Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 147 references

Massive stars in extremely metal-poor galaxies: A window into the past

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The study of extremely metal-poor massive stars now requires a 10m-class space telescope, and the case is made for LUVOIR.

desk verdict A credible, well-written Voyage 2050 white paper whose scientific case is solid and whose instrument-sensitivity numbers are rougher than they look. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04687 v1 pith:ZIFZEX5K submitted 2019-08-12 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.SR

M. Garcia , C. J. Evans , J. M. Bestenlehner , J.C. Bouret , N. Castro , M. Cerviño , A. W. Fullerton , M. Gieles
show 14 more authors
A. Herrero A. de Koter D. J. Lennon J. Th. van Loon F. Martins S. E. de Mink F. Najarro I. Negueruela H. Sana S. Simón-Díaz D. Szécsi F. Tramper J. Vink A. Wofford
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords massivestarsmetal-poorgalaxiesstellarwindsultravioletspectroscopyinitialmassfunctionLUVOIRmetallicityladderspacetelescope
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 white paper argues that the next major advance in understanding massive stars in extremely metal-poor environments cannot come from existing or planned ground-based telescopes. It contends that the Small Magellanic Cloud, at one-fifth solar metallicity, is an inadequate stand-in for the near-primordial conditions of the early Universe, and that nearby dwarf galaxies such as Sextans A, SagDIG, Leo P, and I Zw18 provide a ladder of lower metallicities. Observing their massive stars with enough quality to measure stellar parameters, winds, and binarity, however, requires a 10-meter-class space telescope working in the ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared. The paper therefore makes the case that such a facility, exemplified by the LUVOIR mission concept, is necessary, and proposes that Europe join as a partner.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a 'metallicity ladder': a sequence of nearby star-forming dwarf galaxies with decreasing metal content (Sextans A at ~1/10 solar, SagDIG at ~1/20, Leo P at ~1/30, I Zw18 at ~1/32) that lets observers study massive stars under progressively more primitive conditions and extrapolate toward the first, metal-free stars. The argument for the telescope requirement rests on sensitivity scaling: limiting fluxes and magnitudes for future facilities are obtained by scaling current HST and VLT measurements by mirror area alone, assuming no throughput improvement, yielding the V~21, V~25, and F1500A~$10^{-17}$ targets.

What would settle it

Measure the actual end-to-end throughput, detector noise, and sky background of a 10m-class space telescope and compute whether an R~8000 spectrum of a V~21 O-star can be obtained in 12 hours with signal-to-noise sufficient for quantitative analysis; if not, the central requirement is not met.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central assertion is that the community has hit the limit of current observational facilities: only a handful of massive stars have been spectroscopically confirmed in galaxies poorer than the SMC, and the best ground-based telescopes reach only the brightest, unreddened examples after long integrations. The paper quantifies the required capability: optical spectroscopy at R~8000 to V~21 for Local Group O-stars, R~1000 to V~25 for I Zw18, and UV spectroscopy to F1500A of about $10^{-17}$ erg $cm^{-2}$ $s^{-1}$ $A^{-1}$, all with spatial resolution near 0.01 arcseconds. These numbers are within reach of a 10m-class space telescope such as LUVOIR, and the authors argue that building one is the enabling step for answering the open questions about extremely metal-poor massive stars.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the sensitivity of a future large space telescope can be predicted by scaling the performance of Hubble and VLT by mirror size alone, with no gain or loss from improved optics, detectors, or background; if real performance is worse, the proposed sample of extremely metal-poor massive stars shrinks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a 10m-class space telescope in the UV-optical-NIR is built, the SMC can be superseded as the standard template for low-metallicity massive stars.
  • The sample of sub-SMC massive stars would grow from a handful to a statistically useful population, enabling tests of whether the initial mass function and the upper mass limit depend on metallicity.
  • UV spectroscopy of winds in these stars would calibrate mass-loss prescriptions at metallicities at or below one-tenth solar, where current theory is largely untested.
  • Multi-epoch optical and near-infrared spectroscopy would measure binary fractions and period distributions in extremely metal-poor environments, which are needed to interpret gravitational-wave merger rates.
  • If the most ambitious LUVOIR architecture flies, individual stars in I Zw18 could be resolved and analyzed, potentially revealing whether very massive or metal-free stars drive its strong HeII emission.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The sensitivity estimates assume no throughput improvement, so if the real telescope has lower ultraviolet efficiency or higher backgrounds, the stated limiting magnitudes are optimistic and the accessible sample shrinks, which would weaken the scientific case without invalidating it.
  • Editorial inference: The same capability would also serve other fields such as stellar archaeology, galaxy assembly, and exoplanet host characterization, so the cost-sharing argument could be broadened beyond massive stars alone.
  • Editorial inference: A near-term testable step is to push current 8-10 meter telescopes with very long integrations on a single Sextans A O-star to see whether R~8000 spectroscopy at V~21 is truly out of reach, which would validate or undermine the claimed limit.
  • Editorial inference: If the metallicity ladder works as argued, a future telescope should prioritize the ultraviolet multi-object spectrograph together with a medium-resolution optical spectrograph, since the paper notes that the latter is missing from current instrument plans.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This white paper makes the case that extremely metal-poor (sub-SMC) massive stars are a crucial and currently under-observed population for understanding star formation, stellar evolution, feedback, reionization, and the genesis of gravitational-wave sources. It reviews the state of the art on massive-star formation, evolution, winds, and multiplicity at low metallicity, and argues that the Small Magellanic Cloud is not an adequate proxy for the earliest stellar generations. The paper identifies nearby dwarf irregular galaxies (Sextans A, SagDIG, Leo P, I Zw18) as forming a metallicity ladder from 1/10 to 1/32 Z_sun, but argues that current facilities—HST for UV spectroscopy and 8–10 m ground-based telescopes for optical spectroscopy—cannot obtain spectra of sufficient quality for a statistically meaningful sample. The central proposal is that a 10 m-class space telescope operating in the UV-optical-NIR, specifically the LUVOIR concept with ESA participation and an added multi-object optical spectrograph, is necessary to make progress. Quantitative sensitivity limits are given in Fig. 6 and Table 1 (V~21 at R=8000, V~25 at R=1000, and F1500A=1e-17 erg/s/cm2/Å), derived by scaling current HST/VLT/GTC measurements by mirror area only.

Significance. If the technical case holds, this white paper identifies a genuinely important scientific gap: nearly all quantitative knowledge of low-metallicity massive stars comes from the Magellanic Clouds, and the leap to sub-SMC metallicities requires observations that current facilities cannot deliver. The proposed metallicity ladder is well reasoned and connects concrete stellar-physics questions (winds, chemical homogenization, binarity, upper-mass limit) to larger questions in cosmology and gravitational-wave astrophysics. The paper is strong in being explicit about its assumptions: Fig. 6 states that sensitivity limits are scaled by mirror size with no throughput improvement, and the text flags that UV coatings and microchannel-plate detectors are not yet flight-qualified. It also makes falsifiable predictions (specific limiting magnitudes, spectral resolutions, and exposure times) that can be checked against future instrument models. The main weakness is that the quantitative sensitivity estimates are not derived from an end-to-end instrument model, which matters because Table 1 presents these values as level-zero technical specifications.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1, Fig. 6, Table 1] The quantitative feasibility of the proposed program rests on sensitivity limits obtained by scaling HST-COS and VLT/GTC measurements by mirror area only, 'assuming no throughput improvement.' This scaling ignores wavelength-dependent end-to-end throughput, detector quantum efficiency and dark current, and, for the ground-based references, the transition from source-limited to background-limited signal, as well as slit losses; the paper itself notes in §3.2.1 that the improved UV coatings and detectors 'still lack flight qualification.' Because Table 1 lists V=21, V=25, and F1500A=1e-17 as level-zero specifications, these values are load-bearing rather than merely illustrative. Please replace or supplement the mirror-area scaling with a transparent instrument-model estimate (throughput, detector noise, sky/background, spectral resolution, and slit losses) for both LUMOS and the proposed optical spectrograph, and show how the limiting magnitudes change under pessimistic assumptions.
  2. [§3.2 vs. Fig. 6] The 11.5-hour LUMOS-A estimate for I Zw18 UV spectroscopy (SNR=20 at 1500 Å, R~5000) is quoted from France et al. (2017) without stating the throughput and background model behind it. This is not obviously derivable from the Fig. 6 scaling, which is presented at R~2000 for a 6-orbit HST-COS observation. Please reconcile the two calculations explicitly, so that the F1500A=1e-17 limit quoted in §3.1 and Table 1 is consistent with the exposure-time estimate in §3.2.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] The expression 'R= λ∆λ ≥8 000' should read R = λ/Δλ ≥ 8 000; the division symbol is missing.
  2. [Fig. 6] The caption states that flux limits for both LUVOIR architectures are shown, but the figure does not clearly distinguish which horizontal line corresponds to LUVOIR-A and which to LUVOIR-B; adding labeled lines or a legend would improve readability.
  3. [§1.2 and §2] The metallicity of I Zw18 is quoted as 1/50 Z_sun in §1.2 and as 1/32 Z_sun in §2; the provenance of each value (e.g., nebular versus stellar, oxygen versus total metallicity) should be stated to avoid an apparent inconsistency.
  4. [References] In the reference list, the entry for Evans et al. (2019) runs into the separate Evans et al. (2005) Messenger reference on the same line; the formatting should separate the two entries.
  5. [Abstract and §3.2] The abstract speaks of a '10m-class telescope' while §3.2 notes that LUVOIR-B has an 8 m mirror; the text should clarify whether the science case, particularly for I Zw18, requires the 15 m LUVOIR-A architecture or whether the 8 m option is also sufficient.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the science case is a white-paper synthesis supported by external observations and transparent sensitivity scaling, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes no predictive derivation that is equivalent by construction to its inputs. Its central claim is a facility requirement: that extremely metal-poor massive stars beyond the Local Group require a 10m-class space telescope. This is supported by catalogued external observations, including HST/STIS-COS UV spectra (Garcia et al. 2014), VLT-FLAMES 30 Doradus data (Evans et al. 2011), and GTC/VLT work on Sextans A, SagDIG, and Leo P. The sensitivity limits in Fig. 6 (V=21 at R=8000, V=25 at R=1000, F1500A=1e-17) are explicitly obtained by scaling measured HST/VLT limits by mirror area, 'assuming no throughput improvement.' That scaling is an unvalidated engineering assumption about future performance, and a reviewer could reasonably question whether real throughput, detector efficiency, or background will match it, but it is not circular: the claimed future capability is not fitted from, defined in terms of, or derived from the conclusion that a 10m telescope is needed. The LUMOS 11.5-hour I Zw18 estimate is taken from France et al. 2017, an external instrument study, and is not manufactured from the paper's own inputs. Self-citations appear (e.g., Garcia et al. 2019 for Sextans A), but they are used as empirical evidence of current limits, not as a self-referential proof or uniqueness theorem, and the proposal would stand or fall on the quality of that external data regardless of authorship. No step renames a known result, imports a uniqueness theorem from the authors, or smuggles an ansatz through a citation. The weakest element, the mirror-area-only sensitivity scaling, falls under correctness or risk assessment rather than circularity, and the instructions require a concrete identity between output and input to flag a step. None is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a white paper proposing a mission; it contains no fitted parameters or new entities, but its proposal rests on the assumptions listed.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SMC metallicity is not representative of the extremely metal-poor regime; a ladder of more metal-poor galaxies is needed.
    Sections 1 and 2; this is the scientific premise of the proposal.
  • domain assumption Massive stars in sub-SMC metallicity galaxies are out of reach of current ground-based facilities and HST.
    Section 2, e.g., 'the reality is that we have hit the limit of current observational facilities.'
  • ad hoc to paper A 10m-class space telescope (LUVOIR-A or B) can meet the derived technical requirements.
    Section 3.2; this is the proposal's central recommendation and is not independently established.
  • domain assumption Sensitivity estimates scale linearly with mirror area with no throughput improvement.
    Figure 6 caption and Section 3.1; used to compute exposure times and magnitude limits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Massive stars in extremely metal-poor galaxies: A window into the past." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZIFZEX5K

@misc{pith2026190804687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Massive stars in extremely metal-poor galaxies: A window into the past},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZIFZEX5K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04687}
}
abstract

Cosmic History has witnessed the lives and deaths of multiple generations of massive stars, all of them invigorating their host galaxies with ionizing photons, kinetic energy, fresh material and stellar-mass black holes. Ubiquitous engines as they are, Astrophysics needs a good understanding of their formation, evolution, properties and yields throughout the history of the Universe, and with decreasing metal content mimicking the environment at the earliest epochs. Ultimately, a physical model that could be extrapolated to zero metallicity would enable tackling long-standing questions such as "What did the First, very massive stars of the Universe look like?" or "What was their role in the re-ionization of the Universe?". Yet, most our knowledge of metal-poor massive stars is drawn from one single point in metallicity. Massive stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC, $\sim 1/5 Z_{\odot}$) currently serve as templates for low-metallicity objects in the early Universe, even though significant differences with respect to massive stars with poorer metal content have been reported. This White Paper summarizes the current knowledge on extremely (sub-SMC) metal poor massive stars, highlighting the most outstanding open questions and the need to supersede the SMC as standard. A new paradigm can be built from nearby extremely metal-poor galaxies that make a new metallicity ladder, but massive stars in these galaxies are out of reach to current observational facilities. Such task would require an L-size mission, consisting of a 10m-class space telescope operating in the optical and the ultraviolet ranges. Alternatively, we propose that ESA unites efforts with NASA to make the LUVOIR mission concept a reality, thus continuing the successful partnership that made Hubble Space Telescope one of the greatest observatories of all time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04687 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Where are the very massive stars of the Local Group? Left and middle panels: The R136a cluster at the heart of the Tarantula nebula, in the LMC, hosts the most massive stars known in the local Universe ( 27, adapted). Right: The Local Group 1/10 Z galaxy Sextans A hosts HII shells equivalent in size, but no star more massive than 60 M has been detected. (0.715 - 1.3 Mpc) and detecting CO is extremely challenging, be… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Signatures of star-formation in low gas-density environments. Left: NGC 5236 and other ex￾tended UV-disk galaxies exhibit UV emission (hence on-going star-formation) up to 4 times beyond their optical radius. RGB composite made with FUV (blue) and NUV (green) channels (from11, adapted). Right: The youngest, most massive stars ever reported in Sextans A (squares 47) are located in the outskirts of the galaxy, where t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The momentum carried by the wind de￾pends on stellar luminosity and metallicity (solid lines). The optical studies of 1/7 O stars suggested that their winds were as strong as LMC analogs (squares). Terminal velocities from the UV revised these values downwards (stars). A full UV analysis resulted in wind momenta well under the theoreti￾cal prediction (triangles). We are far from a reliable prescription of the mass l… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The UV spectral morphology reflects variations of stellar metallicity. HST-COS/HST-STIS UV spectra of stars with similar spectral type (hence Teff,Lbol) in different Local Group galaxies. The pseudo-continuum at 1350–1500˚A, dominated by FeV lines (green ticks), indica…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Road-map to the early Universe. Selected Local Group and nearby star-forming dwarf galaxies provide a ladder of decreasing metallicity that will allow us to study the physics of extremely metal-poor massive stars, and ultimately to extrapolate the properties of the Fir…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The potential of current and future instrumental facilities to study OB-type stars at landmark galaxies: LMC (∼ 0.05 Mpc), SMC (∼ 0.06 Mpc), IC 1613 (∼ 0.75 Mpc), Sextans A/Leo P/SagDIG (. 1.5 Mpc), the Sculptor filament and Centaurus group (. 4 Mpc), and I Zw18 (18.9 …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 116, 241102

    2016

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L12

    2017

  3. [3]

    P., et al

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, Abbott, B. P., et al. 2018, arXiv:1811.12907

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    J., Caballero-Nieves, S

    Aldoretta, E. J., Caballero-Nieves, S. M., Gies, D. R., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 26

    2015

  5. [5]

    2007, ApJ, 667, L151

    Aloisi, A., Clementini, G., Tosi, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 667, L151

    2007

  6. [6]

    I., et al

    Barb´ a, R., Gamen, R., Arias, J. I., et al. 2014, Revista Mexicana De Astronomia Y Astrofisica Conference Series, 148

    2014

  7. [7]

    L., et al

    Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1217

    2010

  8. [8]

    R., Herrero, A., Comer´ on, F., et al

    Berlanas, S. R., Herrero, A., Comer´ on, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A50

    2018

Show all 147 references
  1. [9]

    Bonanos, A. Z. 2013, Advancing the Physics of Cosmic Distances, 173

    2013

  2. [10]

    A., Bate, M

    Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 1997, MNRAS, 285, 201

    1997

  3. [11]

    Bouquin, A. Y. K. 2018, PhD thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    2018

  4. [12]

    J., et al

    Bouret, J.-C., Lanz, T., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1545

    2015

  5. [13]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, L5

    2012

  6. [14]

    A., Gieren, W., Pietrzy´ nski, G., & Kudritzki, R.-P

    Bresolin, F., Urbaneja, M. A., Gieren, W., Pietrzy´ nski, G., & Kudritzki, R.-P. 2007, ApJ, 671, 2028

    2007

  7. [15]

    E., Bonanos, A

    Britavskiy, N. E., Bonanos, A. Z., Mehner, A., Boyer, M. L., & McQuinn, K. B. W. 2015, A&A, 584, A33

    2015

  8. [16]

    2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901

    Bromm, V. 2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901

    2013

  9. [17]

    E., Cantiello, M., et al

    Brott, I., de Mink, S. E., Cantiello, M., et al. 2011a, A&A, 530, A115

  10. [18]

    2016, A&A, 585, A82

    Camacho, I., Garcia, M., Herrero, A., & Sim´ on-D´ ıaz, S. 2016, A&A, 585, A82

    2016

  11. [19]

    Casares, J., & Jonker, P. G. 2014, Space Sci. Rev., 183, 223

    2014

  12. [20]

    I., Abbott, D

    Castor, J. I., Abbott, D. C., & Klein, R. I. 1975, ApJ, 195, 157

    1975

  13. [21]

    2014, A&A, 570, L13

    Castro, N., Fossati, L., Langer, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, L13

    2014

  14. [22]

    S., Fossati, L., & Langer, N

    Castro, N., Oey, M. S., Fossati, L., & Langer, N. 2018, ApJ, 868, 57

    2018

  15. [23]

    J., Yates, R

    Chen, T.-W., Smartt, S. J., Yates, R. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3566

    2017

  16. [24]

    1986, ARA&A, 24, 329

    Chiosi, C., & Maeder, A. 1986, ARA&A, 24, 329

    1986

  17. [25]

    S., Negueruela, I., Crowther, P

    Clark, J. S., Negueruela, I., Crowther, P. A., & Goodwin, S. P. 2005, A&A, 434, 949

    2005

  18. [26]

    P., Hony, S., et al

    Cormier, D., Abel, N. P., Hony, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A23

    2019

  19. [27]

    A., Schnurr, O., Hirschi, R., et al

    Crowther, P. A., Schnurr, O., Hirschi, R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 731

    2010

  20. [28]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 3

    Davies, B., Kudritzki, R.-P., Plez, B., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 3

    2013

  21. [29]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 112

    Davies, B., Kudritzki, R.-P., Lardo, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 112

    2017

  22. [30]

    2008, A&A, 489, 685

    Ekstr ¨om, S., Meynet, G., Chiappini, C., Hirschi, R., & Maeder, A. 2008, A&A, 489, 685

    2008

  23. [31]

    2012, A&A, 537, A146

    Ekstr ¨om, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146

    2012

  24. [32]

    J., Izzard, R

    Eldridge, J. J., Izzard, R. G., & Tout, C. A. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1109

    2008

  25. [33]

    G., Rubio, M., Hunter, D

    Elmegreen, B. G., Rubio, M., Hunter, D. A., et al. 2013, Nature, 495, 487

    2013

  26. [34]

    J., Lennon, D

    Evans, C. J., Lennon, D. J., Smartt, S. J., & Trundle, C. 2006, A&A, 456, 623

    2006

  27. [35]

    J., Bresolin, F., Urbaneja, M

    Evans, C. J., Bresolin, F., Urbaneja, M. A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1198

    2007

  28. [36]

    J., Taylor, W

    Evans, C. J., Taylor, W. D., H´ enault-Brunet, V., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A108

    2011

  29. [37]

    J., Castro, N., Gonzalez, O

    Evans, C. J., Castro, N., Gonzalez, O. A., Garcia, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A129 Evans, C., Smartt, S., Lennon, D., et al. 2005, The Messenger, 122, 36

    2019

  30. [38]

    J., Korista, K

    Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761

    1998

  31. [39]

    L., Papovich, C., Ryan, R

    Finkelstein, S. L., Papovich, C., Ryan, R. E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 93

    2012

  32. [40]

    2017, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 10397, 1039713

    France, K., Fleming, B., West, G., et al. 2017, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 10397, 1039713

    2017

  33. [41]

    R., Gilmore, G., Heger, A., & Chan, C

    Fraser, M., Casey, A. R., Gilmore, G., Heger, A., & Chan, C. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 418

    2017

  34. [42]

    C., Fox, D

    Gal-Yam, A., Leonard, D. C., Fox, D. B., et al. 2007, ApJ, 656, 372

    2007

  35. [43]

    2010, A&A, 523, A23 18

    Garcia, M., Herrero, A., Castro, N., Corral, L., & Rosenberg, A. 2010, A&A, 523, A23 18

    2010

  36. [44]

    J., & Alejandro Urbaneja, M

    Garcia, M., Herrero, A., Najarro, F., Lennon, D. J., & Alejandro Urbaneja, M. 2014, ApJ, 788, 64

    2014

  37. [45]

    2017, The Lives and Death-Throes of Massive Stars, 329, 313

    Garcia, M., Herrero, A., Najarro, F., et al. 2017, The Lives and Death-Throes of Massive Stars, 329, 313

    2017

  38. [46]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, L66

    Garcia, M. 2018, MNRAS, 474, L66

    2018

  39. [47]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 422

    Garcia, M., Herrero, A., Najarro, F., Camacho, I., & Lorenzo, M. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 422

    2019

  40. [48]

    2017, A&A, 599, L5

    Georgy, C., Meynet, G., Ekstr ¨om, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, L5

    2017

  41. [49]

    2017, A&A, 606, L12

    Giannetti, A., Leurini, S., K ¨onig, C., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, L12

    2017

  42. [50]

    F., Boissier, S., et al

    Gil de Paz, A., Madore, B. F., Boissier, S., et al. 2005, ApJ, 627, L29

    2005

  43. [51]

    E., & Groh, J

    G ¨otberg, Y., de Mink, S. E., & Groh, J. H. 2017, A&A, 608, A11

    2017

  44. [52]

    E., Groh, J

    G ¨otberg, Y., de Mink, S. E., Groh, J. H., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A78

    2018

  45. [53]

    R., van Loon, J

    Goldman, S. R., van Loon, J. T., Zijlstra, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 403

    2017

  46. [54]

    H., Meynet, G., Georgy, C., & Ekstr ¨om, S

    Groh, J. H., Meynet, G., Georgy, C., & Ekstr ¨om, S. 2013, A&A, 558, A131 , A&A, 550, L7

    2013

  47. [55]

    H., Ekstr ¨om, S., Georgy, C., et al

    Groh, J. H., Ekstr ¨om, S., Georgy, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A24

    2019

  48. [56]

    Gunawardhana, M. L. P., Hopkins, A. M., Sharp, R. G., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1647

    2011

  49. [57]

    2014, The Labyrinth of Star Formation, 36, 365

    Hennebelle, P., & Commer¸ con, B. 2014, The Labyrinth of Star Formation, 36, 365

    2014

  50. [58]

    2010, A&A, 513, A70

    Herrero A., Garcia M., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, A70

    2010

  51. [59]

    2012, A&A, 543, A85

    Herrero A., Garcia M., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A85

    2012

  52. [60]

    Hirano, S., Hosokawa, T., Yoshida, N., Omukai, K., & Yorke, H. W. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 568

    2015

  53. [61]

    W., Jr., Kudritzki, R.-P., Bresolin, F., et al

    Hosek, M. W., Jr., Kudritzki, R.-P., Bresolin, F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 151

    2014

  54. [62]

    W., Lu, J

    Hosek, M. W., Lu, J. R., Anderson, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 44

    2019

  55. [63]

    A., Ficut-Vicas, D., Ashley, T., et al

    Hunter, D. A., Ficut-Vicas, D., Ashley, T., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 134

    2012

  56. [64]

    A., Tolstoy, E., Pinte, C., & Kudritzki, R.-P

    Kaufer, A., Venn, K. A., Tolstoy, E., Pinte, C., & Kudritzki, R.-P. 2004, AJ, 127, 2723

    2004

  57. [65]

    M., P´ erez-Montero, E., et al

    Kehrig, C., V´ ılchez, J. M., P´ erez-Montero, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, L28

    2015

  58. [66]

    C., & Kobulnicky, H

    Kiminki, D. C., & Kobulnicky, H. A. 2012, ApJ, 751, 4

    2012

  59. [67]

    Y., Grebel, E

    Kniazev, A. Y., Grebel, E. K., Pustilnik, S. A., Pramskij, A. G., & Zucker, D. B. 2005, AJ, 130, 1558

    2005

  60. [68]

    M., Murray-Clay, R

    Kratter, K. M., Murray-Clay, R. A., & Youdin, A. N. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1375

    2010

  61. [69]

    M., et al

    Kraus, S., Hofmann, K.-H., Menten, K. M., et al. 2010, Nature, 466, 339

    2010

  62. [70]

    R., Klein, R

    Krumholz, M. R., Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., Offner, S. S. R., & Cunningham, A. J. 2009, Science, 323, 754

    2009

  63. [71]

    Krumholz, M. R. 2012, ApJ, 759, 9

    2012

  64. [72]

    2014, A&A, 567, A63

    Krtiˇ cka, J., & Kub´ at, J. 2014, A&A, 567, A63

    2014

  65. [73]

    Kudritzki, R. P. 2002, ApJ, 577, 389

    2002

  66. [74]

    2000, ARA&A, 38, 613

    Kudritzki, R.-P., & Puls, J. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 613

    2000

  67. [75]

    2018, A&A, 616, A101

    Kuiper, R., & Hosokawa, T. 2018, A&A, 616, A101

    2018

  68. [76]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

    Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

    2012

  69. [77]

    B., Oey, M

    Lamb, J. B., Oey, M. S., Segura-Cox, D. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 113

    2016

  70. [78]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3

    1999

  71. [79]

    B., & Solomon, P

    Lucy, L. B., & Solomon, P. M. 1970, ApJ, 159, 879

    1970

  72. [80]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 138

    Lunnan, R., Chornock, R., Berger, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 138

    2014

  73. [81]

    LUVOIR mission website https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/luvoir/

  74. [82]

    LUVOIR Interim report https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/luvoir/resources/docs/LUVOIR Interim Report Final.pdf

  75. [83]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    2014

  76. [84]

    2019, A&A, 626, A20

    Ma´ ız Apell´ aniz, J., Trigueros P´ aez, E., Negueruela, I., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A20

    2019

  77. [85]

    Mandel, I., & de Mink, S. E. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2634

    2016

  78. [86]

    2003, A&A, 399, 617

    Marigo, P., Chiosi, C., & Kudritzki, R.-P. 2003, A&A, 399, 617

    2003

  79. [87]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 77

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 77

    2017

  80. [88]

    J., & Heydari-Malayeri, M

    Martins, F., Schaerer, D., Hillier, D. J., & Heydari-Malayeri, M. 2004, A&A, 420, 1087 19

    2004

  81. [89]

    2002, A&A, 390, 561

    Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2002, A&A, 390, 561

    2002

  82. [90]

    2014, 40th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, E1.20-16-14

    De Mink, S. 2014, 40th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, E1.20-16-14

    2014

  83. [91]

    R., de Koter, A., Vink, J

    Mokiem, M. R., de Koter, A., Vink, J. S., et al. 2007b, A&A, 473, 603

  84. [92]

    R., Figer, D

    Najarro, F., de La Fuente, D., Geballe, T. R., Figer, D. F., & Hillier, D. J. 2017, The Lives and Death-Throes of Massive Stars, 329, 287

    2017

  85. [93]

    2018, A&A, 609, A109

    Nandakumar, G., Schultheis, M., Feldmeier-Krause, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A109

    2018

  86. [94]

    S., et al

    Oey, M. S., et al. 2019, Report of the Hubble Space Telescope Ultraviolet Legacy Science Definition Working Group. https://outerspace.stsci.edu/display/HPR/ULLYSES%3A+Hubble+UV+ Legacy+Library+of+Young+Stars+as+Essential+Standards?preview=/27035567/38176542/HSTUV_REPORT.pdf

    2019

  87. [95]

    R., Evans, C

    Patrick, L. R., Evans, C. J., Davies, B., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 492

    2017

  88. [96]

    A., Levan, A

    Perley, D. A., Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 128

    2013

  89. [97]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1052

    Petit, V., Keszthelyi, Z., MacInnis, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1052

    2017

  90. [98]

    C., & Hsu, J

    Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Hsu, J. J. L. 1992, ApJ, 391, 246

    1992

  91. [99]

    Poelarends, A. J. T., Wurtz, S., Tarka, J., Cole Adams, L., & Hills, S. T. 2017, ApJ, 850, 197

    2017

  92. [100]

    M., et al

    Ramachandran, V., Hamann, W.-R., Oskinova, L. M., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A104

    2019

  93. [101]

    R., Shibai, H., Armus, L., et al

    Roelfsema, P. R., Shibai, H., Armus, L., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e030

    2018

  94. [102]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    2012

  95. [103]

    E., et al

    Sana, H., de Koter, A., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A107

    2013

  96. [104]

    2014, ApJS, 215, 15

    Sana, H., Le Bouquin, J.-B., Lacour, S., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 15

    2014

  97. [105]

    C., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., Ram´ ırez-Tannus, M. C., de Koter, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, L9

    2017

  98. [106]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Izzard, R. G., Langer, N., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 20

    2015

  99. [107]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., Langer, N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2355

    2016

  100. [108]

    Schneider, F. R. N., et al. 2019, in prep

    2019

  101. [109]

    P., Looney, L

    Seale, J. P., Looney, L. W., Chu, Y.-H., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 150

    2009

  102. [110]

    P., Vidal-Garc´ ıa, A., et al

    Senchyna, P., Stark, D. P., Vidal-Garc´ ıa, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2608

    2017

  103. [111]

    2014, Nature, 514, 335

    Shi, Y., Armus, L., Helou, G., et al. 2014, Nature, 514, 335

    2014

  104. [112]

    2015, ApJ, 804, L11

    Shi, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, Z.-Y., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, L11

    2015

  105. [113]

    2015, Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VIII, 576

    Sim´ on-D´ ıaz, S., Negueruela, I., Ma´ ız Apell´ aniz, J., et al. 2015, Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VIII, 576

    2015

  106. [114]

    Smartt, S. J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63

    2009

  107. [115]

    J., Crowther, P

    Smith, L. J., Crowther, P. A., Calzetti, D., & Sidoli, F. 2016, ApJ, 823, 38

    2016

  108. [116]

    2006, MNRAS, 367, 763

    Smith, N. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 763

    2006

  109. [117]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 487

    Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487

    2014

  110. [118]

    E., Van Dyk, S

    Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 950

    2016

  111. [119]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 139

    Sobral, D., Matthee, J., Darvish, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 139

    2015

  112. [120]

    2018, arXiv:1803.08923

    Sobral, D., & Matthee, J. 2018, arXiv:1803.08923

    2018 arXiv

  113. [121]

    W., Gouliermis, D., Looney, L

    Stephens, I. W., Gouliermis, D., Looney, L. W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 94

    2017

  114. [122]

    Sukhbold, T., & Woosley, S. E. 2014, ApJ, 783, 10

    2014

  115. [123]

    2015, A&A, 581, A15

    Sz´ ecsi, D., Langer, N., Yoon, S.-C., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A15

    2015

  116. [124]

    C., Beltr´ an, M

    Tan, J. C., Beltr´ an, M. T., Caselli, P., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 149

    2014

  117. [125]

    E., et al

    Tramper, F., Gr ¨afener, G., Hartoog, O. E., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A72

    2013

  118. [126]

    2014, A&A, 572, AA36

    Tramper, F., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, AA36

    2014

  119. [127]

    M., Sanyal, D., et al

    Tramper, F., Straal, S. M., Sanyal, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A110

    2015

  120. [128]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 133

    Tramper, F., Sana, H., & de Koter, A. 2016, ApJ, 833, 133

    2016

  121. [129]

    2017, Nature, 551, 71

    Troja, E., Piro, L., van Eerten, H., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 71

    2017

  122. [130]

    2012, Proceedings of a Scientific Meeting in Honor of Anthony F

    Vanbeveren, D. 2012, Proceedings of a Scientific Meeting in Honor of Anthony F. J. Moffat, 465, 342

    2012

  123. [131]

    Van Dyk, S. D. 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 375, 20160277

    2017

  124. [132]

    J., Owocki, S

    van Marle, A. J., Owocki, S. P., & Shaviv, N. J. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1353 20

    2008

  125. [133]

    2015, A&A, 578, A7

    Verhamme, A., Orlitov´ a, I., Schaerer, D., & Hayes, M. 2015, A&A, 578, A7

    2015

  126. [134]

    M., & Iglesias-P´ aramo, J

    V´ ılchez, J. M., & Iglesias-P´ aramo, J. 1998, ApJ, 508, 248

    1998

  127. [135]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574

    2001

  128. [136]

    S., & de Koter, A

    Vink, J. S., & de Koter, A. 2005, A&A, 442, 587

    2005

  129. [137]

    Vink, J. S. 2018, arXiv:1803.08042

    2018 arXiv

  130. [138]

    A., Grunhut, J

    Wade, G. A., Grunhut, J. H., & MiMeS Collaboration 2012, Circumstellar Dynamics at High Resolution, 464, 405

    2012

  131. [139]

    R., Fullerton, A

    Walborn, N. R., Fullerton, A. W., Crowther, P. A., et al. 2002, ApJS, 141, 443

    2002

  132. [140]

    R., Sana, H., Sim´ on-D´ ıaz, S., et al

    Walborn, N. R., Sana, H., Sim´ on-D´ ıaz, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A40

    2014

  133. [141]

    2013, ApJ, 765, 118

    Wofford, A., Leitherer, C., & Salzer, J. 2013, ApJ, 765, 118

    2013

  134. [142]

    2014, ApJ, 781, 122

    Wofford, A., Leitherer, C., Chandar, R., & Bouret, J.-C. 2014, ApJ, 781, 122

    2014

  135. [143]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 4296

    Wofford, A., Charlot, S., Bruzual, G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4296

    2016

  136. [144]

    E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015

    2002

  137. [145]

    E., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2006, ApJ, 637, 914

    2006

  138. [146]

    2012, A&A, 542, A113

    Yoon, S.-C., Dierks, A., & Langer, N. 2012, A&A, 542, A113

    2012

  139. [147]

    Zinnecker, H., & Yorke, H. W. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 481 21

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.