Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Flash Ionization of the Early Universe by Pop III.1 Supermassive Stars

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Supermassive stars that seed black holes flash-ionize the early universe.

desk verdict A clean, honest τ estimate from Pop III.1 flash ionization, but the headline number is a direct rescaling of an adopted—and internally inconsistent—parameter product. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18490 v2 pith:CUQVANNC submitted 2025-06-23 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Jonathan C. Tan (Chalmers Univ. , Univ. of Virginia) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords cosmologyreionizationThomsonopticaldepthsupermassiveblackholesPopulationIIIstarscosmicmicrowavebackground21-cmHubbletension
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a specific class of supermassive stars, proposed as the seeds of all supermassive black holes, would have ionized a large fraction of the universe at redshifts 20 to 30, an era it calls 'The Flash'. The paper estimates that these flash-ionized regions contribute a Thomson optical depth of about 0.04 to the cosmic microwave background, and together with the roughly 0.06 from ordinary galaxies, the total reaches about 0.10. That value is larger than current CMB-based estimates but is close to values that several recent analyses argue would ease the Hubble tension, hints of negative neutrino masses, and dynamical dark energy. The paper also notes that free-free emission from the ionized gas would boost the cosmic radio background, which could help explain a reported anomalously deep 21-centimeter absorption signal from the early universe.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the R-type HII region, an ionization front driven by the ionizing luminosity of a supermassive Pop III.1 star, with fiducial radius $R_R \simeq 1.10\,t_{*,10}^{1/3}S_{53}^{1/3}$ comoving megaparsecs, where $t_{*,10}$ is the stellar lifetime in units of $10$ Myr and $S_{53}$ the ionizing photon rate in units of $10^{53}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$. The optical-depth estimate integrates the Thomson cross section along the line of sight using two free parameters: the peak ionization fraction inside these regions, $f_{i,\mathrm{peak}}$, and the volume filling fraction they occupy, $f_{i,\mathrm{vol}}$, each set to $0.5$ in the fiducial model, with a rise time of $30$ Myr and recombination afterward on a timescale set by the gas overdensity. The key simplification is a linear degeneracy: the contribution $\tau_{\mathrm{PopIII.1}}$ is directly proportional to the product $f_{i,\mathrm{peak}} f_{i,\mathrm{vol}}$, so the whole estimate is a fixed Thomson integral times that assumed product.

What would settle it

Measure the CMB Thomson optical depth and the reionization history with future polarization data: if $\tau$ is found to be below about $0.07$ with reionization beginning below $z\simeq12$, there is no room for a contribution of about $0.04$ from an earlier flash and the claim is falsified. Independently, if the 21-cm absorption depth is confirmed while low-frequency absolute sky temperature measurements show no excess radio background at $z\simeq17$, the predicted free-free contribution from the flash is excluded.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Pop III.1 scenario of supermassive black hole formation predicts an unavoidable early phase of reionization: supermassive stars in the first dark-matter minihalos, with ionizing photon luminosities around $10^{53}$ per second and lifetimes of about ten million years, drive R-type ionization fronts that expand to roughly one comoving megaparsec. The paper shows that even without fixing the detailed source properties, a generic feature of the model is that a large volume fraction of the universe reaches near-full ionization at $z\sim20$\,--\,$30$ and then recombines toward neutrality within a few tens of millions of years. Using a fiducial peak ionization fraction of $0.5$ and a volume filling fraction of $0.5$, the Thomson optical depth contributed by this flash is about $0.04$, giving a total of about $0.10$ when added to standard galaxy-driven reionization. Varying the peak flash redshift between $20$ and $25$ changes the result very little, while the maximal possible contribution, with both fractions equal to unity, is about $0.15$\,--\,$0.16$.

Load-bearing premise

The estimate assumes that at peak the flash keeps about half the universe ionized to about half its full value, i.e. that the product of the peak ionization fraction and the volume filling fraction is about 0.25; the entire derived optical depth scales linearly with that product.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The total CMB scattering optical depth becomes about $0.10$, matching the higher values that several recent analyses say would relax the Hubble tension and remove the need for negative neutrino masses or dynamical dark energy.
  • The universe would experience a distinct double reionization: a brief early flash at $z\sim20$\,--\,$30$, a return toward neutrality, and then the standard galaxy-driven reionization at $z\lesssim10$.
  • Free-free emission from the flash-heated gas produces a radio background of order 1\,--\,3 K near 1.4 GHz, which can help explain an anomalously deep 21-cm absorption trough.
  • Future low-frequency 21-cm observations could detect the roughly 1 comoving megaparsec HII regions, directly probing the number and size of the proposed supermassive-star seeds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the claimed contribution scales linearly with the product $f_{i,\mathrm{peak}} f_{i,\mathrm{vol}}$, the tension-resolving power would be erased if that product were $0.1$ instead of $0.25$, dropping $\tau_{\mathrm{PopIII.1}}$ to about $0.016$; this makes the actual filling fraction of these HII regions the single most informative quantity to compute from first principles.
  • The early ionized regions would also produce a patchy kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich signal from their peculiar motions, but at higher redshifts than the standard signal, so existing constraints that assume a monotonic reionization history would need to be re-derived before being applied to this scenario.
  • A radio background of a few kelvin at $z\sim17$ should be visible as an excess sky temperature at low frequencies, offering a clean, independent test of the flash that does not rely on CMB polarization alone.
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 Letter estimates the Thomson optical depth contribution from an early epoch of 'flash ionization' by Pop III.1 supermassive stars, the proposed progenitors of the entire supermassive black hole population. The model assumes a peak ionization fraction fi_peak=0.5 filling a volume fraction fi_vol=0.5 at z_flash=20 or 25, with a rise time trise=30 Myr and recombination after the sources die. The paper finds tau_PopIII.1~0.04, which, added to tau_gal~0.06, gives a total tau~0.10, a value invoked in recent literature to alleviate the Hubble tension and DESI-related hints of negative neutrino masses and dynamical dark energy. The paper also estimates free-free emission from the flash and suggests it could contribute to the EDGES 21-cm absorption anomaly.

Significance. The idea that a distinct population of supermassive Pop III.1 stars could create an early phase of ionization is physically motivated and, if correct, would provide a concrete astrophysical channel for an elevated CMB optical depth without invoking new physics. The paper is transparent about the simplicity of its model and identifies several future observables, including CMB polarization, patchy kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich, and 21-cm power spectra, that could test the scenario. The manuscript is also useful as a compact parameterized framework for more detailed simulations. However, the headline numerical result is essentially the assumed product fi_peak*fi_vol integrated against a fixed Thomson formula; it is not derived from the cited seeding simulations. The paper's own caveats in Sections 2 and 3 acknowledge the linear degeneracy and idealized treatment, but those caveats do not propagate into the abstract's central claim. The significance of the result therefore rests entirely on the external justification of the input parameters, which the manuscript does not supply.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2] The central result tau_PopIII.1~0.04 is not an output of the model in any nontrivial sense: for fixed z_flash and trise, it is directly proportional to the assumed product fi_peak*fi_vol=0.25. The paper acknowledges the 'simple linear degeneracy' between these parameters, but it does not use the cited seeding models (Banik et al. 2019; Singh et al. 2023; Sanati et al. 2025) to compute or bracket the product. Since the entire cosmological payoff—tau~0.10 and the claimed alleviation of the Hubble/DESI tensions—scales linearly with this product, the manuscript should either derive fi_peak and fi_vol from the source population models or explicitly present tau_PopIII.1 as a function of the product with an uncertainty budget. As written, a reader could vary the product from 0.1 to 0.5 and obtain tau_PopIII.1 anywhere from 0.016 to 0.08, which changes the conclusion from 'no tension resolution' to 'total tau~0.14, in strong tension with Planck.'
  2. [§2] The fiducial choices fi_peak=0.5 and fi_vol=0.5 appear internally inconsistent with the model requirement stated in the same paragraph: 'in the context of the Pop III.1 model, we require fi,vol to be near unity.' If fi_vol is near unity as required, and fi_peak~0.5, the product doubles and tau_PopIII.1~0.08, pushing the total to tau~0.14, substantially above the tau~0.09 window used to motivate the paper and further from Planck's tau=0.054±0.007. If the product is instead 0.1, tau_PopIII.1~0.016 and the claimed resolution of tensions disappears. The manuscript needs to justify the fiducial product quantitatively, for example from the abundance of Pop III.1 minihalos and the sizes of their HII regions, rather than from the qualitative statement that the quantities are 'near and bounded by unity.'
  3. [§3] The free-free estimate for EDGES uses f_clump=10 without any derivation or sensitivity analysis, and even with this choice the integrated brightness temperatures are TB,ff=0.91 K (z_flash=20) and 2.9 K (z_flash=25), whereas the EDGES anomaly requires roughly an 18 K excess over the CMB at z~17. The manuscript states that the process 'could lead to a significant radio background' but does not note that the fiducial result is about a factor of 6–20 below the required excess. Either the clumping factor should be calibrated to the HII-region simulations cited nearby, or the EDGES claim should be softened to a statement that free-free emission is unlikely to explain the full absorption depth under the fiducial model.
  4. [§1 and §3] The paper frames tau~0.10 as potentially resolving the Hubble tension and DESI anomalies, but it does not grapple with the current CMB constraint: Planck 2018 reports tau=0.054±0.007, and even the more recent analysis by de Belsunce et al. (2021) gives 0.063±0.005. A total tau~0.10 is several sigma above these values unless one adopts the 'systematics' argument mentioned only briefly in the introduction. The manuscript should state this tension explicitly and explain why the early flash scenario is not simply ruled out by existing CMB polarization data, rather than presenting tau~0.10 only as an attractive target.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] Equation (1) is typeset in a way that may confuse readers, since the middle expression '4/3 π R_S^3 n_H/S' mixes volume, density, and source rate without clear parenthesization; rewriting it as t_ion=(4/3)π R_S^3 n_H/S would improve readability.
  2. [§3] In the free-free formula, the units of the emission measure are written as 'cm^-6 pMpc', which is unconventional (usually cm^-6 pc); please verify the units and the numerical coefficient, since the text later integrates over pMpc path lengths.
  3. [§2] The redshift of formation is stated as z_form~23 and 30 for z_flash=20 and 25, but this depends on the adopted trise=30 Myr in a non-obvious way; a sentence showing the conversion between trise and Delta z would help the reader check the consistency of Figure 1.
  4. [§1] The claim that 'all SMBHs form early in the universe, i.e., by z~20' is a strong statement of the Pop III.1 scenario; it would be helpful to distinguish this model prediction from the observational evidence for SMBHs at z>6, which does not require all SMBHs to have formed by z~20.
  5. [§3] The sentence about 'the average density in the HII region around a Pop III.1 supermassive star' cites Sanati et al. (2025) for a factor of about three overdensity, but the same paragraph then adopts a recombination timescale using an overdensity factor of three; it should be stated explicitly that the recombination calculation assumes this same overdensity for the IGM rather than for individual HII regions.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

τ_PopIII.1≈0.04 is 0.25 times the paper's own maximal Thomson value: the headline is a linear rescaling of the adopted fi_peak×fi_vol=0.25 input, not an independent derivation.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, "CONTRIBUTION TO τ OF POP III.1 IONIZATION IN 'THE FLASH'" and Figure 1 caption]
    "For our fiducial case we will consider values of fi,peak = 0.5 and fi,vol = 0.5. We note there is simple linear degeneracy between these parameters for the total contribution to τ. ... For completeness, we note that maximal values of τPopIII.1 = 0.16 (zflash = 20) and 0.15 (zflash = 25) arise if both fi,peak = 1 and fi,vol = 1."

    The paper's headline result, τPopIII.1 ≃ 0.04, is exactly the adopted product fi,peak × fi,vol = 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.25 multiplied by the maximal Thomson integral 0.15–0.16 that the paper itself quotes. fi,peak (peak ionization fraction) and fi,vol (volume filling fraction) are the very quantities the Pop III.1 model is supposed to predict, but the paper does not compute them from the cited seeding simulations; it merely adopts 0.5 for both because they are 'near and bounded by unity'. The paper's own admission of a 'simple linear degeneracy' is the mathematical statement that the output is a linear rescaling of the input. Thus the fiducial τ is an assumed input renamed as a finding, though it remains a legitimate forward estimate that future CMB and 21-cm observations could falsify.

full rationale

The paper is mostly an honest forward calculation: given an ionization history specified by fi,peak, fi,vol, trise, and zflash, it integrates the Thomson optical depth and free-free background, and it explicitly labels the model 'very simple and highly idealized' while pointing to future tests (LiteBIRD, HERA, SKA). The cited Pop III.1 seeding papers are independent, externally checkable works, so the self-citations by themselves are not circular. However, the central quantitative payoff, τPopIII.1 ≈ 0.04, reduces by construction to the assumed product fi,peak × fi,vol = 0.25: the paper quotes maximal τ = 0.15–0.16 for unit values, so 0.25 × 0.16 ≈ 0.04. The paper itself states the 'simple linear degeneracy' between these parameters. The choices 0.5 and 0.5 are motivated only by being 'near and bounded by unity', while the same paragraph requires fi,vol to be 'near unity' in the Pop III.1 model — which would roughly double the contribution to ≈0.08. This exposes the headline as a rescaled adopted input rather than a derived prediction. Because the product is not fitted to τ data and the scenario is externally falsifiable, this is partial circularity, not a fully forced derivation.

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

The central claim rests on six chosen or adopted parameters, most importantly the ionization fraction product fi_peak*fi_vol, plus a set of background assumptions from the Pop III.1 literature. No new particles or forces are introduced; 'The Flash' is a name for a predicted epoch, not a new physical entity.

free parameters (6)
  • fi_peak = 0.5 (fiducial; range 0-1)
    Peak ionization fraction inside HII regions during The Flash. Chosen, not derived; tau_PopIII.1 scales linearly with it.
  • fi_vol = 0.5 (fiducial; max 1)
    Volume filling fraction of HII regions at z_flash. Same linear degeneracy; paper states the model requires near-unity filling yet adopts 0.5.
  • trise = 30 Myr
    Rise time of ionization fraction to peak; set between stellar lifetime 10 Myr and Strömgren time ~51 Myr. Determines the z_form values for each z_flash.
  • overdensity_factor = 3
    Gas overdensity in HII regions used for the recombination timescale, adopted from Sanati et al. simulations. Controls how fast ionization decays after The Flash.
  • f_clump = 10
    Emission-weighted clumping factor in the free-free brightness temperature estimate. Enters as f_clump^2, so the EDGES-related radio background is highly sensitive to this adopted value.
  • z_flash = 20 and 25 (fiducial cases)
    Epoch of peak flash ionization, chosen based on Pop III.1 seeding models. The paper notes variation from 20 to 30 gives minor differences in tau.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard Lambda-CDM cosmology and mean IGM densities at z~20-30, e.g. n_H,z=30 = 5.72e-3 cm^-3.
    Used in Eq. (1) for the Strömgren time and in the dtau per cMpc conversion.
  • domain assumption Pop III.1 model produces ~1e5 Msun supermassive stars with WIMP-enhanced lifetimes ~10 Myr and ionizing luminosities ~1e53 s^-1 in ~1e6 Msun minihalos.
    Taken from prior Pop III.1 papers by the same group and collaborators; sets the HII region sizes and the trise scale.
  • domain assumption The SMBH seed abundance is n_SMBH ~ 0.1 cMpc^-3 with isolation distances ~1-2 cMpc, so the HII regions fill a significant fraction of the universe.
    Used to justify fi_vol near unity; originates in Banik et al. 2019, Singh et al. 2023, Hayes et al. 2024.
  • domain assumption Recombination of the ionized IGM follows Case B with T=30,000 K and a uniform overdensity factor of 3; no clumping or density evolution inside HII regions.
    Sets the recombination times of 55 Myr and 29 Myr for z_flash = 20 and 25, and the declining tail of fi after the flash.
  • domain assumption The standard galaxy reionization contribution is tau_gal ~ 0.06, as in Robertson et al. 2015, and adds linearly to the Pop III.1 contribution.
    The total tau is a simple sum of the two phases; overlap or interaction between the phases is not modeled.
  • domain assumption Contributions to reionization from Pop III.2 stars and early AGN are negligible.
    Stated in the Conclusions as an assumption; if false, the reionization history would be more complex and tau would increase.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flash Ionization of the Early Universe by Pop III.1 Supermassive Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CUQVANNC

@misc{pith2026250618490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flash Ionization of the Early Universe by Pop III.1 Supermassive Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CUQVANNC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18490}
}
abstract

The Pop III.1 theory for supermassive black hole (SMBH) formation predicts that a substantial fraction of the early universe was ionized by supermassive stars at redshifts $z\sim20-30$, an era we refer to as ``The Flash''. This is followed by recombination to a mainly neutral state within a few tens of Myr. Here we discuss the implication of this ionization for the scattering optical depth of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), $\tau$. We find a fiducial contribution of $\tau_{\rm PopIII.1}\sim0.04$. Combining this with the contribution to reionization by standard galaxy populations at $z\lesssim 10$ with $\tau_{\rm gal}\simeq0.06$, yields a total of $\tau\simeq0.10$. As noted recently by several authors, such a value may help resolve apparent ``problems'' faced by $\Lambda$CDM of discrepant CMB-based measures of the Hubble constant (``Hubble tension''), as well as negative neutrino masses and dynamical dark energy that have been implied by recent Baryonic Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) results from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI). In addition, free-free emission from The Flash boosts the cosmic radio background, which could help explain the large 21-cm absorption depth reported by the Experiment to Detect the Global EoR Signature (EDGES).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18490 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Thomson optical depth to electron scattering, τ , integrated out to redshift, z. The blue solid line is the estimated contribution from “standard” galaxies (B. E. Robertson et al. 2015) and AGN (although note AGN are expected to make only a minor contribution). The red dotted line shows the contribution from Pop III.1 supermassive stars with epoch of peak flash ionization at zflash = 20. The red dashed line shows th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Cosmic $\tau$ensions Indirectly Correlate with Reionization Optical Depth

    astro-ph.CO 2025-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    The correlations between tau_reio and the parameters behind cosmic tensions are not intrinsic, but arise indirectly through networks of other cosmological parameters.

  2. Rapid late-time reionization: constraints and cosmological implications

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reionization is inferred to be rapid and late (midpoint z≈7, duration Δz50≈1.1), yielding an optical depth τ=0.0492 from Lyman-alpha + BAO + BBN, independent of CMB data.

  3. The Impact of Population III.1 Flash Reionization for CMB Polarization and Thomson Scattering Optical Depth

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An early 'Pop III.1 Flash' reionization phase shifts CMB polarization power from l<8 to l>8, allowing a higher optical depth τ≈0.08–0.09 while staying closer to Planck's low-l EE data than a standard tanh reionization model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    E., Alexander, P., et al

    Abdurashidova, Z., Aguirre, J. E., Alexander, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c78

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c78 2022

  2. [2]

    2019, JCAP, 2019, 056, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056

    Ade, P., Aguirre, J., Ahmed, Z., et al. 2019, JCAP, 2019, 056, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056 2019

  3. [3]

    J., Singh, P., Fan, J., & Li, L

    Allali, I. J., Singh, P., Fan, J., & Li, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.05691, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.05691

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.05691 2025

  4. [4]

    C., & Monaco, P

    Banik, N., Tan, J. C., & Monaco, P. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3298

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3298 2019

  5. [5]

    K., Prelogovi´ c, D., et al

    Bianco, M., Giri, S. K., Prelogovi´ c, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5212, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae257

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae257 2024

  6. [6]

    J., & Mahesh, N

    Mozdzen, T. J., & Mahesh, N. 2018, Nature, 555, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature25792

    doi:10.1038/nature25792 2018

  7. [7]

    S., et al

    Cain, C., Van Engelen, A., Croker, K. S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.15899, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.15899

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.15899 2025

  8. [8]

    C., et al

    Cammelli, V., Monaco, P., Tan, J. C., et al. 2025a, MNRAS, 536, 851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2663

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2663

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    C., Young, A

    Cammelli, V., Tan, J. C., Young, A. R., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17675, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17675 7

    doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    R., Koopmans, L

    Ceccotti, E., Offringa, A. R., Koopmans, L. V. E., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453106

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    2003, ApJL, 591, L5, doi: 10.1086/377068

    Cen, R. 2003, ApJL, 591, L5, doi: 10.1086/377068

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 134, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/134 de Belsunce, R., Gratton, S., Coulton, W., & Efstathiou, G

    Chon, S., Hirano, S., Hosokawa, T., & Yoshida, N. 2016, ApJ, 832, 134, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/134 de Belsunce, R., Gratton, S., Coulton, W., & Efstathiou, G. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1072, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2215 DESI Collaboration. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14738, d...

    2016 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    2018, ApJL, 858, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac0fe

    Feng, C., & Holder, G. 2018, ApJL, 858, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac0fe

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 1763, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz873

    Fialkov, A., & Barkana, R. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1763, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz873

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    R., & Loeb, A

    Furlanetto, S. R., & Loeb, A. 2005, ApJ, 634, 1, doi: 10.1086/429080

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    K., Mertens, F

    Gehlot, B. K., Mertens, F. G., Koopmans, L. V. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4271, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1937

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

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

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

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    H., & Bromm, V

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

    2006

  11. [19]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 4838, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3026 G¨ urkan, M

    Greig, B., & Mesinger, A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4838, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3026 G¨ urkan, M. A., Freitag, M., & Rasio, F. A. 2004, ApJ, 604, 632, doi: 10.1086/381968

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Haiman, Z., & Bryan, G. L. 2006, ApJ, 650, 7, doi: 10.1086/506580

    2006 doi

  13. [21]

    Haiman, Z., & Holder, G. P. 2003, ApJ, 595, 1, doi: 10.1086/377337

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Tan, J

    Hayes, M. J., Tan, J. C., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad63a7

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    H., Miranda, V., & Hu, W

    Heinrich, C. H., Miranda, V., & Hu, W. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 023513, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.023513

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    2014, ApJ, 781, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/60

    Hirano, S., Hosokawa, T., Yoshida, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/60

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    Hosokawa, T., Omukai, K., Yoshida, N., & Yorke, H. W. 2011, Science, 334, 1250, doi: 10.1126/science.1207433

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21813, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.21813

    Jhaveri, T., Karwal, T., & Hu, W. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21813, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.21813

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    2025, ApJS, 278, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adc690

    Kageura, Y., Ouchi, M., Nakane, M., et al. 2025, ApJS, 278, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adc690

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 1, doi: 10.22323/1.215.0001

    Koopmans, L., Pritchard, J., Mellema, G., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 1, doi: 10.22323/1.215.0001

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Whalen, D

    Latif, M. A., Whalen, D. J., Khochfar, S., Herrington, N. P., & Woods, T. E. 2022, Nature, 607, 48, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04813-y LiteBIRD Collaboration, Allys, E., Arnold, K., et al. 2023, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2023, 042F01, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptac150

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    F., & Tan, J

    McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2008, ApJ, 681, 771, doi: 10.1086/587434

    2008 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Roberts-Borsani, G., Oesch, P., & Ellis, R

    Meyer, R. A., Roberts-Borsani, G., Oesch, P., & Ellis, R. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.02683, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.02683

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    2018, A&A, 617, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833288

    Millea, M., & Bouchet, F. 2018, A&A, 617, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833288

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17087, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17087

    Mummery, A., & van Velzen, S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17087, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17087

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    G., Koopmans, L

    Munshi, S., Mertens, F. G., Koopmans, L. V. E., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348329

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    G., Chege, J

    Munshi, S., Mertens, F. G., Chege, J. K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10533, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.10533

    2025 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    C., et al

    Nandal, D., Topalakis, K., Tan, J. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00870, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.00870

    2025 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    C., & O’Shea, B

    Natarajan, A., Tan, J. C., & O’Shea, B. W. 2009, ApJ, 692, 574, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/574 O’Brennan, H., Regan, J. A., Brennan, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.00574, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.00574

    2009 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    W., Shapley, A., et al

    Pahl, A., Topping, M. W., Shapley, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1ab Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    H., Freese, K., Winget, D

    Rindler-Daller, T., Montgomery, M. H., Freese, K., Winget, D. E., & Paxton, B. 2015, ApJ, 799, 210, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/210

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    E., Ellis, R

    Robertson, B. E., Ellis, R. S., Furlanetto, S. R., & Dunlop, J. S. 2015, ApJL, 802, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/802/2/L19

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    S., Ferraro, S., & White, M

    Sailer, N., Farren, G. S., Ferraro, S., & White, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.16932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.16932

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    C., Devriendt, J., et al

    Sanati, M., Tan, J. C., Devriendt, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.23004. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.23004

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Schleicher, D. R. G., Reinoso, B., Latif, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 6192, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac926

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Singh, J., Monaco, P., & Tan, J. C. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 969, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2346

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    T., Subrahmanyan, R., et al

    Singh, S., Jishnu, N. T., Subrahmanyan, R., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 607, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01610-5

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    2008, PhRvL, 100, 051101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.051101

    Spolyar, D., Freese, K., & Gondolo, P. 2008, PhRvL, 100, 051101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.051101

    2008 doi

  39. [47]

    2014, ApJ, 792, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/32 8

    Susa, H., Hasegawa, K., & Tominaga, N. 2014, ApJ, 792, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/32 8

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Singh, J., Cammelli, V., et al

    Tan, J. C., Singh, J., Cammelli, V., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.01828, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01828

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    C., Smith, B

    Tan, J. C., Smith, B. D., & O’Shea, B. W. 2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1294, First Stars and Galaxies: Challenges for the Next Decade, ed. D. J. Whalen, V. Bromm, & N. Yoshida (AIP), 34–40, doi: 10.1063/1.3518887

    2010 doi

  42. [50]

    P., Topping, M

    Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Topping, M. W., Mason, C., & Ellis, R. S. 2024, ApJ, 975, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7eb7

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J

    Tingay, S. J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J. D., et al. 2013, PASA, 30, e007, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2012.007 van Haarlem, M. P., Wise, M. W., Gunst, A. W., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    Visbal, E., Haiman, Z., & Bryan, G. L. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 4456, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1941

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    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

  46. [54]

    Wright, E. L. 2006, PASP, 118, 1711, doi: 10.1086/510102

    2006 doi

  47. [55]

    Wyithe, J. S. B., & Loeb, A. 2003, ApJ, 586, 693, doi: 10.1086/367721

    2003 doi

  48. [56]

    Yoshiura, S., Pindor, B., Line, J. L. B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1560

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    N., Tagger, M., & Denis, L

    Zarka, P., Girard, J. N., Tagger, M., & Denis, L. 2012, in SF2A-2012: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. S. Boissier, P. de Laverny, N. Nardetto, R. Samadi, D. Valls-Gabaud, & H. Wozniak, 687–694

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.