Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 112 references

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

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

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

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

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

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

What carries the argument

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

What would settle it

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

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

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

Load-bearing premise

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

Editorial extensions

If this is right

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

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ceiling is set by the race between star-formation efficiency and supernova feedback, halos with different assembly histories or lower actual ε_ff could shift the limit; the paper's constraint is based on only two runs sharing one assembly history.
  • The same strong-LW, atomic-cooling condition is also the channel for direct-collapse black hole formation; if a black hole forms instead of a starburst, the mass ceiling may be circumvented or the burst suppressed entirely.
  • The hot/cold gas bifurcation found in the simulations implies that pristine pockets can survive inside galaxies that are otherwise metal-enriched, which could explain why Pop III signatures are seen alongside metal lines in some observed galaxies.
  • The metal-bubble timing analysis suggests that external metal pollution is not the limiting factor; internal enrichment sets the starburst mass, making the ceiling a local rather than environmental property.
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 / 5 minor

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

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

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

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

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

full rationale

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

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

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

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

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Massive Can a Population III Starburst Be? Simulating the First Galaxies with High Lyman-Werner Background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NS7O3AD

@misc{pith2026260323209,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Massive Can a Population III Starburst Be? Simulating the First Galaxies with High Lyman-Werner Background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NS7O3AD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.23209}
}
abstract

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

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.23209 by the authors.

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

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    R., Iliev, I

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

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

  2. [3]

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

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

    arXiv 2025

  3. [4]

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

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

  4. [5]

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

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

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

  5. [6]

    D., Bolton, J

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1918 2024

  6. [7]

    S., Wechsler, R

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

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

  7. [8]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada4a1 2025

  8. [9]

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

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

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

Show all 112 references
  1. [10]

    P., & Loeb, A

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

    2001 doi

  2. [11]

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

    2009 doi

  3. [12]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

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

    2023 doi

  4. [13]

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

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

    2025 doi

  5. [14]

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

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

    2003 doi

  6. [15]

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

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

    2024 doi

  7. [16]

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

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

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    C., Glover, S

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

    2011 doi

  9. [18]

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

    2010

  10. [19]

    J., McLeod, D

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

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    C., Scholte, D., et al

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

    2025

  12. [21]

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

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

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

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

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

    2014 doi

  14. [24]

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

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  15. [25]

    J., Korista, K

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

    1998 doi arXiv

  16. [26]

    M., Marshall, M

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

    2025 doi arXiv

  17. [27]

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

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

    2012 doi

  18. [28]

    P., Chisholm, J., et al

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

    doi arXiv

  19. [29]

    P., et al

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

  20. [30]

    H., & Bromm, V

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

    2006

  21. [32]

    H., Springel, V., White, S

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

    2011 doi

  22. [33]

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

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

    2012 doi

  23. [35]

    J., & Loeb, A

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

    1997 doi

  24. [36]

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

    2025 doi

  25. [37]

    L., Woosley, S

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

    2003 doi

  26. [38]

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

    2002 doi

  27. [39]

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

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

    2017 doi

  28. [40]

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

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

    2025 doi arXiv

  29. [41]

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

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

    2014 doi

  30. [42]

    L., & Bromm, V

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

    2019 doi

  31. [43]

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

    doi

  32. [44]

    J., et al

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

    doi

  33. [45]

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

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

    doi

  34. [46]

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

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

    2017 doi

  35. [47]

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

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

    2019 doi

  36. [48]

    H., Bromm, V., & Milosavljević, M

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

    2014 doi

  37. [49]

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

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

    2025 doi

  38. [50]

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

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

    2014 doi

  39. [52]

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

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

    2013 doi

  40. [53]

    L., Greif, T

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

    2008

  41. [55]

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

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

    2013 doi

  42. [56]

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

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

    2023 doi

  43. [57]

    S., & Glover, S

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

    2023 doi

  44. [58]

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

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

    2022 doi

  45. [59]

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

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

    2024 doi

  46. [60]

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

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

    2008 doi

  47. [61]

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

    2022 doi

  48. [62]

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

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

    2020 doi

  49. [64]

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

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

    2024 doi

  50. [65]

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

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

    2001 doi

  51. [66]

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

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

    2025 doi

  52. [67]

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

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

    2025 doi arXiv

  53. [68]

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

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [69]

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

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

    2025 doi

  55. [70]

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

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

    2000 doi

  56. [71]

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

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

    2005 doi

  57. [72]

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

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

    2014 doi

  58. [73]

    H., Milosavljević, M., & Bromm, V

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

    2011 doi

  59. [74]

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

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

    1998 doi arXiv

  60. [75]

    R., Clark, P

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

    2022 doi

  61. [76]

    R., Regan, J

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

    2024 doi

  62. [77]

    A., Johansson, P

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

    2014 doi

  63. [78]

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

    2022 doi

  64. [79]

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

    2011 doi

  65. [80]

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

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

    2025 doi

  66. [81]

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

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

    2014 doi

  67. [82]

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

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

    2016 doi

  68. [83]

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

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

    2002 doi

  69. [84]

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

    2020 doi

  70. [85]

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

    2021 doi

  71. [86]

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

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

    1959 doi

  72. [89]

    H., Gerasimov, R., et al

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

    2025 doi

  73. [90]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 1105–1134, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    Springel, V. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 1105–1134, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    2005

  74. [91]

    Springel, V., Yoshida, N., & White, S. D. M. 2001, NewA, 6, 79, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(01)00042-2

    2001 doi

  75. [92]

    Stacy, A., Bromm, V., & Lee, A. T. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 1307, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1728

    2016 doi

  76. [93]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06853, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.06853

    Storck, A., Katz, H., Devriendt, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.06853, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.06853

    2025 doi arXiv

  77. [94]

    A., Weaver, J

    Suess, K. A., Weaver, J. R., Price, S. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad75fe Sugimura,K.,Matsumoto,T.,Hosokawa,T.,Hirano,S.,&Omukai, K. 2020, ApJL, 892, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7d37

    2024 doi

  78. [95]

    2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1269

    Sullivan, J., Haiman, Z., Kulkarni, M., & Visbal, E. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1269

    2025 doi

  79. [96]

    V., Klypin, A., et al

    Tinker, J., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, 709, doi: 10.1086/591439

    2008 doi

  80. [97]

    2006, Revisiting the Supernova Ia Rate at z>1, HST Proposal ID 10980

    Tonry, J. 2006, Revisiting the Supernova Ia Rate at z>1, HST Proposal ID 10980. Cycle 15

    2006

  81. [98]

    2007, MNRAS, 382, 945, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12215.x

    Tornatore, L., Ferrara, A., & Schneider, R. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 945, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12215.x

    2007

  82. [99]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158

    Treu, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., Bradac, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158

    2022 doi

  83. [100]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.14370

    Trinca, A., Lupi, A., Haiman, Z., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.14370. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.14370

    2026 arXiv

  84. [101]

    Trussler, J. A. A., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2553 van Veenen, L., Sharda, P., Viti, S., & Menon, S. H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11314, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11314

    2023 doi

  85. [102]

    2023, A&A, 678, A173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346981

    Vanzella, E., Loiacono, F., Bergamini, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346981

    2023 doi

  86. [103]

    L., et al

    Venditti, A., Bromm, V., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.10940, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.10940

    doi arXiv

  87. [104]

    2024b, MNRAS, 527, 5102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3513

    Schneider, R. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 5102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3513

    doi

  88. [105]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3809, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1201

    Venditti, A., Graziani, L., Schneider, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3809, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1201

    2023 doi

  89. [106]

    B., Bromm, V., et al

    Venditti, A., Munoz, J. B., Bromm, V., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.20263, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.20263

    2025 doi

  90. [107]

    M., Qin, Y., Balu, S., & Wyithe, J

    Ventura, E. M., Qin, Y., Balu, S., & Wyithe, J. S. B. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 628, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae567

    2024 doi

  91. [108]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    Visbal, E., Bryan, G. L., & Haiman, Z. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1456, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx909

    2017 doi

  92. [109]

    2024, ApJL, 967, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4ced

    Wang, X., Cheng, C., Ge, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 967, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4ced

    2024 doi

  93. [110]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 2675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1677

    Wang, Z., Shen, X., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 2675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1677

    2025 doi

  94. [111]

    R., Cutler, S

    Weaver, J. R., Cutler, S. E., Pan, R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad07e0

    2024 doi

  95. [112]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 574, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15331.x

    Tornatore, L. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 574, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15331.x

    2009

  96. [113]

    J., Asada, Y., Iyer, K

    Willott, C. J., Asada, Y., Iyer, K. G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addf49

    2025 doi

  97. [114]

    H., Regan, J

    Wise, J. H., Regan, J. A., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 566, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0873-4

    2019 doi

  98. [115]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 2603, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18080.x

    Wolcott-Green, J., & Haiman, Z. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2603, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18080.x

    2011

  99. [116]

    Wolcott-Green, J., Haiman, Z., & Bryan, G. L. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 838, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19538.x —. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3329, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx167

    2011

  100. [117]

    H., Norman, M

    Xu, H., Wise, J. H., Norman, M. L., Ahn, K., & O’Shea, B. W. 2016, ApJ, 833, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/84

    2016 doi

  101. [118]

    R., & Trapp, A

    Yamaguchi, N., Furlanetto, S. R., & Trapp, A. C. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad315

    2023 doi

  102. [119]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/13

    Zackrisson, E., Rydberg, C.-E., Schaerer, D., Östlin, G., & Tuli, M. 2011, ApJ, 740, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/13

    2011 doi

  103. [120]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 2727, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1881

    Zackrisson, E., Hultquist, A., Kordt, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2727, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1881

    2024 doi

  104. [121]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03806, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03806 18 APPENDIX ForcomparisonwiththeLW1e3E100run,weshowthegasphase-diagramforLW10E100

    Zier, O., Kannan, R., Smith, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03806, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03806 18 APPENDIX ForcomparisonwiththeLW1e3E100run,weshowthegasphase-diagramforLW10E100. Beforetheonsetofstarformation,the high-density gas (𝑛H,thr≥10 cm−3) evolves monoton...

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.