Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Primordial Black Holes and the First Stars

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Primordial black holes speed up or delay the first stars, depending on their mass.

desk verdict Systematic 2-D map of PBH effects on Pop III star formation, worth refereeing, but the low-mass suppression branch needs a convergence test and the softening-length contradiction needs fixing before its constraints can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06171 v2 pith:FMLFPBS3 submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.CO

Julia Monika Koulen , Stefano Profumo , Nolan Smyth This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords primordialblackholesPopulationIIIstarscosmicdawnstructureformationtidalheatingdarkmatterconstraintscosmologicalsimulations
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 claims that primordial black holes (PBHs) have a mass-dependent, two-sided effect on when the universe's first stars, Population III stars, form. Using cosmological zoom-in hydrodynamic simulations of a star-forming minihalo, it shows that PBHs above roughly $10^2\,M_\odot$ act as gravitational seeds and push collapse to higher redshifts, while PBHs in the $\sim 10$–$10^3\,M_\odot$ range with low abundances delay collapse by tidally heating the gas. The authors translate these shifts into new upper limits on how much of the dark matter can be in PBHs of these masses. If correct, the results sharpen what upcoming JWST and 21-cm observations should look for, and where PBH dark matter is excluded.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the interplay of two competing gravitational mechanisms: the seed (Coulomb) effect and the Poisson effect, which generate density fluctuations that accelerate structure formation, versus tidal and dynamical heating from PBH encounters, which raises gas temperatures and suppresses molecular-hydrogen cooling. The simulations use a specific setup: zoom-in initial conditions centered on a $\sim 1.2\times 10^6\,M_\odot$ dark-matter minihalo, PBHs injected in phase space via a normalizing flow trained on background dark-matter particles, and a collapse-redshift diagnostic at a fixed hydrogen density threshold. These ingredients let the paper map the transition between suppression and enhancement onto the $(m_{\rm PBH},\,f_{\rm PBH})$ plane and turn the measured shifts into constraints.

What would settle it

Re-run the $m_{\rm PBH}=10\,M_\odot$ low-abundance cases with background dark-matter particles of mass $\lesssim 0.2\,M_\odot$ (at least ten times lighter than the PBH) and check whether the collapse delay persists; if the delay vanishes, the suppression branch is a numerical artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a mass-dependent dichotomy in how PBHs affect primordial star formation: massive PBHs ($M_{\rm PBH}\gtrsim 10^2\,M_\odot$) with sufficient abundance accelerate structure formation and move Pop III collapse to higher redshifts, while lower-mass PBHs at low abundance delay collapse through tidal heating that counteracts gas cooling. The paper systematically maps this boundary across PBH masses from $10$ to $10^5\,M_\odot$ and abundances $f_{\rm PBH}$ from $10^{-4}$ to near unity, using the redshift at which the maximum hydrogen density first exceeds $n_H\gtrsim 10^4\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ as the collapse diagnostic. It then derives exclusion regions on the PBH mass–abundance plane by assuming that Pop III stars had to form by certain critical redshifts ($z\sim 30$, $40$, $120$), finding that sizable PBH fractions are excluded in the intermediate-mass range, complementing microlensing bounds such as EROS-2.

Load-bearing premise

The low-mass PBH suppression branch is real physics rather than numerical noise; the simulations use dark-matter particles only about five times lighter than a $10\,M_\odot$ PBH and show no convergence test at smaller particle mass.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Massive PBHs ($10^2$–$10^5\,M_\odot$) with abundance above roughly $10^{-2}$ shift Pop III formation to earlier redshifts, potentially conflicting with the observed timing of high-redshift galaxies.
  • Low-abundance PBHs with masses around $10$–$10^3\,M_\odot$ delay collapse, so observations of cosmic dawn could place upper limits on PBH dark matter in this window.
  • The derived exclusion regions are new and complement existing microlensing bounds, particularly EROS-2, which is shown alongside the new constraints.
  • The paper notes that omitting explicit PBH isocurvature modes in the initial conditions makes the acceleration branch conservative; including them would shift collapse even earlier.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the tidal-suppression branch is physical, the minimum halo mass for star formation should depend on PBH mass and abundance, a prediction testable with larger-volume simulations that count star-forming halos.
  • The same mass-dependent dichotomy would apply to any dark-matter candidate composed of discrete massive objects, so 21-cm constraints on PBHs may generalize to broader classes of compact dark matter.
  • The constraints assume a monochromatic PBH mass function; an extended mass function would blur the exclusion boundary, potentially opening or closing parameter space at intermediate masses.
  • A direct observational test could come from the 21-cm global signal: a delay shifts the absorption trough to lower redshifts, while an acceleration moves it higher.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses cosmological zoom-in N-body/hydrodynamic simulations (GIZMO with MFM and TreePM gravity, GRACKLE non-equilibrium chemistry, MUSIC initial conditions, ROCKSTAR halo finding) to study how monochromatic primordial black holes with masses 1-1e5 Msun and abundances f_PBH from 1e-4 to 1 affect the collapse redshift of a single Population III-forming minihalo. The authors report a mass-dependent dichotomy: PBHs above roughly 100 Msun accelerate structure formation and push collapse to higher redshifts, while lower-mass PBHs at low abundance delay collapse through tidal heating. From these results they derive exclusion regions in the (m_PBH, f_PBH) plane for assumed critical redshifts zcrit = 30, 40, and 120, and compare with EROS-2 microlensing bounds.

Significance. If the dichotomy is physical, the paper offers a genuinely new observational handle on PBH dark matter: the timing of the first stars, as probed by JWST and 21-cm cosmology experiments, can constrain PBH mass functions in a window partly complementary to microlensing. The study has clear strengths: it uses a well-established simulation pipeline, performs 10 realizations per parameter point to estimate stochastic scatter, and openly acknowledges the omission of isocurvature power in Appendix A. The central concern is that the most novel branch of the claimed dichotomy, the low-mass PBH suppression, is exactly the regime where the authors themselves acknowledge that numerical two-body artifacts could be worst, and no convergence demonstration is provided. The quantitative constraints in Fig. 4 therefore rest on an unverified numerical assumption.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV.B / V / Appendix A] The PBH softening length is quoted inconsistently: Section IV.B states epsilon_PBH = 10^-3 h^-1 pc, while Section V and Appendix A state 0.01 h^-1 kpc, which is 10 h^-1 pc, a factor of 10^4 larger. This is not a mere typo: the smaller value makes PBHs effectively point masses relative to the 0.4 Msun gas particles, while the larger value suppresses exactly the short-range encounters invoked for tidal heating. The authors must state which value was used and show that the suppression branch is robust to the choice of softening.
  2. [V] The authors acknowledge that for M_PBH = 10 Msun the ratio M_PBH/m_BDM is about 5 and that this 'may lead to enhanced stochastic gravitational scattering between PBHs and DM particles, potentially introducing spurious heating, diffusion, or artificial dynamical friction,' yet no test with smaller m_BDM is presented. The low-abundance delay is found for M_PBH = 10-10^3 Msun, and this is also the branch that generates the z~30 and z~40 constraints in Fig. 4. A resolution study (reducing m_BDM, or replacing PBHs with a semi-analytic treatment) is required to establish that this branch is physical rather than a discreteness artifact.
  3. [III.D / IV.A / IV.C] All simulations use sigma8 = 2 to accelerate structure formation, and no control run at the standard sigma8 value is shown. The single minihalo's collapse redshift in the CDM case is zcol ~ 26, and the constraints in Fig. 4 are expressed relative to assumed zcrit values rather than to a calibrated star-formation history. This makes it difficult to assess how much of the claimed enhancement and delay is specific to the high-sigma8, single-halo setup, and whether the derived exclusion regions would survive at standard normalization or in a halo sample with different assembly histories.
  4. [Appendix A / IV.B] The simulations omit the isocurvature power arising from the discrete nature of PBHs, and Appendix A acknowledges that including it shifts the collapse redshift by about 1-3. That omission acts in the direction of underestimating the enhancement branch, but the same modes could also affect the low-abundance delay by changing the initial density field around the PBHs. The authors should either implement the isocurvature initial conditions or quantify how the claimed dichotomy and the Fig. 4 constraints change under this known 1-3 unit shift.
  5. [IV.C] The constraint derivation assumes zcrit = 30, 40, and 120 as redshifts beyond which Pop III star formation ceases, but the manuscript does not provide an independent observational or theoretical justification for these thresholds, which appear to be selected from the simulated collapse redshifts (z~26 for the CDM case and higher values in the PBH cases). Because the exclusion regions in Fig. 4 are defined relative to these thresholds, the resulting limits are conditional statements about a chosen end-of-Pop-III epoch rather than model-independent exclusions. The authors should give an observable definition of the Pop III epoch and show how the limits shift for other zcrit choices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2] The y-axis in Fig. 2 appears to end at 10^3 while the text says the horizontal dashed line marks the threshold n_H = 10^4 cm^-3; please check the axis range or the threshold label.
  2. [III.A] Section III.A describes GIZMO as 'using smoothed particle hydrodynamics' immediately before stating that it uses the meshless finite-mass method; this description is misleading and should be clarified.
  3. [Table I / III.I / V] Table I lists m_BDM = 2.1 Msun while Sections III.I and V give 2.17 Msun; the values should be made consistent.
  4. [References] Reference [15] appears incomplete: it gives volume and article number but no journal name and no year.
  5. [Figs. 3 and 4] The error bars in Figs. 3 and 4 are described as the minimum and maximum across the 10 realizations; showing the central 68% interval in addition to the extremes would give a clearer picture of the scatter.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Simulation dichotomy is self-contained, but the zcrit constraint thresholds are taken from the simulations' minimum-fPBH collapse redshifts, making some exclusion contours self-referential.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV.C (Constraints on PBHs), around Figures 3 and 4]
    "For constraint derivation, we consider different redshift thresholds: z ∼ 30, 40, 120. These correspond to collapse redshifts resulting from the smallest possible PBH fractions for different masses, representing lower limits from minimum fPBH values for specific masses. ... To estimate the value of a PBH fraction fPBH corresponding to the critical redshift, we apply linear interpolation between the two simulated data points that enclose the respective redshift threshold."

    The critical-redshift thresholds are not independent observational inputs: the text says they are set to the collapse redshifts the simulations produce at the smallest simulated PBH fractions. The exclusion curves in Figure 4 are then obtained by interpolating the same simulated zcol(fPBH) curves at these thresholds, so for a mass whose minimum-fPBH collapse redshift equals zcrit, the 'excluded' fPBH is, up to interpolation, just the minimum grid value. The constraint therefore restates the low-fPBH edge of the simulation grid rather than providing an independently calibrated limit on the PBH mass function. This makes the derived exclusion contours partially self-referential, although the underlying acceleration/suppression dichotomy is a genuine simulation output.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained: the collapse redshift zcol as a function of (mPBH, fPBH) is produced by GIZMO/GRACKLE/MUSIC zoom-in simulations with fixed cosmological parameters and explicit primordial chemistry and gravity, and no parameter is fitted to the predicted collapse redshifts. The mass-dependent dichotomy (acceleration by massive PBHs, suppression by low-mass PBHs at low abundance) is a numerical outcome, not a consequence of an assumed formula. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears; the cited prior framework is a simulation methodology, not a uniqueness theorem. The only circular element is in the constraint section: the zcrit thresholds are described as the collapse redshifts at the smallest simulated fPBH values, so the resulting exclusion contours partly reproduce the simulation grid boundary rather than an external observational limit. This affects the interpretation of the new PBH constraints, not the physical mechanism itself. The acknowledged low-mass two-body scattering issue and the inconsistent PBH softening values (10^-3 h^-1 pc vs 0.01 h^-1 kpc) are correctness and convergence risks, not circularity, and are therefore not counted as circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central novelty rests on the simulated dichotomy and the derived constraints. The free parameters are the artificially raised sigma8 and the assumed zcrit thresholds. The key assumptions are the single-halo representativeness, the critical density criterion, the phase-space sampling of PBHs, the neglect of accretion feedback, and the zcrit-based conversion of collapse redshifts into constraints.

free parameters (2)
  • sigma8 (amplitude of density fluctuations) = 2
    Set to 2 instead of the Planck value of about 0.83 to accelerate structure formation and produce a Pop III minihalo at z about 29. No control run at standard sigma8 is shown (Section III.D).
  • zcrit (critical redshift beyond which Pop III is assumed absent) = 30, 40, 120
    These thresholds convert simulated collapse redshifts into PBH abundance exclusions. The text states they correspond to collapse redshifts from the smallest simulated PBH fractions, so they are partly determined by the simulation data (Section IV.C).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard flat LambdaCDM cosmological parameters (Omega_m=0.3089, Omega_Lambda=0.6911, Omega_b=0.04864, n_s=0.96, h=0.6774).
    Used to set background cosmology in the simulations (Section III.B).
  • domain assumption The density threshold n_H at or above 10^4 cm^-3 marks the onset of Pop III star formation.
    Used as termination criterion and to define collapse redshift (Sections III.G and IV.A).
  • domain assumption The single zoom-in minihalo with M_halo about 1.2 x 10^6 solar masses at z about 29 is representative for deriving PBH constraints.
    Constraints are drawn from one halo; no ensemble of halos is simulated (Sections III.H and IV.C).
  • domain assumption PBHs can be modeled as point-mass particles sampled from the background DM phase-space distribution.
    Injection method; a normalizing flow learns the DM phase space (Section IV.B).
  • ad hoc to paper Pop III star formation ceases beyond some critical redshift zcrit (30, 40, or 120); no stars form earlier.
    Used to convert collapse redshifts into exclusion limits; not tied to an independent observation, and the values are partly read off the simulations (Section IV.C).
  • domain assumption PBH accretion feedback (heating, ionization, Lyman-Werner radiation) can be neglected for the gravitational effects studied.
    The simulations include only gravitational and cooling physics; accretion feedback is discussed in Section II.B.2 but not implemented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Primordial Black Holes and the First Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FMLFPBS3

@misc{pith2026250606171,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Primordial Black Holes and the First Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FMLFPBS3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06171}
}
abstract

Primordial black holes (PBHs) constitute a compelling dark matter candidate whose gravitational effects could significantly influence early cosmic structure formation. We investigate the impact of PBHs on Population III star formation through detailed $N$-body and hydrodynamic simulations, extending beyond previous semi-analytical approaches. Our results reveal a mass-dependent dichotomy in PBH effects: massive PBHs ($M_{\rm PBH} \gtrsim 10^2 M_\odot$) with sufficient abundance can accelerate structure formation and shift Pop III formation to higher redshifts, potentially conflicting with observational constraints from high-redshift galaxy surveys. Conversely, lower-mass PBHs can induce tidal disruption of gas-rich minihalos, suppressing star formation and delaying the cosmic dawn depending on their abundance. We quantify these competing effects to derive new constraints on the PBH mass function and their contribution to the total dark matter density, with implications for forthcoming observations with the James Webb Space Telescope and 21-cm cosmology experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06171 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gravitational and Dynamical Effects The primary gravitational effects of PBHs on early structure formation operate through several mechanisms. First, PBHs act as discrete mass concentrations that can seed enhanced density fluctuations on small scales, potentially accelerating halo formation and modifying the cosmic star formation history [6]. This effect ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    When embedded within gas-rich primordial halos, PBHs accrete surrounding material at rates determined by the Bondi-Hoyle prescription (for original foundational work see Ref

    Accretion Feedback and Radiative Processes Beyond pure gravitational effects, PBHs can influence their surroundings through accretion- driven feedback processes. When embedded within gas-rich primordial halos, PBHs accrete surrounding material at rates determined by the Bondi-Hoyle prescription (for original foundational work see Ref. [25–27]; for modern ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Simulation Constraints and Current Understanding Recent cosmological zoom-in simulations have provided quantitative constraints on PBH effects during the Pop III epoch [2, 6, 7]. These studies generally find that, although PBHs can modify gas properties and halo assembly histories, their direct impact on individual star-forming cores is limited under obse...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 70, 355 (2020), arXiv:2006.02838 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Impact of primordial black holes on the formation of the first stars and galaxies,

    B. Liu and V. Bromm, “Impact of primordial black holes on the formation of the first stars and galaxies,” (2024), arXiv:2312.04085 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    M. A. Latif, D. Whalen, and S. Khochfar, The Astrophysical Journal 925, 28 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    B. W. O’Shea and M. L. Norman, The Astrophysical Journal 673, 14 (2008), arXiv:0706.4416 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    M. L. Norman (2008) pp. 3–15, arXiv:0801.4924 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    B. Liu, S. Zhang, and V. Bromm, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 514, 24 2376 (2022), arXiv:2204.06330 [astro-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Casanueva-Villarreal, P

    C. Casanueva-Villarreal, P. B. Tissera, N. Padilla, B. Liu, V. Bromm, S. Pedrosa, L. Bignone, and R. Dominguez-Tenreiro, Astronomy & Astrophysics 688, A183 (2024), arXiv:2405.02206 [astro-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Constraints on Primordial Black Holes from $N$- body simulations of the Eridanus II Stellar Cluster,

    J. M. Koulen, S. Profumo, and N. Smyth, “Constraints on Primordial Black Holes from $N$- body simulations of the Eridanus II Stellar Cluster,” (2024), arXiv:2403.19015 [astro-ph]

    2024

  4. [12]

    K. K. Y. Ng, G. Franciolini, E. Berti, P. Pani, A. Riotto, and S. Vitale, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 933, L41 (2022), arXiv:2204.11864 [astro-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    P. D. Serpico, V. Poulin, D. Inman, and K. Kohri, Physical Review Research 2, 023204 (2020), arXiv:2002.10771 [astro-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes , 48 (2022), arXiv:2110.02821 [astro-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Tisserand, L

    P. Tisserand, L. L. Guillou, C. Afonso, J. N. Albert, J. Andersen, R. Ansari, E. Aubourg, P. Bareyre, J. P. Beaulieu, X. Charlot, C. Coutures, R. Ferlet, P. Fouqu´ e, J. F. Glicen- stein, B. Goldman, A. Gould, D. Graff, M. Gros, J. Haissinski, C. Hamadache, J. de Kat, T. Lasse...

    2007 arXiv

  8. [16]

    P. Mroz, A. Udalski, M. K. Szymanski, I. Soszynski, L. Wyrzykowski, P. Pietrukowicz, S. Kozlowski, R. Poleski, J. Skowron, D. Skowron, K. Ulaczyk, M. Gromadzki, K. Rybicki, P. Iwanek, M. Wrona, and M. Ratajczak, Nature 632, 749 (2024), arXiv:2403.02386 [astro- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    How do Massive Primordial Black Holes Impact the Formation of the First Stars and Galaxies?

    S. Zhang, B. Liu, V. Bromm, J. Jeon, M. Boylan-Kolchin, and F. Kuhnel, “How do Massive Primordial Black Holes Impact the Formation of the First Stars and Galaxies?” (2025), arXiv:2503.17585 [astro-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Roszkowski, E

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, 81, 066201

  11. [19]

    Hou and K

    L. Hou and K. J. Mack, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025, 081 (2025), arXiv:2411.10626 [astro-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Iocco, A

    F. Iocco, A. Bressan, E. Ripamonti, R. Schneider, A. Ferrara, and P. Marigo, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2008), 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13853.x, arXiv:0805.4016 [astro-ph]. 25

    2008

  13. [21]

    Freese, D

    K. Freese, D. Spolyar, and A. Aguirre, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2008, 014 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    Taoso, G

    M. Taoso, G. Bertone, G. Meynet, and S. Ekstrom, Physical Review D 78, 123510 (2008), arXiv:0806.2681 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  15. [23]

    S.-C. Yoon, F. Iocco, and S. Akiyama, The Astrophysical Journal 688, L1 (2008), arXiv:0806.2662 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Birth of the first stars amidst decaying and annihilating dark matter,

    W. Qin, J. B. Munoz, H. Liu, and T. R. Slatyer, “Birth of the first stars amidst decaying and annihilating dark matter,” (2023), arXiv:2308.12992 [astro-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Eggenberger, G

    P. Eggenberger, G. Meynet, A. Maeder, R. Hirschi, C. Charbonnel, S. Talon, and S. Ekstr¨ om, Astrophysics and Space Science 316, 43 (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 48, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Inman and Y

    D. Inman and Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, Physical Review D 100, 083528 (2019), arXiv:1907.08129 [astro-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hoyle and R

    F. Hoyle and R. A. Lyttleton, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 101, 227 (1941)

    1941

  21. [29]

    Bondi and F

    H. Bondi and F. Hoyle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 104, 273 (1944)

    1944

  22. [30]

    Bondi, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 112, 195 (1952)

    H. Bondi, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 112, 195 (1952)

    1952

  23. [31]

    R. G. Edgar, New Astronomy Reviews 48, 843 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0406166

    2004 arXiv

  24. [32]

    T. A. F. Comerford, R. G. Izzard, R. A. Booth, and G. Rosotti, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 490, 5196 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    P. M. Blakely and N. Nikiforakis, Astronomy & Astrophysics 583, A90 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Cruz-Osorio, F

    A. Cruz-Osorio, F. J. S´ anchez-Salcedo, and F. D. Lora-Clavijo, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 471, 3127 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    P. F. Hopkins, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 450, 53 (2015), arXiv:1409.7395 [astro-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Springel, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 364, 1105 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0505010

    V. Springel, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 364, 1105 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0505010

    2005

  29. [37]

    Planck, Astronomy & Astrophysics 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hahn and T

    O. Hahn and T. Abel, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 415, 2101 (2011), arXiv:1103.6031 [astro-ph]. 26

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    H. Park, K. Ahn, N. Yoshida, and S. Hirano, The Astrophysical Journal 900, 30 (2020), arXiv:2004.00863 [astro-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    S. A. Rodionov and N. Y. Sotnikova, Astronomy Reports 49, 470 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0504573

    2005

  33. [41]

    Adamek, C

    J. Adamek, C. T. Byrnes, M. Gosenca, and S. Hotchkiss, Physical Review D 100, 023506 (2019), arXiv:1901.08528 [astro-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    B. D. Smith, G. L. Bryan, S. C. O. Glover, N. J. Goldbaum, M. J. Turk, J. Regan, J. H. Wise, H.-Y. Schive, T. Abel, A. Emerick, B. W. O’Shea, P. Anninos, C. B. Hummels, and S. Khoch- far, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 466, 2217 (2017), arXiv:1610.09591 [astro-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    P. S. Behroozi, R. H. Wechsler, and H.-Y. Wu, The Astrophysical Journal 762, 109 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    O˜ norbe, S

    J. O˜ norbe, S. Garrison-Kimmel, A. H. Maller, J. S. Bullock, M. Rocha, and O. Hahn, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 437, 1894 (2014), arXiv:1305.6923 [astro-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Neural Spline Flows,

    C. Durkan, A. Bekasov, I. Murray, and G. Papamakarios, “Neural Spline Flows,” (2019), arXiv:1906.04032 [stat]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Masked Autoregressive Flow for Density Estimation,

    G. Papamakarios, T. Pavlakou, and I. Murray, “Masked Autoregressive Flow for Density Estimation,” (2018), arXiv:1705.07057 [stat]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Carr and J

    B. Carr and J. Silk, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 478, 3756 (2018), arXiv:1801.00672 [astro-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Meszaros, Astronomy and Astrophysics 37, 225 (1974)

    P. Meszaros, Astronomy and Astrophysics 37, 225 (1974)

    1974

  41. [49]

    B. J. Carr, Astronomy and Astrophysics 56, 377 (1977)

    1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.