Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Direct Collapse Pre-supermassive Black Hole Objects as Ly$\alpha$ Emitters

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Lyα photons can escape direct-collapse black hole seeds through an ionized funnel, making them JWST-detectable.

desk verdict A useful, well-executed model-prediction paper whose abstract overstates the escape fraction and whose central claim rests on an unvaried funnel geometry; still deserves review and likely publication after revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18993 v2 pith:3XQ7BYZ4 submitted 2025-06-23 astro-ph.GA

Yang Luo (Yunnan University) , Isaac Shlosman (University of Kentucky) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords directcollapsesupermassiveblackholeseedsLyαemissionradiativetransferbiconicaloutflowJWSTNIRSpechigh-redshiftgalaxiestwo-photon
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 Lyα photons, long thought to be trapped and destroyed in the spherical collapse picture of supermassive black hole seed formation, can actually escape when the collapse is anisotropic. Using a Monte Carlo Lyα radiative transfer code on the inflow-outflow geometry taken from earlier zoom-in cosmological simulations, the authors find that a nearly empty, fully ionized biconical funnel plus a thin expanding shell allows more than 95% of Lyα photons to escape from a z=10 pre-SMBH object. The escaping flux, a few microjansky, would be detectable by JWST NIRSpec in multi-object spectroscopy mode within about $10^{4}$ seconds at 10σ. The resulting line profiles show strong asymmetry and an extended red tail, which the authors propose as a way to observationally distinguish direct-collapse seeds from Lyman-$\alpha$ emitters and quasars. If correct, this gives a concrete observational route to finding the seeds of supermassive black holes before they grow into quasars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the anisotropic inflow-outflow geometry: a biconical funnel of hot, fully ionized, low-density gas (n ≈ 100 $cm^{-3}$, T ≈ $10^{6}$ K, x ≈ 1) carved by an outflow, surrounded by a thin expanding shell with Lyα optical depth up to $10^{8}$, and an outer spherical inflow with column density $10^{19}$–$10^{22}$ $cm^{-2}$. This funnel provides a low-optical-depth escape route for Lyα photons, while the expanding shell's velocity field suppresses the blue wing and enhances the red wing. The paper combines this geometry with a Monte Carlo radiative transfer algorithm that tracks resonant scattering, Doppler shifts, and the destruction probability into two-photon emission, using the escape fraction formula f_esc = (1 − p_dest)^{N_sca}.

What would settle it

Run a self-consistent radiation-hydrodynamic zoom-in simulation of direct collapse at z=10 that follows both the gas dynamics and the Lyα photon production, and measure the escape fraction without imposing a pre-cleared funnel; if the self-consistently maintained funnel has a neutral fraction above a few percent or a clumpy interior, the escape fraction will drop far below 95%. Alternatively, a JWST NIRSpec MOS survey of a statistically meaningful sample of direct-collapse candidate halos at z≈10 that finds no Lyα emitters with the predicted asymmetric red-tailed profiles at fluxes above ~1 µJy in $10^{4}$ second exposures would contradict the detectability claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the anisotropic inflow-outflow geometry inferred from prior zoom-in simulations of direct collapse, Lyα photons can escape the central region with a fraction exceeding 95% when the column density of the spherical inflow outside the shell is below about $10^{22}$ $cm^{-2}$. The geometry consists of a central $10^{5}$ solar mass object with effective temperature 6×$10^{4}$ K, a rotationally supported disk, a low-density hot funnel cleared by radiation or magnetic forces, and a dense radiatively driven expanding shell. The Monte Carlo transfer, which includes destruction into two-photon emission, produces double-peaked Lyα lines whose blue wing is absorbed by the intergalactic medium, leaving a redshifted red peak with velocity shifts of roughly 150–1200 km/s, FWHM of 200–2000 km/s, and a pronounced red tail. The escaping flux of a few microjansky is predicted to be detectable by JWST NIRSpec MOS at z=10 in $10^{4}$ seconds at 10σ, and the line shape diagnostics—peak shift, asymmetry, cuspiness, and equivalent width—are proposed as discriminators against LAEs and high-redshift quasars.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the existence and persistence of a nearly empty, fully ionized biconical funnel with a thin dense shell during the Lyα production phase, a geometry adopted from earlier simulations rather than produced self-consistently in the same calculation that emits the Lyα photons.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • JWST NIRSpec MOS observations at z≈10 could detect direct-collapse pre-SMBH objects with exposure times of roughly 10^4 seconds, provided the inflow column density stays below about 10^21 cm^-2.
  • The predicted Lyα line shape—a strongly asymmetric single peak with an extended red tail—gives observers a spectroscopic discriminant to separate direct-collapse seeds from ordinary Lyman-alpha emitters and high-redshift quasars.
  • If the inflow column density exceeds about 10^22–10^23 cm^-2, the escape fraction drops to only 1–10%, so only objects with cleared funnels will be visible in Lyα, biasing any survey toward the most evolved seeds.
  • The two-photon continuum flux increases by about three orders of magnitude with inflow column density, offering an independent broadband signature of Lyα destruction in these systems.
  • The model predicts a negative correlation between Lyα peak velocity shift and rest-frame equivalent width, a trend also seen in LAEs and high-z quasars, meaning this relation alone cannot distinguish the populations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the funnel is clumpy, partially neutral, or transient during the Lyα production phase, the escape fraction could drop far below 95%; a self-consistent radiation-hydro or MHD simulation that produces both the Lyα photons and the funnel simultaneously would settle this directly.
  • The paper neglects damping-wing absorption of the red line wing by the partially neutral intergalactic medium at z=10; including a realistic IGM transmission model could reduce the predicted observed flux and push the required exposure time beyond 10^4 seconds.
  • The strong inclination dependence of the peak flux—a factor of four reduction from face-on to edge-on for narrow funnels—implies that surveys will be biased toward face-on direct-collapse seeds, and the red tail may be more visible in edge-on systems where it is broadened.
  • The proposed line-shape diagnostic could be applied to existing JWST spectra of high-redshift compact objects or 'little red dots' to search for candidate direct-collapse seeds, even before a dedicated survey is designed.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Monte Carlo Lyα radiative transfer calculations in a prescribed four-component inflow-outflow geometry (spherical inflow, accretion disk, bi-conical outflow funnel, and expanding shell) intended to represent the central region of a direct-collapse pre-supermassive-black-hole object at z=10. The geometry is imported from the authors' earlier zoom-in cosmological simulations (Luo et al. 2023; Luo & Shlosman 2024). Varying the inflow column density Nin, shell optical depth τsh, and funnel opening angle θopen, the authors compute escape fractions, Lyα line profiles, and line diagnostics (peak velocity shift, width, asymmetry, cuspiness, equivalent width). They report that more than 95% of Lyα photons can escape through the funnel for Nin below about 10^22 cm^-2, that the resulting flux density of a few μJy is detectable by JWST NIRSpec in MOS mode at 10σ in 10^4 seconds, and that the line profiles, characterized by strong asymmetry and an extended red tail, can distinguish these objects from high-redshift LAEs and quasars.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would provide a concrete observational strategy for identifying direct-collapse black hole seeds with JWST and for separating them from ordinary star-forming galaxies at high redshift. This would be an important step in testing the direct-collapse pathway to supermassive black holes. The Monte Carlo code is validated against the Neufeld (1990) analytic solution for spherical accretion, including the two-photon destruction channel, and the paper systematically explores a meaningful parameter space of column density, shell optical depth, and opening angle. The line-diagnostic framework is also well motivated and the comparison with observed LAE and quasar line shapes is a useful addition. However, the headline escape fraction and the resulting detectability estimate rest on a prescribed, fully ionized, low-density funnel whose properties are held fixed rather than varied or derived self-consistently, and the treatment of the intergalactic medium on the red side of the line is incomplete.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 and Table 1] The escape route for Lyα photons is precisely the bi-conical funnel, yet the funnel parameters nfn = 100 cm^-3, xfn = 1.0, Tfn = 10^6 K are held fixed, and §3 states that 'the remaining parameters are sourced from the simulation models ... and kept constant during the calculations' and that 'their effects are disregarded.' With xfn = 1.0, the funnel is completely ionized and therefore optically thin to Lyα by construction, so a high escape fraction is effectively imposed rather than predicted by the transfer calculation. The authors should vary the funnel neutral fraction and density (including a clumpy or partially neutral funnel) and examine the effect on fesc and the JWST flux, since a modest neutral fraction or clumpiness in the funnel would increase the optical depth and could substantially reduce the escape fraction.
  2. [Abstract, §4, and Fig. 3] The abstract's statement that 'the escaping fraction of Lyα radiation exceeds 95% from a z=10 pre-SMBH object' is contradicted by the paper's own results: §4 states that for Nin >~ 10^22–10^23 cm^-2 only 1–10% of photons escape, and Fig. 3 shows a drop in the peak flux by about two orders of magnitude at Nin = 10^22 cm^-2 relative to Nin = 10^19 cm^-2. The abstract and the detectability claim should be qualified to state the column-density regime (e.g., Nin <~ 10^21 cm^-2) and the corresponding restricted parameter range in which the high escape fraction applies.
  3. [§3, Eq. (7), and §4] The detectability calculation, Eq. (7), uses the full intrinsic Lyα flux, and the authors note that the blue wing is absorbed by the IGM. However, the observable red peak is located at Δv ≈ 200–400 km s^-1 (Fig. 5), and at z=10 the IGM is likely substantially neutral, so the red wing will also suffer damping-wing absorption. The paper does not compute the IGM transmission on the red side. Without an estimate of this damping-wing opacity (e.g., a Miralda-Escudé–type calculation or a numerical IGM transfer), the reported JWST flux and exposure time are upper limits rather than robust predictions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The table heading 'disk opening angel' should read 'disk opening angle'.
  2. [§3] In the text describing Figure 6, 'leptocurtic' should be 'leptokurtic', consistent with the footnote in §2.
  3. [§3 and Fig. 2] The agreement between the numerical escape fractions and the Neufeld (1990) analytic solution is described as 'excellent', but no quantitative residual or maximum deviation is given; adding a simple accuracy measure would strengthen the code-validation statement.
  4. [§4] The statement that for Nin >~ 10^22–10^23 cm^-2 only 1–10% of the radiation escapes is not directly evident from Fig. 3, where the Nin = 10^22 case appears to have a peak flux about 1% of the lowest-Nin case; please clarify which parameter combination produces the 10% end of the quoted range.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Lyα escape fraction and line profiles are computed by Monte Carlo transfer from an assumed, independently published simulation geometry; the result is not equivalent to the input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) adopt the inflow-outflow geometry (disk, funnel, expanding shell, spherical inflow) from previous zoom-in cosmological simulations (Luo et al. 2023; Luo & Shlosman 2024); (ii) run a Monte Carlo Lyα radiative transfer code (Zheng & Miralda-Escudé 2002) on this geometry, including two-photon destruction; (iii) compute fesc, line profiles, and JWST detectability. The code is validated against the analytical Neufeld (1990) solution in Fig. 2, an external benchmark. The high escape fraction (>95%) is conditional on the prescribed funnel parameters (nfn = 100 cm^-3, xfn = 1.0, Tfn = 10^6 K; Table 1), but those parameters are not fitted to the predicted fesc; they are imported from the authors' prior simulations. The paper varies Nin, tau_sh, and theta_open, and finds that fesc drops (to ~0.3 at tau_sh = 10^8 or to 1-10% at high Nin), so the result is not forced by construction. The self-citations are real evidence: they point to prior published simulations with stated assumptions, not to a claim equivalent to the present target, and they do not invoke a uniqueness theorem to forbid alternatives. The paper itself concedes that the remaining parameters are fixed and their variations are not explored (§3) and that the modeling 'assumes these parameters within a reasonable range guided by simulations, and does not focus on their variations' (§4); this is a robustness limitation about whether the funnel persists during Lyα production, not a circular reduction. No equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The reader's concern about a clumpy or partially neutral funnel belongs to correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a prescribed geometry with several tuned parameters (funnel density, ionization fraction, shell optical depth, Lyα luminosity) and on the unverified persistence of a clean funnel. The radiative transfer method is standard, but the escape fraction and detectability are governed by these assumed inputs, not by a self-consistent collapse calculation.

free parameters (7)
  • Lyα luminosity L = 1e43 erg/s
    Assumed luminosity of the expanding shell; not derived from the accretion rate or cooling rate in the paper.
  • Funnel density nfn = 100 cm^-3
    Fixed from the adopted simulation geometry; controls whether Lyα optical depth in the funnel is negligible.
  • Funnel ionization fraction xfn = 1.0
    Fully ionized, so Lyα destruction and scattering in the funnel are minimized.
  • Inflow column density Nin = 1e19 to 1e22 cm^-2 (varied)
    Varied parameter; the headline 95% escape applies only at the low end of this range.
  • Shell optical depth τsh = 1e6 to 1e8 (varied)
    Varied parameter controlling line broadening and red peak shift.
  • Disk opening angle θopen = 60 to 150 degrees (varied)
    Varied parameter; also sets the funnel opening angle.
  • Continuum flux Fc = 1e-20 erg s^-1 cm^-2 Å^-1
    Assumed stellar continuum needed for equivalent width calculation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The direct collapse of primordial atomic gas forms a central mass of about 1e5 Msun with an accretion disk or SMS radiating near Eddington.
    Adopted from prior work; §2 and §4.
  • ad hoc to paper The outflow funnel is cleared by radiation or magnetic forces and remains a low-density, fully ionized cavity during Lyα production.
    Adopted from the authors' earlier simulations (Luo et al. 2023; Luo & Shlosman 2024); no self-consistent modeling of the funnel during Lyα emission.
  • standard math The Monte Carlo code of Zheng & Miralda-Escudé (2002) correctly implements resonant Lyα scattering with two-photon destruction, validated against Neufeld (1990).
    The paper's Fig. 2 shows agreement; validation is for spherical accretion only.
  • domain assumption At z=10, the IGM absorbs only the blue wing of the Lyα line.
    The paper explicitly sets aside the blue wing but does not model the damping wing on the red side; this is an unverified simplification that affects detectability.
  • domain assumption The JWST NIRSpec MOS sensitivity is about 0.1 µJy for a 10σ detection in 10^4 seconds.
    Taken from the STScI sensitivity page; not independently recalculated in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct Collapse Pre-supermassive Black Hole Objects as Ly$\alpha$ Emitters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3XQ7BYZ4

@misc{pith2026250618993,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct Collapse Pre-supermassive Black Hole Objects as Ly$\alpha$ Emitters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3XQ7BYZ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18993}
}
abstract

The Direct Collapse scenario to form the supermassive black hole (SMBH) seeds offers the most promising way to explain the origin of quasars at $z>7$. Assuming atomic primordial gas, can Ly$\alpha$ photons escape from the central regions of the collapse and serve as a diagnostic for the detection of these pre-SMBH objects? Models of spherical collapse have found these photons to be trapped and destroyed. We use Ly$\alpha$ radiation transfer within the inflow-outflow geometry, based on earlier zoom-in cosmological modeling involving radiation transfer and magnetic forces. Adopting geometry that includes ongoing disk and spherical accretion, and formation of a biconical outflow funnel, we obtain the formation of a dense radiatively driven expanding shell. The Ly$\alpha$ transfer is performed using a Monte Carlo algorithm, accounting for the destruction of Ly$\alpha$ photons and the emergence of two-photon emission. We find that a substantial fraction of Ly$\alpha$ photons can escape through the funnel and calculate the line profiles, the line peak velocity shift, asymmetry, and cuspiness, by varying basic model parameters. The escaping Ly$\alpha$ emission is anisotropic and sensitive to the overall inflow-outflow geometry. The escaping fraction of Ly$\alpha$ radiation exceeds 95% from a $z=10$ pre-SMBH object -- in principle detectable by the JWST NIRSpec in the MOS mode, during $\sim 10^4$ seconds for a $10\sigma$ signal-to-noise ratio. Moreover, comparisons with line shapes from high-$z$ galaxies and quasars allow us to separate them from pre-SMBH objects based on the line shape: the pre-SMBH lines show a profound asymmetry and extended red tail.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18993 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The schematic model, not to scale: An edge-on view of the upper hemisphere of disky gas distribution, with a density slice on scale of 2×10−2 pc, the outflow funnel, radiatively-driven shell, and spherical accretion flow. Arrows indicate the velocity vectors, with an anisotropic outflow. be converted to the line shift velocity, ∆v = c(ν0 − ν)/ν0. The blueshifted line wing, ∆v < 0, will be absorbed by the intergalact… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The escaping fraction of Ly α photons, denoted as fesc, are not destroyed after Nscat scattering events. Shown here as a function of the column density N of a spherical inflow. According to Equation 1, fesc depends on both the neutral (linked to Nscat) and ionized gas fractions (linked to pdest). Models with varying ionization fractions, xi, are differentiated by colors. Solid lines represent the theoretical escape … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The set of resulting Ly α line profiles in our models, which display the Ly α radiation flux as a function of the velocity offset of the emission line from the systemic redshift, ∆v. The photons have been injected at the line center with T = 104 K. Horizontal frames: varying the funnel opening angles, θopen = 150◦ − 60◦ . Vertical columns: varying the optical depth of the spherical accretion outside the shell, τsh =… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top row: The observed integrated flux of Ly α photons (left y-axis), as a function of Nin for τsh = 106−108 and θopen = 60◦−150◦ . Right y-axis gives the fraction of the observed red wing flux in units of the total intrinsic flux. Note that only the red wing is detecta…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Ly α line shape diagnostics defined in section 2 as a function of the inflow column density Nin for τsh = 106−8 . From left to right: ∆vp — the red wing peak velocity shift; W0.5 — half-width at x = 0.5; A0.2 — the asymmetry at x = 0.2; C0.75 — the cuspiness at x =…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panel: line profiles shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 2277, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1657 Bañados, E., Venemans, B

    Ardaneh, K., Luo, Y., Shlosman, I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2277, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1657 Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018, Natur, 553, 473, doi: 10.1038/nature25180

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1657 2018

  2. [3]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  3. [4]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1998, RvMP, 70, 1, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.70.1 1998

  4. [6]

    C., Rossi, E

    Begelman, M. C., Rossi, E. M., & Armitage, P. J. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1649, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13344.x

    arXiv 2008

  5. [7]

    C., & Shlosman, I

    Begelman, M. C., & Shlosman, I. 2009, ApJL, 702, L5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/L5

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/l5 2009

  6. [8]

    C., Volonteri, M., & Rees, M

    Begelman, M. C., Volonteri, M., & Rees, M. J. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 289, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10467.x

    arXiv 2006

  7. [9]

    K., Blecha, L., Ni, Y., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Ni, Y., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2238 Bogdán, Á., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, NatAs, 8, 126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2238 2022

  8. [10]

    Bonnor, W. B. 1956, MNRAS, 116, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/116.3.351

    doi:10.1093/mnras/116.3.351 1956

Show all 72 references
  1. [11]

    Bosman, S. E. I., Álvarez-Márquez, J., Colina, L., et al. 2024, NatAs, 8, 1054, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02273-0

    2024 doi

  2. [12]

    2003, ApJ, 596, 34, doi: 10.1086/377529

    Bromm, V., & Loeb, A. 2003, ApJ, 596, 34, doi: 10.1086/377529

    2003 doi

  3. [13]

    L., & Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 12, Computational Astrophysics; 12th Kingston Meeting on Theoretical Astrophysics, ed. D. A. Clarke & M. J. West, 363, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710186

    1997 doi arXiv

  4. [14]

    L., Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19

    2014 doi

  5. [15]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

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

    2023 doi

  6. [16]

    1992, ApJS, 78, 341, doi: 10.1086/191630

    Cen, R. 1992, ApJS, 78, 341, doi: 10.1086/191630

    1992 doi

  7. [17]

    1960, PNAS, 46, 253, doi: 10.1073/pnas.46.2.253

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1960, PNAS, 46, 253, doi: 10.1073/pnas.46.2.253

    1960 doi

  8. [18]

    Choi, J.-H., Shlosman, I., & Begelman, M. C. 2013, ApJ, 774, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/149

    2013 doi

  9. [19]

    Choi, J.-H., Shlosman, I., & Begelman, M. C. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4411, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv694 Dijkstra, M. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1704.03416, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1704.03416 Dijkstra, M., Ferrara, A., & Mesinger, A. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1007 Dijkstra...

    2015 doi arXiv

  10. [20]

    T., Blandford, R

    Emmering, R. T., Blandford, R. D., & Shlosman, I. 1992, ApJ, 385, 460, doi: 10.1086/170955

    1992 doi

  11. [21]

    K., Steidel, C

    Erb, D. K., Steidel, C. C., Trainor, R. F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/33 Fan,X.,Strauss,M.A.,Schneider,D.P.,etal.2003,AJ,125,1649, doi: 10.1086/368246

    2014 doi

  12. [22]

    M., Woosley, S

    Fuller, G. M., Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1986, ApJ, 307, 675, doi: 10.1086/164452

    1986 doi

  13. [23]

    2012, MNRAS, 422, 310, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20607.x 12 Luo and Shlosman

    Garel, T., Blaizot, J., Guiderdoni, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 310, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20607.x 12 Luo and Shlosman

    2012

  14. [24]

    Ge, Q., & Wise, J. H. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2773, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2074

    2017 doi

  15. [25]

    H., Springel, V., White, S

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

    2011 doi

  16. [26]

    G., & Rees, M

    Haehnelt, M. G., & Rees, M. J. 1993, MNRAS, 263, 168, doi: 10.1093/mnras/263.1.168

    1993 doi

  17. [27]

    2013, ApJ, 765, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/70

    Hashimoto, T., Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/70

    2013 doi

  18. [28]

    W., Inayoshi, K., Omukai, K., & Yoshida, N

    Hosokawa, T., Yorke, H. W., Inayoshi, K., Omukai, K., & Yoshida, N. 2013, ApJ, 778, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/178

    2013 doi

  19. [29]

    Inayoshi, K., & Tanaka, T. L. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4350, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv871

    2015 doi

  20. [30]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    2020 doi

  21. [31]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acda8e

    Kimura, K., Hosokawa, T., Sugimura, K., & Fukushima, H. 2023, ApJ, 950, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acda8e

    2023 doi

  22. [32]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1171

    King, A. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1171

    2024 doi

  23. [33]

    M., Bullock, J

    Koushiappas, S. M., Bullock, J. S., & Dekel, A. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 292, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08190.x

    2004

  24. [34]

    L., Finkelstein, S

    Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace619

    2023 doi

  25. [35]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 40, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/40

    Volonteri, M. 2016, ApJ, 823, 40, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/40

    2016 doi

  26. [36]

    A., Schleicher, D

    Latif, M. A., Schleicher, D. R. G., Schmidt, W., & Niemeyer, J. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt834

    2013 doi

  27. [37]

    O., & Sommer-Larsen, J

    Laursen, P., Razoumov, A. O., & Sommer-Larsen, J. 2009, ApJ, 696, 853, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/853

    2009 doi

  28. [38]

    Loeb, A., & Rasio, F. A. 1994, ApJ, 432, 52, doi: 10.1086/174548

    1994 doi

  29. [39]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 3523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty362

    Luo, Y., Ardaneh, K., Shlosman, I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty362

    2018 doi

  30. [40]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 3217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw698

    Luo, Y., Nagamine, K., & Shlosman, I. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw698

    2016 doi

  31. [41]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7fec

    Luo, Y., & Shlosman, I. 2024, ApJ, 976, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7fec

    2024 doi

  32. [42]

    2023, ApJ, 955, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acefb9

    Luo, Y., Shlosman, I., & Nagamine, K. 2023, ApJ, 955, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acefb9

    2023 doi

  33. [43]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 4917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa153

    Luo, Y., Shlosman, I., Nagamine, K., & Fang, T. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa153

    2020 doi

  34. [44]

    2019, PASA, 36, e020, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.10

    Maio, U., Borgani, S., Ciardi, B., & Petkova, M. 2019, PASA, 36, e020, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.10

    2019 doi

  35. [45]

    2024, Natur, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024, Natur, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    2024 doi

  36. [46]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    2024 doi

  37. [47]

    J., Warren, S

    Mortlock, D. J., Warren, S. J., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2011, Natur, 474, 616, doi: 10.1038/nature10159 Nakajima,K.,Fletcher,T.,Ellis,R.S.,Robertson,B.E.,&Iwata,I. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2098, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty750

    2011 doi

  38. [48]

    Neufeld, D. A. 1990, ApJ, 350, 216, doi: 10.1086/168375

    1990 doi

  39. [49]

    L., & Bryan, G

    Norman, M. L., & Bryan, G. L. 1999, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 240, Numerical Astrophysics, ed. S. M

    1999

  40. [50]

    Tomisaka, & T

    Miyama, K. Tomisaka, & T. Hanawa, 19, doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-4780-4_3

    doi

  41. [51]

    F., Schindler, J.-T., et al

    Onorato, S., Hennawi, J. F., Schindler, J.-T., et al. 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2406.07612, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.07612

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [52]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., & Shibuya, T. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 617, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021859

    2020 doi

  43. [53]

    B., & Peebles, P

    Partridge, R. B., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1967, ApJ, 147, 868, doi: 10.1086/149079

    1967 doi

  44. [54]

    J., Whalen, D

    Patrick, S. J., Whalen, D. J., Latif, M. A., & Elford, J. S. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1179 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2023 doi

  45. [55]

    Rees, M. J. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 471, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002351

    1984

  46. [56]

    A., & Haehnelt, M

    Regan, J. A., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 343, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14579.x

    2009

  47. [57]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/74

    Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/74

    2014 doi

  48. [58]

    C., & Nagamine, K

    Shlosman, I., Choi, J.-H., Begelman, M. C., & Nagamine, K. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 500, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2700

    2016 doi

  49. [59]

    D., Bryan, G

    Smith, B. D., Bryan, G. L., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3291

    2017 doi

  50. [60]

    Tumlinson, J., & Shull, J. M. 2000, ApJL, 528, L65, doi: 10.1086/312432

    2000 doi

  51. [61]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9

    2011 doi

  52. [62]

    P., Walter, F., Decarli, R., et al

    Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., Decarli, R., et al. 2017, ApJL, 851, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa943a

    2017 doi

  53. [63]

    2017, A&A, 597, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629264

    Verhamme, A., Orlitová, I., Schaerer, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629264

    2017 doi

  54. [64]

    2021, ApJL, 907, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6

    2021 doi

  55. [65]

    J., Delorme, P., Reylé, C., et al

    Willott, C. J., Delorme, P., Reylé, C., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 906, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/3/906

    2010 doi

  56. [66]

    H., Turk, M

    Wise, J. H., Turk, M. J., & Abel, T. 2008, ApJ, 682, 745, doi: 10.1086/588209

    2008 doi

  57. [67]

    2015, Natur, 518, 512, doi: 10.1038/nature14241

    Wu, X.-B., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2015, Natur, 518, 512, doi: 10.1038/nature14241

    2015 doi

  58. [68]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/29

    Yamada, T., Matsuda, Y., Kousai, K., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/29

    2012 doi

  59. [69]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b32

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2b32

    2021 doi

  60. [70]

    2023a, ApJS, 269, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf99b

    Yang, J., Fan, X., Gupta, A., et al. 2023a, ApJS, 269, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf99b

    doi

  61. [71]

    2023b, ApJL, 951, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc9c8

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 951, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc9c8

    doi

  62. [72]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/78 13

    Zackrisson, E., Binggeli, C., Finlator, K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/78 13

    2017 doi

  63. [73]

    2002, ApJ, 578, 33, doi: 10.1086/342400

    Zheng, Z., & Miralda-Escudé, J. 2002, ApJ, 578, 33, doi: 10.1086/342400

    2002 doi

  64. [74]

    2024, ApJL, 963, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad23e7

    Zou, S., Cai, Z., Wang, F., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad23e7

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.