Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The Evolution of Pop III.1 Protostars Powered by Dark Matter Annihilation. I. Fiducial model and first results

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Population III.1 protostars can grow past a million solar masses only above a dark matter density near $\rho_\chi \gtrsim 5\times10^{14}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-3}}$.

desk verdict A real advance in coupling DM capture to stellar evolution, with a credible threshold, but the fixed halo reservoir and the extrapolated GR-stability claim keep it from being as clean as the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00870 v1 pith:AOTZB47B submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Devesh Nandal , Konstantinos Topalakis , Jonathan C. Tan , Vasilisa Sergienko , Anaïs Pauchett , Maya Petkova This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords PopulationIIIstarsdarkmatterannihilationWIMPcapturesupermassivestarformationgeneralrelativisticinstabilityionizingfeedbackblackholeseedsJWSTsignatures
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

Population III.1 stars, the first metal-free stars forming in pristine dark matter minihalos, may owe their fates to dark matter. This paper uses stellar evolution calculations that couple WIMP capture and annihilation to the structure of an accreting protostar and identifies a critical ambient WIMP density of $\rho_\chi \gtrsim 5\times10^{14}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-3}}$: below it, ionizing feedback stops growth at a few hundred solar masses, while above it the star stays inflated and cool, suppresses its ionizing photons, and can grow past $10^5$--$10^6\,M_\odot$. The paper also finds that once the dark matter fuel runs out, the star contracts, ignites hydrogen, and emits ionizing radiation up to $\sim 10^{53}\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$, sustained above $10^{51}\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$ for about half a million years. If correct, this offers a physically grounded route from dark matter minihalos to the heavy black hole seeds needed for the quasars seen at $z \gtrsim 7$.

What carries the argument

The engine is the Gould single-scatter WIMP capture formalism (Gould 1987) coupled to the stellar evolution code used throughout the paper, with annihilation luminosity $L_\chi = \frac{2}{3} m_\chi C_c$ deposited in the core according to an isothermal Gaussian profile. The capture rate $C_c$ is recomputed each timestep from the instantaneous stellar structure, so the heating responds to the star's own evolution. The paper's discriminant is the threshold ambient density $\rho_\chi \gtrsim 5\times10^{14}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-3}}$ at $\dot M_* = 3\times10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$: above it the annihilation heating dominates the luminosity budget, regulates the effective temperature and hence the Wien-tail ionizing photon output, and keeps the Chandrasekhar general-relativistic stability integrals $I_+/I_0$ and $I_-/I_0$ from crossing.

What would settle it

A self-consistent cosmological simulation of a Population III.1 minihalo that follows adiabatic contraction, WIMP depletion, and scattering would settle the claim: if the ambient dark matter density at the protostar's accretion radius falls below $\sim 5\times10^{14}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-3}}$ during the growth phase, the predicted growth to $\gtrsim 10^5\,M_\odot$ does not occur.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a two-regime picture of Population III.1 protostar growth set by the ambient WIMP density in the immediate vicinity of the star. For a fiducial gas accretion rate of $\dot M_* = 3\times10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$, if $\rho_\chi \lesssim 10^{13}$--$10^{14}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-3}}$, the protostar contracts toward the main sequence, becomes hot, and its hydrogen-ionizing photon output rises sharply, triggering photoevaporative mass loss that terminates accretion at a few hundred solar masses. If $\rho_\chi \gtrsim 5\times10^{14}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-3}}$, WIMP annihilation becomes the dominant luminosity source, inflating the envelope to roughly $10^3$--$10^4\,R_\odot$, keeping the surface near $10^4$ K, and quenching the ionizing photon rate; these stars keep accreting and remain stable against the general-relativistic radial instability beyond $10^6\,M_\odot$, instead of collapsing near $5\times10^5\,M_\odot$ as in lower-density cases. The paper further shows that after WIMP capture ceases, the residual reservoir delays the onset of core hydrogen burning by about 20,000 years, and the subsequent main-sequence phase reaches $Q_H \sim 10^{53}\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$, with values above $10^{51}\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$ lasting roughly 0.5 Myr.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the density of dark matter particles immediately around the protostar stays fixed at the high values assumed in the models, neither depleted by capture nor compressed by the star's gravity, with the surrounding minihalo acting as a passive reservoir; if real first-star minihalos cannot sustain densities near $5\times10^{14}$--$10^{16}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-3}}$, the supermassive growth channel would not operate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $\rho_\chi \gtrsim 5\times10^{14}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-3}}$ and $\dot M_* = 3\times10^{-3}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$, Population III.1 protostars can reach $\gtrsim 10^5$--$10^6\,M_\odot$ without being halted by ionizing feedback.
  • In lower-density environments ($\rho_\chi \lesssim 10^{13}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-3}}$), the same tracks collapse by general-relativistic instability at $M_* \simeq 4.8\times10^5\,M_\odot$ when the accretion rate is $10^{-2}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$, showing that dark matter density sets the black hole seed mass.
  • The post-dark-matter phase produces a strong ionizing flash with $\log_{10}(Q_H/\mathrm{s^{-1}}) \simeq 53$, sustained for roughly 0.16 Myr, giving a JWST-visible signature of a depleted minihalo.
  • The balance between gas accretion and WIMP capture predicts 'stuttering' growth: at high accretion rates ($\dot M_* = 0.1\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$), the protostar briefly contracts and flares in ionizing photons before dark matter heating re-inflates it.
  • Because the final fate depends on the ambient WIMP density, the host dark matter halo's properties are directly imprinted on the initial mass of the resulting black hole seed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if future direct-detection limits push the WIMP--nucleon scattering cross-sections below the values adopted here ($\sigma_{\rm SI}=10^{-47}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$, $\sigma_{\rm SD}=10^{-41}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$), the capture rate drops and the critical $\rho_\chi$ would rise, potentially excluding this growth channel for the assumed halo densities.
  • Beyond the paper: the model implies a population of bloated, cool supermassive protostars that are nearly invisible in ionizing light during growth, so searches in high-redshift fields should target the delayed post-dark-matter flash rather than the growth phase.
  • Beyond the paper: the threshold could be combined with cosmological simulations of minihalo collapse to estimate how many supermassive seeds this channel produces; only halos able to sustain $\rho_\chi \gtrsim 10^{15}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-3}}$ near the star would contribute, which would directly tie the black hole seed abundance to the dark matter distribution.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript integrates the Gould (1987) WIMP capture formalism into the GENEC stellar evolution code and computes a grid of accreting Population III.1 protostar models with ambient WIMP densities rho_chi = 10^12-10^16 GeV cm^-3 and gas accretion rates 10^-3-0.1 M_sun/yr. For a fiducial accretion rate of 3e-3 M_sun/yr, it identifies a critical ambient WIMP density rho_chi ~ 5e14 GeV cm^-3 for growth to supermassive scales: below this, ionizing feedback limits final masses to a few hundred solar masses, while above it WIMP heating keeps the models inflated and cool, suppresses hydrogen-ionizing photon output, and is argued to delay the general relativistic instability to masses beyond 1e6 M_sun. The paper also describes a post-growth phase in which, after capture is switched off, the star contracts and produces a luminous ionizing phase with QH ~ 1e53 s^-1.

Significance. If the mechanism operates as modeled, this is a potentially important pathway for forming supermassive black hole seeds, with concrete falsifiable predictions: a cool, bloated growth phase, a QH plateau near 10^46 s^-1 in the fiducial high-density case, and a late ionizing flash after the WIMP fuel is exhausted. The strength of the paper is that the threshold density is not a fitted constant but emerges from the coupled stellar-structure and capture equations, and the qualitative DM-driven inflation and feedback suppression are supported by the luminosity budgets in Figure 2. The main weakness is physical applicability: the imposed constant ambient WIMP density acts as an infinite reservoir, and several headline claims exceed the tabulated runs. The paper is a reasonable first step, but its conclusions currently overstate the support provided by the calculations.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.7, Eqs. (1)–(3), §4.1] The fixed ambient WIMP density is load-bearing, but it is not self-consistently maintained. Equation (3) makes the capture rate linear in rho_chi and Eq. (10) converts captured WIMPs into luminosity, yet no equation removes the annihilated WIMP mass from the surrounding halo; the halo is effectively an infinite reservoir. For the rho_chi = 10^15 GeV cm^-3, 3e-3 M_sun/yr track, the star is DM-supported for about 1.7e7 yr, and integrating (3/2)L_chi/c^2 over this time can consume orders of magnitude more WIMP mass than the instantaneous N_chi,f ~ 7 M_sun listed in Table 1, so the reservoir must be replenished from the same minihalo whose density is held fixed. The depletion test in §4.1 shuts off capture only after the star has reached 1e5 M_sun and therefore does not test whether the ambient density can be sustained self-consistently. Since the headline threshold and GR-delay claims require real minihalos to sustain such densities, the paper should either couple the halo density to the annihilation drain, or provide a quantitative estimate of the total WIMP mass consumed per run and compare it with the available reservoir in a Pop III.1 minihalo. Absent that, the 'physically-grounded pathway' claim in the abstract is premature.
  2. [§3.2, §3.3, Table 1] The abstract and conclusions claim that in dense halos (rho_chi >= 10^15 GeV cm^-3) stars remain stable against the GR instability beyond 1e6 M_sun, but no tabulated run reaches this mass. In Table 1, the largest final mass for rho_chi = 10^15 is 5.17e5 M_sun (for 3e-3 M_sun/yr), the rho_chi = 10^16 run terminates at only 5.08e4 M_sun because of numerical convergence issues (noted in §3.2), and the other rho_chi = 10^15 runs end at 1.06e5, 1.39e5, and 1.40e5 M_sun. Figure 5 states that the model reaches M* ~ 1e6, but the corresponding model is not identifiable in Table 1. The paper should identify the plotted run, reconcile the final masses with Table 1, and clearly mark the beyond-1e6 conclusion as an extrapolation rather than a computed result.
  3. [§3.3, final paragraph] The statement that 'models with rho_chi = 10^15 and 10^16 GeV cm^-3 do not reach the GRI since their structure is identical to the model depicted in Figure 5' is too strong. The GR integrals in Figure 5 are for a single accretion rate, while the other high-density models use different accretion rates and one of them terminates at 5e4 M_sun from numerical convergence. The structural identity with the Figure 5 model is not demonstrated. Please either compute the GR integrals for the other high-density tracks or soften the statement to a qualitative expectation.
  4. [§4.1, Table 1] The depletion test appears to use a model whose age is not consistent with Table 1. The text says the star reaches 1e5 M_sun at an age of 35.3 Myr and ends at 35.8 Myr, but Table 1 lists final ages of 1.72e7 yr for the 3e-3 M_sun/yr, rho_chi = 10^15 model, 1.06e7 yr for the 1e-2 model, and 1.39e8 yr for the 1e-3 model. Because the claimed 0.5 Myr post-DM luminous phase and the QH ~ 1e53 s^-1 value are derived from this run, the parameters of the depletion model need to be identified explicitly and reconciled with Table 1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2 and Fig. 3 caption] The text says that the left panel of Figure 3 shows stellar radius versus mass and the right panel shows QH, while the figure caption states the opposite (left: QH, right: radius). Please make the text and caption consistent.
  2. [§3.1.4] The phrase 'cooler surface temperatures (log Teff/K > 4.25)' is contradictory; I suspect the intended inequality is log Teff/K < 4.25.
  3. [Abstract, Table 1, §4.1] There are several small typos: 'redshiftsz' in the abstract, 'eefective' in the Table 1 header, and a missing parenthesis in 'log (Teff = 3.75' in §4.1.
  4. [§2.2, Eq. (5)] The definition of A^2 is garbled in the typeset text as '3v2 escµ 2v2χµ2 red'; please typeset the equation unambiguously.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the critical DM density and GR-delay results are conditional outputs of the imposed halo boundary condition, not re-statements of the input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained for what it claims. The paper varies ambient WIMP density rho_chi and accretion rate Mdot as externally specified inputs (Section 2.7 and Eq. 11), integrates the Gould capture equation (Eq. 1) with Cc computed from the stellar structure (Eq. 3), and obtains the annihilation luminosity L_chi from Eq. 10. The critical density rho_chi ~ 5e14 GeV cm^-3 is not a fitted constant; it is the grid location where the simulated stellar response switches from feedback-limited masses of a few hundred solar masses to continued accretion past 1e5 solar masses. Similarly, the GR-stability comparison uses the standard Chandrasekhar integrals and is computed, not imposed. Self-citations to the GENEC SMS implementation and to the critical accretion rate of Nandal et al. (2023) are provenance and calibration references; the former is code, and the latter is not used to force the DM conclusions. The acknowledged limitation that rho_chi is held fixed and halo depletion or adiabatic contraction is deferred to future work (Section 5) means the results are conditional on that boundary condition, but this is not circular because no equation defines the output in terms of itself. Under the stated assumptions, the mechanism is coherent.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on imposed environmental and particle physics parameters, primarily the ambient WIMP density and accretion rate, plus the idealization of a fixed dark matter reservoir. No new entities are introduced, and no constants are fitted to the target result. The strongest unvalidated input is the assumed constancy and magnitude of the ambient WIMP density.

free parameters (9)
  • Ambient WIMP density rho_chi = 10^12 to 10^16 GeV/cm3 (grid values 10^12, 10^13, 10^14, 5e14, 10^15, 10^16)
    Scanned input that directly sets the capture rate and therefore the annihilation luminosity; the central threshold is expressed in terms of this parameter.
  • Gas accretion rate Mdot = 10^-3, 3e-3, 10^-2, 10^-1 solar masses per year
    Imposed boundary condition for mass growth; controls how fast baryonic mass is added relative to the WIMP reservoir.
  • WIMP mass m_chi = 100 GeV
    WIMP particle mass adopted from an LZ-consistent benchmark; sets the kinematics of capture and the energy per annihilation.
  • WIMP annihilation cross section = 3e-26 cm3/s
    Thermal-relic benchmark cross section; sets the annihilation coefficient and the equilibrium WIMP number.
  • Spin-independent cross section sigma_SI = 1e-47 cm2
    WIMP-nucleus scattering cross section used in Gould capture; chosen within current experimental limits.
  • Spin-dependent cross section sigma_SD = 1e-41 cm2
    Spin-dependent scattering channel used in the capture calculation; dominates the effective cross section.
  • Halo velocity dispersion v_chi = 10 km/s
    Assumed velocity width of the WIMP Maxwellian; affects kinematic suppression in the capture integral.
  • Initial seed mass and age = 2 solar masses at 9 years
    Starting model for accretion runs; assumed to already contain an evolved WIMP reservoir that is not modeled self-consistently.
  • Annihilation energy deposition fraction = 2/3
    Assumed fraction of WIMP annihilation energy deposited in the star, with one third lost to neutrinos; this linearly scales the heating rate.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption WIMPs exist and can be gravitationally captured, thermalize, and self-annihilate inside stars with the adopted cross sections.
    Underpins the entire dark matter heating mechanism, introduced in Section 2.
  • ad hoc to paper Ambient WIMP density remains constant at the specified rho_chi for the full evolution, with no depletion of the halo reservoir.
    Section 2.7 fixes rho_chi; Section 5 lists adiabatic contraction as future work, so this is a paper-specific idealization that controls the central threshold.
  • domain assumption Single-scatter capture formalism of Gould is sufficient; multi-scatter capture and self-capture are negligible.
    Adopted in Sections 2.1 and 2.2; the comparison with Rindler-Daller et al. (2015) explicitly notes that the capture prescription drives differences.
  • domain assumption The captured WIMP spatial distribution is an isothermal Gaussian with radius set by core temperature and density.
    Equation 8; confines heating to the center and sets the annihilation rate.
  • domain assumption Radiative feedback is captured by Eddington-limited accretion plus the photoevaporation prescription of Equation 12.
    Section 2.8; this mechanism sets final masses for low-density models and is load-bearing for the threshold.
  • domain assumption One third of annihilation energy escapes as neutrinos, so two thirds is deposited.
    Section 2.5, following Scott and Sivertsson (2009); linearly scales the annihilation luminosity.
  • domain assumption The GENEC Henyey solver and standard stellar physics correctly describe these extreme inflated protostars.
    Section 2.6; the numerical framework is trusted and is not independently benchmarked against observations here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Evolution of Pop III.1 Protostars Powered by Dark Matter Annihilation. I. Fiducial model and first results." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AOTZB47B

@misc{pith2026250700870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Evolution of Pop III.1 Protostars Powered by Dark Matter Annihilation. I. Fiducial model and first results},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AOTZB47B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00870}
}
abstract

The existence of billion-solar-mass quasars at redshifts $z \gtrsim 7$ poses a formidable challenge to theories of black hole formation, requiring pathways for the rapid growth of massive seeds. Population III.1 stars, forming in pristine, dense dark matter (DM) minihalos, are compelling progenitors. This study presents a suite of stellar evolution models for accreting Pop III.1 protostars, calculated with the \textsc{GENEC} code. We systematically explore a wide parameter space, spanning ambient WIMP densities of $\rho_\chi \sim 10^{12}\mbox{-}10^{16}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-3}}$ and gas accretion rates of $10^{-3}\mbox{-}10^{-1}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$, to quantify the effects of DM annihilation. A central finding is that for a protostar to grow to supermassive scales ($\gtrsim 10^5 \, M_{\odot}$), the ambient DM density in the immediate vicinity of the star must exceed a critical threshold of $\rho_{\chi} \gtrsim 5 \times 10^{14} \, \text{GeV cm}^{-3}$. The energy injected by WIMP annihilation inflates the protostar, lowering its surface temperature, which suppresses the ionizing feedback that would otherwise halt accretion and significantly delays the onset of hydrogen fusion. This heating also governs the star's final fate: in dense halos ($\rho_\chi \gtrsim 10^{15}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-3}}$), stars remain stable against general relativistic instability beyond $10^6 \, M_{\odot}$, whereas at lower densities ($\rho_\chi \lesssim 10^{13}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-3}}$), they collapse at masses of $\sim 5 \times 10^5 \, M_{\odot}$. Once the DM fuel is exhausted and core burning commences, the protostar contracts and its ionising photon output can reach very high levels $\sim 10^{53} s^{-1}$. These distinct evolutionary phases offer clear observational signatures for the JWST, providing a robust, physically-grounded pathway for forming heavy black hole seeds in the early universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00870 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Seven massive and supermassive stellar models at WIMP densities ranging from 1012 - 1016 GeV cm−3 at a constant accretion rate of 3×10−3M⊙ yr−1 labeled from (a) - (f) respectively. Model (g) represents the case of standard Pop III star formation without any WIMP capture or annihilation. (a) Left: HR diagram with isoradii depicted using a colorbar. (b) Right: Evolution of central temperature versus central density. T… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Instantaneous luminosity budgets of supermassive protostars accreting at M˙ ∗ = 3 × 10−3 M⊙ yr−1 and evolving in dark matter halos of constant WIMP density. Panels (a)–(f) correspond to ρχ = 1012 , 1013 , 1014 , 5 × 1014 , 1015 , 1016 GeV cm−3 , respectively; the seventh panel (g) is a model without any WIMP capture and annihilation. 3.2. Ionising photon production and radiative feedback Having established in §3.1 h… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hydrogen ionising photon production and structural evolution of accreting Pop III protostars at a fixed accretion rate of M˙ ∗ = 3 × 10−3 M⊙ yr−1 for five background WIMP densities (ρχ = 1012–1016 GeV cm−3 ). (a) Left: Hydrogen-ionising photon rate QH versus stellar mass, color-coded by log10(Teff/K). (b) Right: Stellar radius as a function of mass for the same models and color scale, highlighting how stronger DM an… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: General–relativistic integrals (top) and Kippenhahn diagram (bottom) for the ρχ = 1013 GeV cm−3 model. The GR instability is reached when the blue and red curves meet at M∗ ≃ 4.8 × 105 M⊙. In the lower panel coral shading denotes convective regions, teal shading radiat…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Hydrogen-ionising photon rate for supermassive stars accreting in a ρχ = 1015 GeV cm−3 environment. Accretion rates are color-coded by log(Teff/K); labels (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) correspond to models with accretion rates of 10−3 , 3 × 10−3 , 10−2 , and 10−1 M⊙ yr−1 …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

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

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pop III.1 supermassive stars flash-ionize much of the early universe at z~20-30, adding tau~0.04 to the CMB optical depth and potentially easing Hubble tension and DESI anomalies.

  2. 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

46 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    S., Al Musalhi, A

    Aalbers, J., Akerib, D. S., Al Musalhi, A. K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17036

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    L., & Norman, M

    Abel, T., Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 2002, Science, 295, 93

    2002

  3. [3]

    C., & Monaco, P

    Banik, N., Tan, J. C., & Monaco, P. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3592

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Baumgarte, T. W. & Shapiro, S. L. 1999, ApJ, 526, 941

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    C., V olonteri, M., & Rees, M

    Begelman, M. C., V olonteri, M., & Rees, M. J. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 289

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    R., Faber, S

    Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Flores, R., & Primack, J. R. 1986, ApJ, 301, 27 Bogdán, Á., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126

    work page 1986

  7. [7]

    S., & Larson, R

    Bromm, V ., Coppi, P. S., & Larson, R. B. 2002, ApJ, 564, 23

    2002

  8. [8]

    C., Young, A

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

    arXiv

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    1964, ApJ, 140, 417

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1964, ApJ, 140, 417

    1964

  2. [10]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 134

    Chon, S., Hirano, S., Hosokawa, T., & Yoshida, N. 2016, ApJ, 832, 134

    2016

  3. [11]

    2008, Ap&SS, 316, 43 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al

    Eggenberger, P., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., et al. 2008, Ap&SS, 316, 43 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146

    2008

  4. [12]

    A., Schneider, D

    Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Schneider, D. P., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1649

    2003

  5. [13]

    A., & Spolyar, D

    Freese, K., Gondolo, P., Sellwood, J. A., & Spolyar, D. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1563

    2009

  6. [14]

    2010, ApJ, 716, 1397

    Freese, K., Ilie, C., Spolyar, D., Valluri, M., & Bodenheimer, P. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1397

    2010

  7. [15]

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

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257

    2020

  8. [16]

    Greif, T. H. & Bromm, V . 2006, MNRAS, 373, 128 Haemmerlé, L. 2021, A&A, 650, A204 Haemmerlé, L. 2024, A&A, 689, A202 Haemmerlé, L., Woods, T. E., Klessen, R. S., Heger, A., & Whalen, D. J. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2757

    2006

  9. [17]

    J., Tan, J

    Hayes, M. J., Tan, J. C., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, L16

    2024

  10. [18]

    2014, ApJ, 781, 60

    Hirano, S., Hosokawa, T., Yoshida, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 60

    2014

  11. [19]

    Hosokawa, T., Omukai, K., Yoshida, N., & Yorke, H. W. 2011, Science, 334, 1250

    2011

  12. [20]

    T., & Shapiro, P

    Ilie, C., Freese, K., Valluri, M., Iliev, I. T., & Shapiro, P. R. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2164

    2012

  13. [21]

    2021, Phys

    Ilie, C., Levy, C., Pilawa, J., & Zhang, S. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 123031

    2021

  14. [22]

    Larson, R. B. 1972, MNRAS, 157, 121

    1972

  15. [23]

    A., Schleicher, D

    Latif, M. A., Schleicher, D. R. G., Schmidt, W., & Niemeyer, J. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1607

    2013

  16. [24]

    A., Whalen, D

    Latif, M. A., Whalen, D. J., Khochfar, S., Herrington, N. P., & Woods, T. E. 2022, Nature, 607, 48

    2022

  17. [25]

    McKee, C. F. & Tan, J. C. 2008, ApJ, 681, 771

    2008

  18. [26]

    J., Warren, S

    Mortlock, D. J., Warren, S. J., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 616

    2011

  19. [27]

    & van Velzen, S

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

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    & Umeda, H

    Nagele, C. & Umeda, H. 2023, ApJ, 949, L16

    2023

  21. [29]

    A., Woods, T

    Nandal, D., Regan, J. A., Woods, T. E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.17223

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    C., & O’Shea, B

    Natarajan, A., Tan, J. C., & O’Shea, B. W. 2009, ApJ, 692, 574 O’Brennan, H., Regan, J. A., Brennan, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.00574

    2009 arXiv

  23. [31]

    2008, ApJ, 686, 801

    Omukai, K., Schneider, R., & Haiman, Z. 2008, ApJ, 686, 801

    2008

  24. [32]

    H., Freese, K., Winget, D

    Rindler-Daller, T., Montgomery, M. H., Freese, K., Winget, D. E., & Paxton, B. 2015, ApJ, 799, 210

    2015

  25. [33]

    & Sivertsson, S

    Scott, P. & Sivertsson, S. 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett., 103, 211301

    2009

  26. [34]

    Singh, J., Monaco, P., & Tan, J. C. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 969

    2023

  27. [35]

    2008, Phys

    Spolyar, D., Freese, K., & Gondolo, P. 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 051101

    2008

  28. [36]

    2014, ApJ, 792, 32

    Susa, H., Hasegawa, K., & Tominaga, N. 2014, ApJ, 792, 32

    2014

  29. [37]

    Tan, J. C. & McKee, C. F. 2004, ApJ, 603, 383

    2004

  30. [38]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    C., Smith, B

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

    2010

  32. [40]

    2008, Phys

    Taoso, M., Bertone, G., Meynet, G., & Ekström, S. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 123510 V olonteri, M. 2010, A&A Rev., 18, 279

    2008

  33. [41]

    2021, ApJ, 907, L1

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, L1

    2021

  34. [42]

    H., Regan, J

    Wise, J. H., Regan, J. A., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 566, 85

    2019

  35. [43]

    E., Heger, A., Whalen, D

    Woods, T. E., Heger, A., Whalen, D. J., Haemmerlé, L., & Klessen, R. S. 2017, ApJ, 842, L6

    2017

  36. [44]

    2022, Phys

    Wu, Y ., Baum, S., Freese, K., Visinelli, L., & Yu, H.-B. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 043028

    2022

  37. [45]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 262

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 262

    2021

  38. [46]

    Zentner, A. R. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 063501 Article number, page 11 of 11

    2009

Pith tools

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