Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 89 references

Reconstructing PTA measurements via early seeding of supermassive black holes

T0 review · 3 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 This paper argues that supermassive dark stars, if they seeded black holes at a comoving density of order $10^{-3}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$, can account for the dominant part of the nanohertz gravitational-wave background detected by pulsar…

desk verdict A clear conditional pipeline from dark-star seeds to the PTA signal; the headline numbers are fragile because a hand-tuned growth model does the heavy lifting. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06163 v2 pith:EFXZ5KOJ submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Sohan Ghodla , Cosmin Ilie This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords supermassiveblackholeseedsdarkstarsdirectcollapseholespulsartimingarraysstochasticgravitationalwavebackgroundnanohertzwavesmergerratehalomassfunction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper builds an end-to-end calculation that starts with black-hole seeds placed in dark-matter halos at $z \approx 10$ and ends with the stochastic gravitational-wave background produced by their inspiraling and merging descendants. It asks whether two early-seeding channels---direct-collapse black holes and the collapse of supermassive dark stars, hypothetical early stars powered by dark-matter annihilation rather than nuclear fusion---can explain the nanohertz background detected by pulsar timing arrays. The central result is that dark-star seeds at a comoving density of order $10^{-3}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$ can dominate that background, with binaries above $10^9\,M_\odot$ reaching their peak merger rate at $z<1$, while direct-collapse seeds contribute little at their simulated abundance. The same machinery yields an upper bound: seed densities above about $10^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$ would overproduce the observed signal. If correct, this would make the pulsar-timing background a direct tracer of exotic early seeding rather than only of ordinary late-time black-hole assembly.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a seed-to-background pipeline: an extended Press--Schechter halo mass function; a truncated log-normal halo-occupation probability $p_{\rm occ}(z,M)$ that determines which halos carry seeds and fixes the comoving seed density through $n_{\rm BH}(z)$; a broken-power-law accretion growth law $\lambda(M,z)=\lambda_0(1+z)^\beta (m_{\rm seed}/10^4\,M_\odot)^{1/2}(M/M_*)^{\alpha_i}$ with $M_*=5\times10^{11}\,M_\odot/(1+z)^{3/2}$, calibrated to reproduce the empirical black-hole--halo mass relation; and a merger-rate integral that folds halo merger rates through occupation probabilities and a log-normal delay, feeding a spectral integral $\Omega_{\rm GW}(f)$ computed with phenomenological inspiral--merger--ringdown waveforms. The structure that carries the quantitative claims is the proportionality $\Omega_{\rm GW}\propto n_{\rm BH}^2$, obtained by holding the comoving seed density fixed below $z=10$.

What would settle it

A complete census of present-day black holes above $10^9\,M_\odot$ would settle the claim: if the measured comoving density falls far below the population the model needs to reproduce the PTA amplitude, dark-star seeding cannot dominate the background.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the nanohertz stochastic gravitational-wave background detected by pulsar timing arrays can be produced, and possibly dominated, by the descendants of black holes seeded at $z\gtrsim10$ through the collapse of supermassive dark stars. Working in a WIMP dark-matter picture, it assumes each seed forms when a dark star dies in a $10^6$--$10^8\,M_\odot$ halo, draws seed masses from a log-normal distribution around $10^5\,M_\odot$, and evolves them with an accretion law tuned to the local empirical black-hole--halo mass relation. The result is that a comoving seed density $n_{\rm BH}=\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$---the value predicted for dark-star seeds---yields a background at the PTA level, with binaries above $10^9\,M_\odot$ peaking at $z<1$. Direct-collapse black holes, with simulated densities $10^{-7}$--$10^{-6}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$, contribute only subdominantly. Because the signal scales as $n_{\rm BH}^2$ in this treatment, the same comparison sets an upper bound of roughly $10^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$ on any early heavy-seeding channel.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on the assumption that a five-parameter growth formula, tuned to the observed relation between galaxy mass and central black hole mass, correctly predicts how early seeds grow into the $\gtrsim10^9\,M_\odot$ binaries that dominate the signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, the pulsar-timing background becomes a probe of early seed physics: the nHz band would carry information about $z\gtrsim10$ dark-star collapse, not only about late-time galaxy mergers.
  • The predicted signal is dominated by binaries with $m_1+m_2\gtrsim10^9\,M_\odot$ merging at $z\lesssim1$, so future measurements of the spectral slope and anisotropy of the background can test this mass weighting.
  • Direct-collapse black holes, at simulated densities of $10^{-7}$--$10^{-6}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$, contribute only a small fraction of the signal; reproducing the PTA band through them would require raising their abundance far above simulation values.
  • Any early heavy-seeding mechanism with $n_{\rm BH}\gtrsim10^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$ is disfavored, since it would overproduce the observed gravitational-wave energy density.
  • Larger seeded halo masses produce a stronger background, so the PTA amplitude also constrains the typical halo mass scale at which early seeding happened.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $\Omega_{\rm GW}\propto n_{\rm BH}^2$, pulsar-timing data can be inverted into an upper-bound census of heavy seeds at $z\gtrsim10$; dedicated infrared searches for dark-star candidates could independently check whether the required $10^{-3}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$ density is actually present.
  • If environmental hardening of binaries (gas, stars, or three-body encounters) is included, the spectral shape changes and the inferred bound on $n_{\rm BH}$ would shift, so the pure-gravitational-wave-inspiral assumption is a live lever on the conclusion.
  • The same pipeline can be applied to other early heavy-seeding scenarios, such as primordial black holes, runaway collisions in dense star clusters, or gravothermal collapse of self-interacting dark matter, by replacing only the seed mass function and occupation probability.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper builds a semi-analytic pipeline to compute the stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB) produced by supermassive black hole (SMBH) binaries that descend from early high-redshift seeds. The pipeline combines an extended Press-Schechter halo mass function, a halo occupation probability for seeded halos (Eqs. 1-5), an accretion-driven growth model for the seeds (Eqs. 7-9), an EPS-based halo merger rate (Eq. 10), a black-hole merger rate with a log-normal delay distribution (Eq. 12), and the standard Phinney-type SGWB integral with phenomenological waveforms (Eq. 14). Using a seed density n_BH(z=10)=5e-3 Mpc^-3 for supermassive dark star (SMDS) seeds and n_BH=1e-6 Mpc^-3 for direct collapse black hole (DCBH) seeds, the authors claim that SMDS-seeded SMBHs can dominate the nHz PTA signal, with binaries above 1e9 solar masses peaking at z<1, while DCBHs contribute sub-dominantly. They further claim that seed densities above about 0.1 Mpc^-3 would over-produce the PTA signal.

Significance. If the underlying model assumptions hold, this is a useful contribution: it connects two active topics (high-redshift SMBH seeding and the PTA SGWB) and produces a falsifiable upper bound on the comoving seed density. The paper is transparent in its modular structure, and the PTA data are not used to fit parameters: the seed density is an input from prior dark-star work and the growth parameters are calibrated to the local empirical BH-halo mass relation. That independence is a genuine strength, and the contrast between SMDS and DCBH channels is clearly presented. The main limitation is that the headline quantitative claims are carried by a five-parameter accretion formula that is only qualitatively calibrated, with no propagated uncertainty, and the upper-bound claim is stated without a formal comparison statistic.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (9), Fig. 4] The load-bearing accretion model is calibrated only in 'qualitative agreement' with the local empirical BH-halo mass relation. Equation (9) contains five constants (λ0=0.003, β=5/2, α1=1/2, α2=1/15, M*=5e11/(1+z)^1.5 M⊙) that are tuned to reproduce Fig. 4. The PTA signal, however, is dominated by the high-mass tail (m1+m2≥1e9 M⊙, §4.2), where this calibration is weakest: the empirical relation is an average over all massive halos and does not constrain the growth of the rare DS-seeded subpopulation in lower-mass halos at z<1. Because the SGWB amplitude scales steeply with binary mass, a factor-of-two error at the high-mass end can shift Ω_GW by orders of magnitude, which would change both the 'dominant contributor' claim and the n_BH≲0.1 Mpc^-3 bound. The authors should vary the five parameters within observationally motivated ranges (or provide a sensitivity table) and show that the O(10^-3) Mpc^-3 and O(10^-1) Mpc^-3 numbers are robust to such variations.
  2. [§4.3, Fig. 6] The upper bound n_BH≲O(10^-1) Mpc^-3 is presented as 'we anticipate' rather than as a derived limit. Figure 6 overplots the PTA15yr data, but no fitting statistic, likelihood, or criterion for 'over-predicting' is given. Since Ω_GW ∝ n_BH^2 in the authors' treatment, the numerical value of the bound inherits every assumption about growth, occupation, and merger delay. Moreover, Fig. 6 shows that the signal depends strongly on μ_H (the curves for 10^8, 5×10^8, and 10^9 M⊙ differ substantially), so the abstract's unconditional statement that the seed density should be below O(10^-1) Mpc^-3 is not justified outside the fiducial μ_H=5×10^8 M⊙ case. A quantitative exclusion (e.g., a χ^2 or Bayesian limit against the PTA measurement) is needed before this can be stated as a result.
  3. [§3.2 and §4.2] The merger delay is a free parameter, but the headline SGWB is computed only for τ0=1 Gyr. Figure 5 shows that moving to τ0=5 Gyr shifts the merger-rate peak to lower redshift, which directly affects both the statement that >1e9 M⊙ binaries 'acquire a peak merger rate at z<1' and the resulting Ω_GW amplitude in the PTA band. Since the final-parsec problem is unsettled (as the authors note), a sensitivity statement for τ0 and σ_τ is needed; without it, 'can dominate the PTA signal' is tied to one value of a parameter that the authors themselves identify as uncertain.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'originated form' in the Abstract, 'payed way' in §2, 'mergering' in Fig. 1, and 'the apriori' in §5. These should be corrected.
  2. [References] Some references are incomplete, e.g., Phinney (2001) is listed as 'arXiv e-prints, astro' with no title or journal, and several arXiv-only entries would benefit from DOI or journal information where available.
  3. [Fig. 4] The empirical comparison uses Reines & Volonteri (2015) to convert a BH-stellar mass relation into a BH-halo mass relation; this conversion introduces systematic uncertainty that is not discussed when assessing the 'qualitative agreement' in Fig. 4.
  4. [§2.2, Eq. (9)] The notation m (black hole mass) and M (halo mass) is easy to confuse, especially in the exponent of Eq. (9); a brief restatement of the convention immediately before Eq. (9) would improve readability.
  5. [Footnote 1] The claim that changing z=10 has negligible impact is not demonstrated; since the growth model of Eq. (7) is anchored to the halo mass at z=10, a quantitative check (e.g., repeating the calculation with z=8 or z=12) would make this statement more than an assertion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PTA comparison is a genuinely forward-modeled constraint, with the seed density and growth calibration taken from inputs external to the PTA data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a forward model: EPS halo mass functions, a halo occupation probability, an accretion growth model, merger rates from EPS kernels, and a gravitational-wave background computed from inspiral waveforms, compared to PTA data only at the final stage. The key input n_BH = 5e-3 Mpc^-3 is adopted from Singh et al. (2023), not fitted to PTA. The growth model parameters in Eq. (9) are hand-tuned, but the stated calibration target is the empirical BH-halo mass relation from Reines & Volonteri (2015) and Girelli et al. (2020), which is external to the PTA signal. The upper limit n_BH <= O(0.1) Mpc^-3 is derived from the scaling Omega_GW ∝ n_BH^2 once the spectrum is computed, so it is a conditional bound rather than a fit. The self-citations to Ilie et al. dark-star candidate papers are motivational and not load-bearing for the central quantitative claim. Therefore no equation reduces to its own input and no prediction is forced by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on a large number of freely chosen or fitted parameters, notably the seed number density, the occupation probability parameters, and the accretion growth parameters. The assumptions are mostly standard EPS cosmology plus the speculative dark-star scenario.

free parameters (6)
  • seed number density nBH(z=10) = 5e-3 Mpc^-3 (SMDS), 1e-6 Mpc^-3 (DCBH)
    Input seed density from prior simulations (Singh et al. 2023 for SMDS; Habouzit et al. 2016, Wise et al. 2019, Latif et al. 2022 for DCBH). Treated as the free parameter the paper aims to constrain with PTA data.
  • mu_H (mean halo mass of occupation log-normal) = 5e8 Msun fiducial (variants 1e8, 1e9)
    Sets which halos host seeds and controls the mass scale of the SMBHs that produce the PTA signal.
  • sigma_H (scatter in P(Mlow)) = 0.5 dex
    Width of the truncated log-normal for threshold halo mass. Adopted from the cited dark-star formation model.
  • seed black hole mass distribution (mu_BH, sigma_BH) = mu_BH = 1e5 Msun, sigma_BH = 0.5 dex
    At z=10 seeds are drawn from a log-normal spanning 1e4-1e6 Msun. Chosen by hand to bracket plausible DS collapse outcomes.
  • accretion growth parameters (lambda0, beta, alpha1, alpha2, M*) = 0.003, 5/2, 1/2, 1/15, 5e11/(1+z)^(3/2) Msun
    Calibrated to reproduce the empirical BH-halo mass relation at low z (Fig. 4). These parameters determine the final SMBH masses and therefore the GW amplitude.
  • mean merger delay time tau0 = 1 Gyr fiducial (5 Gyr variant)
    Mean of the log-normal delay between halo merger and SMBH merger. A free parameter; the upper bound on nBH shifts with its value.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Extended Press-Schechter formalism accurately describes halo mass functions and merger rates at z > 10 and down to z = 0.
    Used throughout Sections 2 and 3 and Appendices A and B. Extrapolated to high redshifts beyond simulation validation, as noted in Appendix D.
  • domain assumption Supermassive dark stars exist and form with the assumed efficiency in WIMP minihalos.
    The SMDS scenario is the basis of the paper's main application. The paper relies on Singh et al. (2023) for the fiducial seed density and on Ilie et al. (2012) for the z=10 end of seeding.
  • domain assumption The PTA signal at nHz is primarily produced by SMBH binaries with total mass > 1e9 Msun.
    Stated as motivation in Section 1 and used to interpret the mass range that dominates the computed signal.
  • domain assumption Merged SMBHs inspiral into the PTA band with a log-normal delay distribution independent of environment, and gravitational radiation is the only hardening mechanism in the band.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix C. The paper sets the delay distribution by hand and neglects environmental hardening, noting this limitation in Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption The halo mass accretion prescription of Correa et al. (2015) is valid up to z=30 for halos of mass 1e7-1e13 Msun.
    Used to connect seed halo masses at z=10 to present-day masses (Fig. 2, Appendix D). The paper notes this is an extrapolation beyond the validated z<10 range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstructing PTA measurements via early seeding of supermassive black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EFXZ5KOJ

@misc{pith2026250706163,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstructing PTA measurements via early seeding of supermassive black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EFXZ5KOJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06163}
}
abstract

Motivated by recent findings that PTA's nHz signal may be dominated by supermassive black hole (SMBH) binaries ($M \gtrsim 10^9 M_\odot$), and high redshift quasar observations revealing unexpectedly massive SMBHs, we calculate the implications of early seeded SMBHs for the PTA signal. As an application, we explore two prominent scenarios of high-$z$ SMBHs seeding mechanisms: direct collapse black holes (DCBHs) and collapse of Dark Stars. We show that Dark Star seeded SMBHs, with comoving seed number density of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-3}) \, {\rm Mpc}^{-3}$ can be the dominant contributor to the PTA signal while the DCBH channel may contribute sub-dominantly. We also suggest ways to place an upper bound on the seed number density.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06163 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The mass accretion history of halos with present day mass shown in the legend. The plot has been generated using the prescription provided in Correa et al. (2015) which itself is derived from an EPS formalism. seeds will also act as a source of scatter in the seed mass dis￾tribution by the time they evolve to z = 10. Thus, for our fiducial model, at z = 10, we draw each seed mass from a log-normal distribution spann… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the black hole occupation probability of ha￾los that have a present-day mass of M = 1013M⊙. The legend shows the mean halo mass of the untruncated log-normal distribu￾tion at z = 10. More than 30% of all such halos should host an SMDS-seeded SMBH by z = 0 if µH = 109M⊙ at z = 10. Fol￾lowing Singh et al. (2023), we assumes nBH(z = 10) = 5 × 10−3 Mpc−3 . Integrating the r.h.s. of Eq. 1 leads to the follow… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. A comparison between the empirical and the accretion￾driven black-hole-halo mass relation. The former has been gener￾ated using the fits in Reines & Volonteri (2015); Girelli et al. (2020) with their intrinsic scatter plotted in the shaded region, while the latter follows from Eq. (7) where the SMBH growth parameters are tuned such that the seed growth mimics the empirical black hole￾halo mass relation at larger hal… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The merger rate of SMBHs in comoving coordinates for our fiducial case (i.e., µH = 5 × 108M⊙) obtained by integrating Eq. (12). The legend shows the total mass of the binary undergoing merger. The two lines styles represent the mean merger delay times. τ from a log-nor…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The SGWB spectrum for SMDSs vs DCBHs seeding scenario. The legend shows the mean seeded halo mass at z = 10 for the untruncated log-normal distribution (Eq. 2). The cyan color band represents the range of values of ΩGW could acquire for µ ∈ [108M⊙, 109M⊙]. Figure assum…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.co...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

  3. [3]

    uX:x_擨Z\@jJ x A t(_H j6 JC- D! 3 j2^

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    2023 a , Astrophys

    Agazie, G., et al. 2023 a , Astrophys. J. Lett., 951, L8

    2023

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 952, L37. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ace18b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace18b 2023

  6. [6]

    2020, Astron

    Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2021

  7. [7]

    2008, Phys

    Ajith, P., et al. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 104017, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 79, 129901 (2009)]

    2009

  8. [8]

    2023, Astron

    Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, Astron. Astrophys., 678, A50

    2023

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    C., & Monaco, P

    Banik, N., Tan, J. C., & Monaco, P. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 3592

    2019

  2. [10]

    2001, , 349, 125

    Barkana , R., & Loeb , A. 2001, , 349, 125

    2001

  3. [11]

    P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al

    Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2017, Nature, 553, 473–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature25180

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

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

    Begelman , M. C., Volonteri , M., & Rees , M. J. 2006, , 370, 289

    2006

  5. [13]

    J., Kamionkowski, M., & Hassani, S

    Benson, A. J., Kamionkowski, M., & Hassani, S. H. 2005, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 357, 847

    2005

  6. [14]

    K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 177

    2022

  7. [15]

    D., Natarajan , P., et al

    Bogd \'a n , \'A ., Goulding , A. D., Natarajan , P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126

    2024

  8. [16]

    R., Cole, S., Efstathiou, G., & Kaiser, N

    Bond, J. R., Cole, S., Efstathiou, G., & Kaiser, N. 1991, Astrophys. J., 379, 440

    1991

  9. [17]

    Chen , S., Sesana , A., & Conselice , C. J. 2019, , 488, 401

    2019

  10. [18]

    A., Wyithe, J

    Correa, C. A., Wyithe, J. S. B., Schaye, J., & Duffy, A. R. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 1514–1520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv689

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    B., Coleman Miller, M., & Bellovary, J

    Davies, M. B., Coleman Miller, M., & Bellovary, J. M. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 740, L42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L42

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 690, A182

    Dayal, P. 2024, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 690, A182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202451481

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    J., & Hu , W

    Eisenstein , D. J., & Hu , W. 1999, , 511, 5

    1999

  14. [22]

    J., & Loeb, A

    Eisenstein, D. J., & Loeb, A. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 443, 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/175498

    1995 doi

  15. [23]

    2023 a , Astron

    Ellis, J., Fairbairn, M., H\"utsi, G., et al. 2023 a , Astron. Astrophys., 676, A38

    2023

  16. [24]

    2024 a , Physical Review D, 109, doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.l021302

    Ellis, J., Fairbairn, M., Hütsi, G., et al. 2024 a , Physical Review D, 109, doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.l021302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L021302

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2024 b , Astrophys

    Ellis, J., Fairbairn, M., Urrutia, J., & Vaskonen, V. 2024 b , Astrophys. J., 964, 11

    2024

  18. [26]

    2023 b , What is the source of the PTA GW signal?, , , arXiv:2308.08546

    Ellis, J., Fairbairn, M., Franciolini, G., et al. 2023 b , What is the source of the PTA GW signal?, , , arXiv:2308.08546. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08546

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 406, 2267–2278

    Fakhouri, O., Ma, C.-P., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 406, 2267–2278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16859.x

    2010

  20. [28]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 5120–5133

    Fang, Y., & Yang, H. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 5120–5133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1746

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 914, L26

    Feng, W.-X., Yu, H.-B., & Zhong, Y.-M. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 914, L26

    2021

  22. [30]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 2410–2425

    Ferrara, A., Salvadori, S., Yue, B., & Schleicher, D. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 2410–2425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu1280

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    2008, Astrophys

    Freese, K., Bodenheimer, P., Spolyar, D., & Gondolo, P. 2008, Astrophys. J. Lett., 685, L101

    2008

  24. [32]

    2010, Astrophys

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

    2010

  25. [33]

    2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 066902

    Freese, K., Rindler-Daller, T., Spolyar, D., & Valluri, M. 2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 066902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/79/6/066902

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, A&A, 634, A135

    Girelli, G., Pozzetti, L., Bolzonella, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201936329

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 529

    Habouzit, M., Volonteri, M., Latif, M., Dubois, Y., & Peirani, S. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 529. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1924

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    2023 a , UHZ1 and the other three most distant quasars observed: possible evidence for Supermassive Dark Stars, , , arXiv:2312.13837

    Ilie, C., Freese, K., Petric, A., & Paulin, J. 2023 a , UHZ1 and the other three most distant quasars observed: possible evidence for Supermassive Dark Stars, , , arXiv:2312.13837. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.13837

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    T., & Shapiro , P

    Ilie , C., Freese , K., Valluri , M., Iliev , I. T., & Shapiro , P. R. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 422, 2164

    2012

  30. [38]

    S., Paulin, J., & Freese, K

    Ilie, C., Mahmud, S. S., Paulin, J., & Freese, K. 2025, Spectroscopic Supermassive Dark Star candidates, , , arXiv:2505.06101. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.06101

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    2023 b , Proc

    Ilie, C., Paulin, J., & Freese, K. 2023 b , Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 120, e2305762120

    2023

  32. [40]

    Isaacson, R. A. 1968, Phys. Rev., 166, 1263

    1968

  33. [41]

    M., et al

    Juodžbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2024, Nature, 636, 594–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08210-5

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Kawasaki, M., Kusenko, A., & Yanagida, T. T. 2012, Physics Letters B, 711, 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.056

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L

    Kelley, L. Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 3131–3157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2452

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    M., Fiacconi, D., Mayer, L., Berczik, P., & Just, A

    Khan, F. M., Fiacconi, D., Mayer, L., Berczik, P., & Just, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 828, 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/73

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 1496–1513

    Kiyuna, M., Hosokawa, T., & Chon, S. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 1496–1513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1484

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    E., Bogdan, A., Natarajan, P., et al

    Kovacs, O. E., Bogdan, A., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, A candidate supermassive black hole in a gravitationally-lensed galaxy at z 10 , , , arXiv:2403.14745. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14745

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    P., Natarajan , P., Lackner , C

    Kulier , A., Ostriker , J. P., Natarajan , P., Lackner , C. N., & Cen , R. 2015, , 799, 178

    2015

  40. [48]

    G., & Cole, S

    Lacey, C. G., & Cole, S. 1994, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 271, 676

    1994

  41. [49]

    A., & Ferrara, A

    Latif, M. A., & Ferrara, A. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 33, doi:10.1017/pasa.2016.41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2016.41

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Whalen, D

    Latif, M. A., Whalen, D. J., Khochfar, S., Herrington, N. P., & Woods, T. E. 2022, Nature, 607, 48–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04813-y

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 3616–3626

    Lupi, A., Colpi, M., Devecchi, B., Galanti, G., & Volonteri, M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 3616–3626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu1120

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, A small and vigorous black hole in the early Universe, , , arXiv:2305.12492

    Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, A small and vigorous black hole in the early Universe, , , arXiv:2305.12492. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12492

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    2003, AIP Conf

    Milosavljevic, M., & Merritt, D. 2003, AIP Conf. Proc., 686, 201

    2003

  46. [54]

    J., Warren, S

    Mortlock, D. J., Warren, S. J., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 616–619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10159

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    2023, First Detection of an Over-Massive Black Hole Galaxy UHZ1: Evidence for Heavy Black Hole Seed Formation from Direct Collapse, , , arXiv:2308.02654

    Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ricarte, A., et al. 2023, First Detection of an Over-Massive Black Hole Galaxy UHZ1: Evidence for Heavy Black Hole Seed Formation from Direct Collapse, , , arXiv:2308.02654. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.02654

    2023

  48. [56]

    2017, Mon

    Natarajan, P., et al. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 468, 1962

    2017

  49. [57]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 957, L3

    Pacucci, F., Nguyen, B., Carniani, S., Maiolino, R., & Fan, X. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 957, L3. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Peebles , P. J. E. 1993, Principles of Physical Cosmology , doi:10.1515/9780691206721

    1993 doi

  51. [59]

    Phinney , E. S. 2001, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2001

  52. [60]

    H., & Schechter , P

    Press , W. H., & Schechter , P. 1974, , 187, 425

    1974

  53. [61]

    2024, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 691, A212

    Raidal, J., Urrutia, J., Vaskonen, V., & Veermäe, H. 2024, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 691, A212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202451345

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    Rajagopal , M., & Romani , R. W. 1995, , 446, 543

    1995

  55. [63]

    J., et al

    Reardon, D. J., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 951, L6

    2023

  56. [64]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 813, 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    2015 doi

  57. [65]

    H., Freese, K., Winget, D

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

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    A., Sesana, A., & Gair, J

    Rosado, P. A., Sesana, A., & Gair, J. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 2417–2433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv1098

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    P., Opitsch, M., Erwin, P., et al

    Saglia, R. P., Opitsch, M., Erwin, P., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 47. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/47

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09786

    Sato-Polito, G., Zaldarriaga, M., & Quataert, E. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09786

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Schleicher, D. R. G., Reinoso, B., Latif, M., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 6192–6200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac926

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 433, L1–L5

    Sesana, A. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 433, L1–L5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slt034

    2013 doi

  63. [71]

    Sesana, A., Vecchio, A., & Colacino, C. N. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 390, 192–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13682.x

    2008

  64. [72]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.00075

    Shen , T., Shen , X., Xiao , H., Vogelsberger , M., & Jiang , F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.00075

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    2025, Physics of the Dark Universe, 49, 102004

    Shen, Z.-Q., Yuan, G.-W., Wang, Y.-Y., et al. 2025, Physics of the Dark Universe, 49, 102004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2025.102004

    2025

  66. [74]

    2023, Physical Review D, 108, 063510

    Shinohara, T., He, W., Matsuoka, Y., et al. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 063510

    2023

  67. [75]

    Singh, J., Monaco, P., & Tan, J. C. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 969

    2023

  68. [76]

    2008, Phys

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

    2008

  69. [77]

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

    Tan, J. C., Singh, J., Cammelli, V., et al. 2024, The Origin of Supermassive Black Holes from Pop III.1 Seeds, , , arXiv:2412.01828. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01828

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    R., & Pontzen, A

    Tremmel, M., Governato, F., Volonteri, M., Quinn, T. R., & Pontzen, A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 4967–4977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty139

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    2012, Reports on Progress in Physics, 75, 124901

    Volonteri, M., & Bellovary, J. 2012, Reports on Progress in Physics, 75, 124901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/75/12/124901

    2012 doi

  72. [80]

    2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 732–743

    Volonteri, M., Habouzit, M., & Colpi, M. 2021, Nature Reviews Physics, 3, 732–743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00364-9

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 907, L1

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 907, L1. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6

    2021 doi

  74. [82]

    H., Regan, J

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

    2019

  75. [83]

    Wyithe, J. S. B., & Loeb, A. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 590, 691–706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/375187

    2003 doi

  76. [84]

    2023, Res

    Xu, H., et al. 2023, Res. Astron. Astrophys., 23, 075024

    2023

  77. [85]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 717, 257

    Zackrisson , E., Scott , P., Rydberg , C.-E., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 717, 257

    2010

  78. [86]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, 121

    Zhang, S., Ilie, C., & Freese, K. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, 121. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad27ce

    2024 doi

  79. [87]

    H., Jing, Y

    Zhao, D. H., Jing, Y. P., Mo, H. J., & Börner, G. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 354–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/354

    2009 doi

  80. [88]

    2024, Primordial black holes as supermassive black holes seeds, , , arXiv:2411.03448

    Ziparo, F., Gallerani, S., & Ferrara, A. 2024, Primordial black holes as supermassive black holes seeds, , , arXiv:2411.03448. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03448

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    N., et al

    Zou, F., Yu, Z., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 183. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad27cc

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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