constraints, concluding that dark stars with a top-heavy IMF extending to 10^4–10^5 M_sun are excluded and that only a small fraction of the excess can come from very massive dark stars, leaving Pop III stars as a plausible alternative.

Significance. The paper assembles a broad compilation of UV LF data, uses Bayesian nested-sampling fits with evidence comparisons for dust/no-dust cases, and anchors the final constraint in external MACHO observations. These are real strengths: the central result, if robust, would connect the JWST SFE excess to dark-star physics and set limits on the dark-star IMF and WIMP parameter space. However, the quantitative exclusion is currently overstrong as presented. The MACHO comparison omits the dilution of the high-redshift black-hole fraction by subsequent halo growth, and it uses best-fit SFE values rather than the full posterior distributions. Because these issues bear directly on the paper's main conclusion, the contribution is more conditional than the abstract suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (11) and Fig. 3] The relic-BH fraction ψ(m) in Eq. (11) is normalized to the z≈14 host-halo mass through ε_DS,eff f_b, but the constraints plotted in Fig. 3 (Oguri et al. 2018; Brandt 2016; Graham & Ramani 2024) constrain present-day compact-object fractions in local halos or along lens lines of sight. No account is taken of the growth of the host halos between z≈14 and z=0. For the JWST-bright halos considered in the fit (M_h≈10^10–10^11 M_sun at z≈14), the z=0 descendants are typically 10^12–10^14 M_sun, so the solid boxes in Fig. 3 are inflated by roughly one to three orders of magnitude. Because this comparison is the basis for the statement that relic BHs are 'too abundant,' the exclusion is not established as written; the authors should either propagate each z≈14 halo to its z=0 descendant or compare a cosmic comoving BH density against the appropriate cosmological limits.
  2. [Section 2.3 and Table 2] The MACHO exclusion uses the best-fit values of ε_DS,eff only. At z≈13–14 the posterior distributions are broad: with dust, ε_DS = 0.063^{+0.069}_{-0.045} (z=13) and 0.103^{+0.066}_{-0.060} (z=14); without dust, 0.066^{+0.058}_{-0.045} and 0.090^{+0.064}_{-0.052}, with best-fit values that sometimes differ from the posterior mode. The authors themselves note that the z≈13–14 UV LF samples contain very few points. The conclusion that a given IMF is 'excluded by MACHO constraints' should therefore be a posterior statement (for example, the fraction of posterior samples lying above the limits), not a binary statement based on a maximum-likelihood point.
  3. [Section 2.3, Eqs. (2) and (6)] The dark-star component is fitted to the same z=11–14 UV LF data after fixing the Pop II SFE to its z=4–9 values, so the reproduction of the SFE excess is a fit rather than an independent prediction. The inferred ε_DS,eff and hence the MACHO bound depend on the assumptions that the Pop II SFE has no redshift evolution beyond z≈9 and that the entire residual is described by the fDS power law of Eq. (6). Redshift evolution of fS, dust attenuation, IMF variations, or AGN contamination in the residual would change ε_DS,eff and weaken or remove the exclusion. The paper should quantify how much fS evolution (or dust) is needed to eliminate the dark-star component, or present the dark-star reconstruction as an upper envelope rather than a best-fit scenario.
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 10, and Appendix C] The conclusion that there is 'no appropriate mass range' depends on the lower bound M_DS ≳ 10^3 M_sun derived from the single-object spectral fit to JADES-GS-z13-0. This fit assumes a blackbody dark-star component, a fixed young stellar template, and an IGM damping-wing treatment, and the resulting M_DS–mχ posterior is not propagated into the MACHO comparison. Since the 500–945 M_sun window is the only one that survives the MACHO constraints, systematic uncertainties in the spectral fit could reopen that window; the paper should either quantify these systematics or soften the claim that dark stars are excluded in the full allowed mass range.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3, paragraph after Fig. 3] The sentence 'The solid boxes in Figure 3 illustrate the best-fitted fractions of Pop III stars' is inconsistent with Fig. 3, where the Pop III model is shown as the orange dashed box; please correct.
  2. [Section 1, penultimate paragraph] Typo: 'dar star' should be 'dark star'.
  3. [Appendix C] Typo: 'interply' should be 'interplay'.
  4. [Table 3] The WIMP mass entries use 'Gev' instead of 'GeV', and the labels 'DS, w Cap' and 'DS, wo Cap' are not explained in the table footnote; please define the with/without-capture distinction.
  5. [References] The reference list contains two identical entries for Iocco et al. (2008), one under MNRAS and one under Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.; please merge them.
  6. [Appendix D] Please clarify whether the 'without capture' case yields no posterior at all or simply no overlapping region in Fig. 10, since the H-R diagram in Fig. 9 includes without-capture tracks.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The z~11-14 dark-star SFE is fitted to the residual, so the claim that dark stars reproduce the SFE excess is a restatement of the fit; the MACHO-based exclusion is an external consistency check, giving only partial circularity.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3, 'Fitting Results']
    "In the analysis, we specifically extrapolated the Pop II star formation contribution to the UV LF at redshifts z ∼ 11 − 14 using the fitting results from the redshift range z ∼ 4 − 9. The SFE parameters that describe the contribution of Pop II are fixed to the best-fit values at z ∼ 4 − 9, which are listed in Table 1. The remaining contributions at z ∼ 11 − 14 were then attributed to dark stars (or Pop III) and fitted using a power-law model specific to these populations."

    The two free parameters of fDS (Eq. 6) are fitted to exactly the UV LF residual left after the fixed Pop II extrapolation, so Eq. (2), SFR = ftot × Mdot_b with ftot = fS + fDS, becomes an identity by construction. Therefore the abstract's claim that 'the excess can be reproduced by a group of dark stars with M ≳ 10^3 M⊙' is a restatement of the fitting procedure, not an independent test. Since Pop III is assigned the same KUV and the same power-law SFE in Section 2.2, the fit equally 'reproduces' the excess for Pop III, so it does not specifically validate dark stars. The independent content of the paper lies instead in the subsequent external MACHO comparison.

full rationale

The z~11-14 dark-star SFE is not predicted; it is fitted. Section 2.3 fixes the Pop II parameters from z~4-9 and then fits ϵDS and γDS in Eq. (6) to the remaining UV LF. The abstract's opening result that dark stars with M≳10^3 M⊙ reproduce the excess therefore restates the fitting equation and carries no independent evidential weight for the dark-star interpretation; the same fit would 'reproduce' the excess for any component with the same KUV, including the Pop III model the paper itself treats as interchangeable. That is the circular component. The paper's second, headline conclusion—that the implied relic BH abundance conflicts with MACHO limits—is not circular: Eq. (11) maps the fitted fDS into a BH halo fraction and compares it with external constraints (Oguri 2018; Brandt 2016; Graham & Ramani 2024), and the paper candidly notes the small-data limitations at z~13-14 and the preliminary status of the Pop III comparison. Self-citations such as Wang et al. (2023a) supply only the standard UV LF machinery and the choice M1=10^12 M⊙, not the dark-star result itself. Overall this is partial circularity, with the fit-based reproduction reducing by construction while the MACHO-based exclusion remains an external consistency check.

Assumptions & free parameters 23 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central constraint rests on a chain of assumptions: dark star physics from prior literature, an adopted top-heavy IMF, a redshift-independent Pop II SFE, and the conversion of dark star SFE into a black hole halo fraction. The paper fits several parameters to the same data it uses to claim reproduction, though the MACHO comparison is external.

free parameters (23)
  • epsilon_N (Pop II SFE normalization) = 0.158 (posterior 0.157+0.001-0.001)
    Equation 5, fitted to UV LF at 4<=z<=9; sets the baseline SFE.
  • beta (Pop II low-mass slope) = 0.564 (posterior 0.564+0.008-0.008)
    Equation 5, fitted to UV LF at 4<=z<=9.
  • gamma (Pop II high-mass slope) = 0.580 (posterior 0.577+0.003-0.004)
    Equation 5, fitted to UV LF at 4<=z<=9.
  • M1 (characteristic halo mass) = 10^12 M_sun (fixed, not fitted)
    Chosen from Harikane et al. 2022a and Wang et al. 2023a; sets the pivot of the SFE functions.
  • epsilon_DS (z=11, with dust) = 0.076
    Equation 6, fitted to z=11 UV LF; posterior 0.059+0.013-0.017.
  • gamma_DS (z=11, with dust) = 0.520
    Equation 6, fitted to z=11 UV LF; posterior 0.469+0.046-0.075.
  • epsilon_DS (z=12, with dust) = 0.005
    Equation 6, fitted to z=12 UV LF; posterior 0.024+0.023-0.017.
  • gamma_DS (z=12, with dust) = 0.004
    Equation 6, fitted to z=12 UV LF; posterior 0.474+0.154-0.188.
  • epsilon_DS (z=13, with dust) = 0.179
    Equation 6, fitted to z=13 UV LF; posterior 0.063+0.069-0.045.
  • gamma_DS (z=13, with dust) = 0.335
    Equation 6, fitted to z=13 UV LF; posterior 0.293+0.196-0.150.
  • epsilon_DS (z=14, with dust) = 0.201
    Equation 6, fitted to z=14 UV LF; posterior 0.103+0.066-0.060.
  • gamma_DS (z=14, with dust) = 0.296
    Equation 6, fitted to z=14 UV LF; posterior 0.241+0.105-0.120.
  • epsilon_DS (z=11, without dust) = 0.004
    Equation 6, fitted to z=11 UV LF without dust; posterior 0.012+0.011-0.007.
  • gamma_DS (z=11, without dust) = 0.003
    Equation 6, fitted to z=11 UV LF without dust; posterior 0.452+0.221-0.282.
  • epsilon_DS (z=12, without dust) = 0.063
    Equation 6, fitted to z=12 UV LF without dust; posterior 0.025+0.024-0.017.
  • gamma_DS (z=12, without dust) = 0.558
    Equation 6, fitted to z=12 UV LF without dust; posterior 0.469+0.145-0.187.
  • epsilon_DS (z=13, without dust) = 0.164
    Equation 6, fitted to z=13 UV LF without dust; posterior 0.066+0.058-0.045.
  • gamma_DS (z=13, without dust) = 0.353
    Equation 6, fitted to z=13 UV LF without dust; posterior 0.309+0.162-0.145.
  • epsilon_DS (z=14, without dust) = 0.080
    Equation 6, fitted to z=14 UV LF without dust; posterior 0.090+0.064-0.052.
  • gamma_DS (z=14, without dust) = 0.161
    Equation 6, fitted to z=14 UV LF without dust; posterior 0.249+0.107-0.129.
  • Dark star IMF slope alpha = -0.17
    Top-heavy IMF slope adopted from Venditti et al. 2024 for dark stars; not fitted here.
  • Dark star IMF mass range (mlow, mup) = 500-10^4 or 500-10^5 M_sun (also 500-945 M_sun)
    Upper mass truncation is varied in the MACHO analysis; lower truncation fixed at 500 M_sun.
  • WIMP mass m_chi = 10 GeV, 100 GeV, 1 TeV grid; posterior tens of GeV to few TeV
    Input to dark star models in Appendix A and D; constrained by the JADES-GS-z13-0 spectrum fit.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Dark stars exist and are powered by WIMP annihilation.
    Central premise taken from Freese et al. 2010 and Ilie et al. 2023; not independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption WIMPs are captured efficiently by baryonic matter in protostars, sustaining the dark star phase.
    The 'with capture' scenario from Freese et al. 2010 is used for the primary conclusion.
  • domain assumption The halo mass function and accretion rate prescriptions are valid at z~11-14.
    Used to build the UV LF via Equations 7 and 8, relying on Reed et al. 2007 and Behroozi and Silk 2015.
  • ad hoc to paper Pop II SFE parameters fitted at z=4-9 remain valid at z=11-14.
    The residual SFE attribution depends on this extrapolation, as described in Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption Dark stars above 500 M_sun collapse to black holes with negligible mass loss.
    Needed to translate SFE into a MACHO halo fraction via Equation 11.
  • ad hoc to paper The top-heavy IMF slope alpha=-0.17 and mass range up to 10^4-10^5 M_sun describe dark stars.
    Adopted from Venditti et al. 2024; the MACHO exclusion result depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The dark star mass-luminosity relation from Freese et al. 2010 is correct.
    Used in Appendix A and Appendix C to derive K_UV and to constrain dark star masses and WIMP parameters.
  • domain assumption UV luminosity traces star formation through the stated K_UV conversion factors.
    The model converts UV LF into SFR using Equation 1 and the adopted K_UV values.
invented entities (1)
  • Power-law dark star formation efficiency fDS
    purpose: Parameterizes the unknown efficiency of dark star formation as a function of halo mass (Equation 6).
    Introduced because the paper states there is an absence of mature simulations or analytical theories; its parameters are fitted, not predicted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can Dark Stars account for the star formation efficiency excess at very high redshifts?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XINA3ROR

@misc{pith2026250107119,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can Dark Stars account for the star formation efficiency excess at very high redshifts?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XINA3ROR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07119}
}
abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has recently conducted observations of massive galaxies at high redshifts, revealing a notable anomaly in their star formation efficiency (SFE). Motivated by the recent identification of three $\sim 10^{6}M_\odot$ dark star candidates, we investigate whether dark stars can be the origin of the SFE excess. It turns out that the excess can be reproduced by a group of dark stars with $M \gtrsim 10^{3}\, \rm M_{\odot}$, because of their domination in generating primary UV radiation in high-redshift galaxies. The genesis of these dark stars is attributed to the capture of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) within a mass range of tens of GeV to a few TeV. However, if the top-heavy initial mass function of dark stars holds up to $\sim 10^{5}M_\odot$, the relic black holes stemming from their collapse would be too abundant to be consistent with the current observations of Massive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs). We thus suggest that just a small fraction of SFE excess may be contributed by the very massive dark stars and the majority likely originated from other reasons such as the Population III stars in view of their rather similar UV radiation efficiencies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07119 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The fitting results of UV LF observations within the redshift range of approximately 4 − 9. All of the solid lines represent the optimal fit for the complete dataset, with data points derived from observations. In the subfigure, the light blue region illustrates the comprehensive posterior dis￾tribution of SFE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The UV LFs of galaxies at high redshift (z > 10) as observed by JWST, alongside model predictions. The UV LFs data is compiled from diverse projects conducted with JWST (Harikane et al. 2022b; Donnan et al. 2023; Bouwens et al. 2023a,b; Casey et al. 2024; Harikane et al. 2023; McLeod et al. 2024; P´erez-Gonz´alez et al. 2023). The 68.3% posterior regions of the Pop II Star+Dark Star (or Pop II + III Star) models, wi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Constraints on the halo mass fraction of dark stars. We adopt the results derived from various sources, including caustic crossings of strong lensing arcs (Oguri et al. 2018), ultra-faint dwarf galaxies (UFDs) (Brandt 2016) and dynamic heating of UFDs (Graham & Ramani 2024). The colourful boxes in solid represent the fraction results of dark stars’ relic BHs of the best-fit SFE of JWST UV LFs z ∼ 14 data, correspond… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Best-fit SFE models in different redshift bins with dark stars (or Pop III stars), with and without dust attenuation. The blue or red dashed line shows the 68% SFE of Pop II stars in a range of z ∼ 4 − 9 with or without dust, respectively. The blue or red region shows …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The posteriors of dark star or Pop III star SFE model with considering dust attenuation. The darkred regions of the three depths in the corner plot are labeled with 68%, 95%, and 99% confidence intervals, respectively. The black crosses are the positions of the best-fi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The posteriors of dark star or Pop III star SFE model without considering dust attenuation. The darkred regions of the three depths in the corner plot are labeled with 68%, 95%, and 99% confidence intervals, respectively. The black crosses are the positions of the best…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The JWST/NIRSpec spectrum and best-fit spectrum model of JADES-GS-z13-0. The yellow solid line is young stellar component contributions in the galaxy model from the software Bagpipes (Carnall et al. 2018, 2019). The solid or dotted blue lines are absorbed or unabsorbed…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The posteriors of fitting the galaxy spectrum of JADES-GS-z13-0. 10 4 10 5 T (K) 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 10 9 10 10 L (L ) 10 2M 10 3M 10 4M 10 5M JADES z13 68% 95% 99.7% H R diagram m 1 TeV, with capture m 1 TeV, without capture m 100 GeV, with capture m 100 GeV, wit…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram of dark stars and the posteriors of dark stars’ temperature with JWST spectrum of JADES-z13. The H-R diagram is reproduced from ref. Freese et al. (2010). The red regions with different depths are 68%, 95% and 99.7% posterior regions o…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The posterior distribution of the dark star parameter MDS and the mass parameter mχ for WIMPs. Our results presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    #܏ ?׿__ qo 盻 ?w O#^ZÏ cL^c n <_n>=GM Oђ! ;I1G & P o =JZ O #cb r=roZ 1|/ >r?R S8-<Ó w _`8 j JG = 3T=Ojy o c UTD ee .<j/ S .0 B

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    J., Conselice , C

    Adams , N. J., Conselice , C. J., Austin , D., et al. 2024, , 965, 169, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a7b 2024

  5. [5]

    A., Mukhopadhyay , U., Sen , A

    Adil , S. A., Mukhopadhyay , U., Sen , A. A., & Vagnozzi , S. 2023, JCAP, 2023, 072, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/072

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/072 2023

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, Astron. J., 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    S., & Silk , J

    Behroozi , P. S., & Silk , J. 2015, ApJ, 799, 32, 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/32

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, Physics Letters B, 858, 139062, 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139062

    Bird , S., Chang , C.-F., Cui , Y., & Yang , D. 2024, Physics Letters B, 858, 139062, 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139062

    2024

  3. [11]

    2023 a , MNRAS, 523, 1009, 10.1093/mnras/stad1014

    Bouwens , R., Illingworth , G., Oesch , P., et al. 2023 a , MNRAS, 523, 1009, 10.1093/mnras/stad1014

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Oesch , P

    Bouwens , R. J., Oesch , P. A., Stefanon , M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 47, 10.3847/1538-3881/abf83e

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Stefanon , M., Brammer , G., et al

    Bouwens , R. J., Stefanon , M., Brammer , G., et al. 2023 b , MNRAS, 523, 1036, 10.1093/mnras/stad1145

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Bowler , R. A. A., Jarvis , M. J., Dunlop , J. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2059, 10.1093/mnras/staa313

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 731, 10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7

    Boylan-Kolchin , M. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 731, 10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Brandt , T. D. 2016, ApJL, 824, L31, 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L31

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    2014, , 564, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner , J., Georgakakis , A., Nandra , K., et al. 2014, , 564, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Cameron , A

    Bunker , A. J., Cameron , A. J., Curtis-Lake , E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A288, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347094

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., & Dav \'e , R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 417, 10.1093/mnras/stz2544

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, Rept

    Carr, B., Kohri, K., Sendouda, Y., & Yokoyama, J. 2021, Rept. Prog. Phys., 84, 116902, 10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Akins , H

    Casey , C. M., Akins , H. B., Shuntov , M., et al. 2024, , 965, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2075

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, Science, 376, 170, 10.1126/science.abk1781

    CDF Collaboration , Aaltonen , T., Amerio , S., Amidei , et al. 2022, Science, 376, 170, 10.1126/science.abk1781

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari , M

    Colg \'a in , E. \'O ., Sheikh-Jabbari , M. M., & Yin , L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19953, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19953

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    S., & Fan , Y.-Z

    Cui , M.-Y., Yuan , Q., Tsai , Y.-L. S., & Fan , Y.-Z. 2017, PRL, 118, 191101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.191101

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    Curtis-Lake , E., Carniani , S., Cameron , A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

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

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

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Scholtz , J., et al

    D'Eugenio , F., Cameron , A. J., Scholtz , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.06531, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06531

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    T., McLeod , D

    Donnan , C. T., McLeod , D. J., Dunlop , J. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6011, 10.1093/mnras/stac3472

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

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

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    K., Lupton , R

    Fan , X., Narayanan , V. K., Lupton , R. H., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2833, 10.1086/324111

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    S., & Wu , L

    Fan , Y.-Z., Tang , T.-P., Tsai , Y.-L. S., & Wu , L. 2022, , 129, 091802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.091802

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    P., & Bridges , M

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., & Bridges , M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    2009

  26. [34]

    L., Bagley , M

    Finkelstein , S. L., Bagley , M. B., Ferguson , H. C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    L., Leung , G

    Finkelstein , S. L., Leung , G. C. K., Bagley , M. B., et al. 2024, , 969, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Freese , K., Gondolo , P., & Spolyar , D. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 990, First Stars III, ed. B. W. O'Shea & A. Heger (AIP), 42--44, 10.1063/1.2905656

    2008 doi

  29. [37]

    2010, ApJ, 716, 1397, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1397

    Freese , K., Ilie , C., Spolyar , D., Valluri , M., & Bodenheimer , P. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1397, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1397

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 066902, 10.1088/0034-4885/79/6/066902

    Freese , K., Rindler-Daller , T., Spolyar , D., & Valluri , M. 2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 066902, 10.1088/0034-4885/79/6/066902

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    2013, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Glover , S. 2013, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 396, The First Galaxies, ed. T. Wiklind , B. Mobasher , & V. Bromm , 103, 10.1007/978-3-642-32362-1_3

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    2022, , 935, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7fea

    Gondolo , P., Sandick , P., Shams Es Haghi , B., & Visbal , E. 2022, , 935, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7fea

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, ApJ, 947, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc109

    Gong , Y., Yue , B., Cao , Y., & Chen , X. 2023, ApJ, 947, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc109

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    W., & Ramani , H

    Graham , P. W., & Ramani , H. 2024, PRD, 110, 075011, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.075011

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    E., Strader , J., & Ho , L

    Greene , J. E., Strader , J., & Ho , L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257, 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, , 960, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    Harikane , Y., Nakajima , K., Ouchi , M., et al. 2024, , 960, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b7e

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    2022 a , ApJS, 259, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3dfc

    Harikane , Y., Ono , Y., Ouchi , M., et al. 2022 a , ApJS, 259, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3dfc

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    K., Mawatari , K., et al

    Harikane , Y., Inoue , A. K., Mawatari , K., et al. 2022 b , ApJ, 929, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac53a9

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 5, 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    Harikane , Y., Ouchi , M., Oguri , M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 5, 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    H., & Haghi , H

    Haslbauer , M., Kroupa , P., Zonoozi , A. H., & Haghi , H. 2022, ApJL, 939, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a50

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2011, Physics Letters B, 697, 412, 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.02.029

    Hooper , D., & Goodenough , L. 2011, Physics Letters B, 697, 412, 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.02.029

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    Ilie, C., Freese, K., Petric, A., & Paulin, J. 2023. 2312.13837

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    T., & Shapiro , P

    Ilie , C., Freese , K., Valluri , M., Iliev , I. T., & Shapiro , P. R. 2012, , 422, 2164, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20760.x

    2012

  46. [54]

    2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 120, e2305762120, 10.1073/pnas.2305762120

    Ilie , C., Paulin , J., & Freese , K. 2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 120, e2305762120, 10.1073/pnas.2305762120

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    K., Li , W., & Ho , L

    Inayoshi , K., Harikane , Y., Inoue , A. K., Li , W., & Ho , L. C. 2022, ApJL, 938, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9310

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    2010, PoS, CRF2010, 018, 10.22323/1.121.0018

    Iocco, F. 2010, PoS, CRF2010, 018, 10.22323/1.121.0018

    2010 doi

  49. [58]

    2008, MNRAS, 390, 1655, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13853.x

    Iocco , F., Bressan , A., Ripamonti , E., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1655, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13853.x

    2008

  50. [59]

    2024, Phys

    Iocco, F., & Visinelli, L. 2024, Phys. Dark Univ., 44, 101496, 10.1016/j.dark.2024.101496

    2024

  51. [60]

    2023, , 108, 043510, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043510

    Jiao , H., Brandenberger , R., & Refregier , A. 2023, , 108, 043510, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043510

    2023 doi

  52. [61]

    Johnson , J. L. 2013, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 396, The First Galaxies, ed. T. Wiklind , B. Mobasher , & V. Bromm , 177, 10.1007/978-3-642-32362-1_4

    2013 doi

  53. [62]

    Kiziltan , B., Kottas , A., De Yoreo , M., & Thorsett , S. E. 2013, , 778, 66, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/66

    2013 doi

  54. [63]

    S., & Glover , S

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

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    2023, , 616, 266, 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    Labb \'e , I., van Dokkum , P., Nelson , E., et al. 2023, , 616, 266, 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

    2023 doi

  56. [65]

    2000, ApJ, 538, 473, 10.1086/309179

    Lewis , A., Challinor , A., & Lasenby , A. 2000, ApJ, 538, 473, 10.1086/309179

    2000 doi

  57. [66]

    C., et al

    Li , Z., Dekel , A., Sarkar , K. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A108, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348727

    2024 doi

  58. [67]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 015009, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0864

    Lin , H., Gong , Y., Yue , B., & Chen , X. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 015009, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0864

    2024 doi

  59. [68]

    C., Harrison , I., Harikane , Y., Tacchella , S., & Wilkins , S

    Lovell , C. C., Harrison , I., Harikane , Y., Tacchella , S., & Wilkins , S. M. 2023, , 518, 2511, 10.1093/mnras/stac3224

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau , P., & Dickinson , M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  61. [70]

    2012, , 745, 166, 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/166

    Maurer , A., Raue , M., Kneiske , T., et al. 2012, , 745, 166, 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/166

    2012 doi

  62. [71]

    J., Donnan , C

    McLeod , D. J., Donnan , C. T., McLure , R. J., et al. 2024, , 527, 5004, 10.1093/mnras/stad3471

    2024 doi

  63. [72]

    A., Mukhopadhyay, U., Sen, A

    Menci, N., Adil, S. A., Mukhopadhyay, U., Sen, A. A., & Vagnozzi, S. 2024, JCAP, 07, 072, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/072

    2024 doi

  64. [73]

    1998, , 501, 15, 10.1086/305799

    Miralda-Escud \'e , J. 1998, , 501, 15, 10.1086/305799

    1998 doi

  65. [74]

    2023, ApJL, 946, L35, 10.3847/2041-8213/acbf50

    Morishita , T., & Stiavelli , M. 2023, ApJL, 946, L35, 10.3847/2041-8213/acbf50

    2023 doi

  66. [75]

    G., Power , C., & Robotham , A

    Murray , S. G., Power , C., & Robotham , A. S. G. 2013, Astronomy and Computing, 3, 23, 10.1016/j.ascom.2013.11.001

    2013 doi

  67. [76]

    P., Oesch , P

    Naidu , R. P., Oesch , P. A., van Dokkum , P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b22

    2022 doi

  68. [77]

    C., & O'Shea , B

    Natarajan , A., Tan , J. C., & O'Shea , B. W. 2009, ApJ, 692, 574, 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/574

    2009 doi

  69. [78]

    2023, Astronomy, 2, 90, 10.3390/astronomy2020007

    Nesti , F., Salucci , P., & Turini , N. 2023, Astronomy, 2, 90, 10.3390/astronomy2020007

    2023 doi

  70. [79]

    M., Kaiser , N., Kelly , P

    Oguri , M., Diego , J. M., Kaiser , N., Kelly , P. L., & Broadhurst , T. 2018, PRD, 97, 023518, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.023518

    2018 doi

  71. [80]

    B., & Gunn , J

    Oke , J. B., & Gunn , J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713, 10.1086/160817

    1983 doi

  72. [81]

    G., Costantin , L., Langeroodi , D., et al

    P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez , P. G., Costantin , L., Langeroodi , D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd9d0

    2023 doi

  73. [82]

    2020, A&A, 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  74. [83]

    B., Liu , H., & Slatyer , T

    Qin , W., Mu \ n oz , J. B., Liu , H., & Slatyer , T. R. 2024, , 109, 103026, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103026

    2024 doi

  75. [84]

    S., Bower , R., Frenk , C

    Reed , D. S., Bower , R., Frenk , C. S., Jenkins , A., & Theuns , T. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 2, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11204.x

    2007

  76. [85]

    2023, Data from the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES), STScI/MAST, 10.17909/8TDJ-8N28

    Rieke, Marcia , Robertson, Brant , Tacchella, Sandro , et al. 2023, Data from the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey (JADES), STScI/MAST, 10.17909/8TDJ-8N28

    2023 doi

  77. [86]

    Salpeter , E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  78. [87]

    2011, , 2011, 018, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/01/018

    Sandick , P., Diemand , J., Freese , K., & Spolyar , D. 2011, , 2011, 018, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/01/018

    2011 doi

  79. [88]

    2012, , 85, 083519, 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.083519

    ---. 2012, , 85, 083519, 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.083519

    2012 doi

  80. [89]

    Schleicher , D. R. G., Banerjee , R., & Klessen , R. S. 2009, , 79, 043510, 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.043510

    2009 doi

  81. [90]

    2011, , 742, 129, 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/129

    Scott , P., Venkatesan , A., Roebber , E., et al. 2011, , 742, 129, 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/129

    2011 doi

  82. [91]

    J., Iocco , F., Glover , S

    Smith , R. J., Iocco , F., Glover , S. C. O., et al. 2012, , 761, 154, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/154

    2012 doi

  83. [92]

    S., & Dav \'e , R

    Somerville , R. S., & Dav \'e , R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    2015 doi

  84. [93]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.05364, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.05364

    Su , B.-Y., Li , N., & Feng , L. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.05364, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.05364

    2023 doi arXiv

  85. [94]

    L., Graziani , L., & Schneider , R

    Venditti , A., Bromm , V., Finkelstein , S. L., Graziani , L., & Schneider , R. 2024, , 527, 5102, 10.1093/mnras/stad3513

    2024 doi

  86. [95]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  87. [96]

    2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 732, 10.1038/s42254-021-00364-9

    Volonteri , M., Habouzit , M., & Colpi , M. 2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 732, 10.1038/s42254-021-00364-9

    2021 doi

  88. [97]

    2024 a , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 045001, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad2cd3

    Wang , J.-C., Huang , Z.-Q., Huang , L., & Liu , J. 2024 a , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 045001, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad2cd3

    2024 doi

  89. [98]

    2024 b , European Physical Journal Plus, 139, 711, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05276-y

    Wang , P., Su , B.-Y., Zu , L., Yang , Y., & Feng , L. 2024 b , European Physical Journal Plus, 139, 711, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05276-y

    2024 doi

  90. [99]

    2023 a , ApJL, 954, L48, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf46c

    Wang , Y.-Y., Lei , L., Yuan , G.-W., & Fan , Y.-Z. 2023 a , ApJL, 954, L48, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf46c

    2023 doi

  91. [100]

    2023 b , Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 120403, 10.1007/s11433-023-2262-0

    Wang , Z., Lei , L., Jiao , H., Feng , L., & Fan , Y.-Z. 2023 b , Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 120403, 10.1007/s11433-023-2262-0

    2023 doi

  92. [101]

    H., & Tinker , J

    Wechsler , R. H., & Tinker , J. L. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 435, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051756

    2018 doi

  93. [102]

    2022, Phys

    Wu, Y., Baum, S., Freese, K., Visinelli, L., & Yu, H.-B. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 043028, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043028

    2022 doi

  94. [103]

    A., Elbaz , D., et al

    Xiao , M., Oesch , P. A., Elbaz , D., et al. 2024, Nature, 635, 311, 10.1038/s41586-024-08094-5

    2024 doi

  95. [104]

    2008, Astrophys

    Yoon, S.-C., Iocco, F., & Akiyama, S. 2008, Astrophys. J. Lett., 688, L1, 10.1086/593976

    2008 doi

  96. [105]

    2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 109512, 10.1007/s11433-024-2433-3

    Yuan , G.-W., Lei , L., Wang , Y.-Z., et al. 2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 109512, 10.1007/s11433-024-2433-3

    2024 doi

  97. [106]

    2011, , 2011, 020, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/04/020

    Yuan , Q., Yue , B., Zhang , B., & Chen , X. 2011, , 2011, 020, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/04/020

    2011 doi

  98. [107]

    Yung , L. Y. A., Somerville , R. S., Finkelstein , S. L., Wilkins , S. M., & Gardner , J. P. 2024, , 527, 5929, 10.1093/mnras/stad3484

    2024 doi

  99. [108]

    2010 a , , 717, 257, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/257

    Zackrisson , E., Scott , P., Rydberg , C.-E., et al. 2010 a , , 717, 257, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/257

    2010 doi

  100. [109]

    2010 b , , 407, L74, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00908.x

    ---. 2010 b , , 407, L74, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00908.x

    2010

  101. [110]

    2024, Astrophys

    Zhang, S., Ilie, C., & Freese, K. 2024, Astrophys. J., 965, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad27ce

    2024 doi

  102. [111]

    2015, PRD, 91, 123010, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.123010

    Zhou , B., Liang , Y.-F., Huang , X., et al. 2015, PRD, 91, 123010, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.123010

    2015 doi

  103. [112]

    2022, PRL, 129, 231101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.231101

    Zhu , C.-R., Cui , M.-Y., Xia , Z.-Q., et al. 2022, PRL, 129, 231101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.231101

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.