Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

A Novel Formation Channel for Supermassive Black Hole Binaries in the Early Universe via Primordial Black Holes

T0 review · 5 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 Simulations show a 10^6-solar-mass primordial black hole can trigger the collapse of a gas cloud into a 10^5-solar-mass companion, forming a supermassive black hole binary at redshift 20-10.

desk verdict A plausible PBH-catalyzed DCBH binary channel with honest caveats; the q~0.1 prediction is a resolution-limited inference, not a secure result. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00774 v2 pith:QVTRX23S submitted 2025-08-01 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Saiyang Zhang , Boyuan Liu , Volker Bromm This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords primordialblackholesdirect-collapsesupermassiveholebinariesLyman-Wernerradiationbaryon-darkmatterstreaminghigh-redshiftgalaxyformationgravitationalwavesLittleRedDots
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a single massive primordial black hole can build a supermassive black hole binary on its own, without a galaxy merger. In hydrodynamical simulations, a $\sim10^6\,M_\odot$ PBH accretes gas and radiates Lyman-Werner photons, which suppress molecular hydrogen cooling and force the surrounding gas to cool through atomic hydrogen. When the gas is also moving with a streaming velocity of at least $0.8\sigma_{b\chi}$ relative to dark matter, dense atomically-cooling clouds form in the PBH's wake, collapse on scales of about 10 pc, and grow by sustained infall at $\gtrsim0.01-0.1\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. The authors identify these clouds as sites where $\sim10^5\,M_\odot$ direct-collapse black hole seeds can form at $z\sim20-10$, leaving a binary with mass ratio $q\sim0.1$ around the PBH. If correct, this gives a natural in situ origin for early SMBH binaries and yields concrete targets for JWST, ALMA, LISA, and TianQin.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is wake-collapse around an accreting PBH. The load-bearing pieces are the Lyman-Werner intensity fitting formula (Eq. 4), derived from ADAF and thin-disk spectral models, which dissociates H$_2$ and H$^-$ and shifts cooling to atomic hydrogen; the Bondi-Hoyle accretion scheme with a radiative-efficiency interpolation between advection-dominated and thin-disk regimes; the baryon-dark matter streaming velocity offset that displaces the gas center of mass from the PBH; and a sink-particle criterion ($n_H\gtrsim10^6\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, $t_{\mathrm{survive}}\gtrsim t_{\mathrm{ff}}$) that tags collapsing cloud gas. The physical identity carrying the argument is the Jeans-rate scaling $\dot{M}_{\mathrm{infall}}\sim c_s^3/G$, which turns atomic-cooling temperatures ($\sim5000-10^4$ K) into super-Eddington inflow rates of $0.01-0.1\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, above the threshold for forming direct-collapse black hole seeds.

What would settle it

A radiation-hydrodynamic simulation that resolves the sub-parsec collapse and finds the atomically-cooling cloud fragments into many low-mass protostars, starving any single protostar of accretion, would remove the DCBH seed and with it the predicted $q\sim0.1$ binary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a PBH-DCBH pair naturally forms when three conditions coincide: a $\sim10^6\,M_\odot$ PBH accreting at a few percent of Eddington, Lyman-Werner radiation from its accretion flow that keeps H$_2$ abundance low, and baryon-dark matter streaming of $v_{b\chi}\gtrsim0.8\sigma_{b\chi}$. Under those conditions, the simulations produce a gravitationally unstable, atomically-cooling cloud of $\sim10^5\,M_\odot$ in the PBH wake, offset from the PBH by roughly 10 pc, with inflow rates high enough to feed a bloated supermassive star that collapses into a direct-collapse black hole. The resulting systems start with mass ratio $q\sim O(0.1)$ and separation of about 10 pc at redshift $z\sim20-10$. The paper does not simulate the final seed collapse; it establishes the conditions and argues, from infall rates and cloud masses, that DCBH formation is the expected outcome.

Load-bearing premise

The channel assumes the infalling gas feeds a single central protostar, because the simulations do not resolve the sub-parsec turbulence, radiative transfer, and angular-momentum transport that decide whether the cloud forms one supermassive star or fragments into many cores.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SMBH binaries can assemble in situ before galactic mergers, giving a plausible route to the massive black holes JWST sees at $z\gtrsim7$ without requiring heavy seeds from other channels.
  • The predicted $q\sim0.1$, $\sim10$ pc binaries are direct search templates for ALMA and for dual-AGN signatures in Little Red Dots.
  • Rapid accretion onto the secondary after formation can drive the mass ratio toward unity, so these systems may end up as strong millihertz gravitational-wave sources for LISA and TianQin.
  • The collapse outcome is stochastic in streaming velocity, implying a formation rate set by the high-velocity tail of the streaming distribution rather than by the mean.
  • Even if fragmentation prevents a single DCBH, the resulting dense star cluster would still produce observable extreme-mass-ratio inspirals, tidal disruption events, and intermediate-mass black hole mergers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One untested corollary is that this channel would also produce off-nuclear massive black holes—secondaries not at galaxy centers—which could show up as offset X-ray sources or as high-redshift electromagnetic counterparts to gravitational waves.
  • The same wake-collapse logic may extend to other PBH masses: the dimensionless condition is that the PBH's Lyman-Werner bubble suppresses H$_2$ cooling while the streaming wake provides a seed overdensity, so lighter PBHs with faster accretion could be probed with the same machinery.
  • A statistical prediction follows from the single-seed assumption: if this channel dominates, the secondary seed masses should cluster near $\sim10^5\,M_\odot$ with little scatter, whereas fragmentation would produce a broad low-mass distribution.
  • The authors' simulation volume represents a tiny effective PBH abundance; folding the per-PBH collapse condition into a full PBH mass function would give a cosmic merger rate that could be compared directly with the LISA stochastic background.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of an isolated ~10^6 Msun primordial black hole to argue that accretion-driven Lyman-Werner feedback, combined with baryon-dark matter streaming velocities v_bchi >= 0.8 sigma_bchi, suppresses H2 cooling and triggers the collapse of atomically-cooling gas clouds into ~10^5 Msun direct-collapse black hole seeds at z ~ 20-10. The authors identify dense collapsing cores in runs with streaming 0.8-1.6 sigma, infer high gas infall rates, and interpret the ratio of the collapsing-core mass to the PBH mass as forming SMBH binaries with q ~ 0.05-0.1 and separations ~10 pc. The paper then discusses potential electromagnetic and gravitational-wave signatures, including links to Little Red Dots and LISA/TianQin sources.

Significance. If the proposed channel holds, it offers a novel in situ route to high-redshift SMBH binaries, with concrete, falsifiable predictions for mass ratios, separations, and multi-messenger observability. The manuscript is transparent about many of its limitations, builds on a well-established simulation code, and makes its initial-condition generator publicly available. However, the central quantitative predictions rest on several under-tested or unresolved ingredients: the sustained inflow-rate claim is weaker than the abstract states, the single-progenitor assumption is unresolved at sub-pc scales, and key parameters and thresholds are tested with only a single realization or a single fiducial value. The significance is therefore conditional on closing these gaps.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 4, Abstract] The abstract and Section 5 state that the collapsing clouds exhibit sustained inflow rates Mdot_infall >= 0.01-0.1 Msun/yr, which is the canonical DCBH threshold, but the body of Section 3.2 and Figure 4 report rates that consistently exceed ~1e-3 Msun/yr with peaks frequently surpassing ~1e-2 Msun/yr. The sustained rate is therefore an order of magnitude below the quoted critical range; only peaks reach it. This mismatch is load-bearing because the 'ideal conditions for DCBH formation' claim is the bridge from simulated clouds to supermassive stars, and the abstract currently overstates what the simulations show.
  2. [§3.2 and §4] The binary mass ratio q ~ 0.05-0.1 is obtained by equating the simulated collapsing-cloud mass with the mass of a single secondary black hole, under the explicit assumption that the inflow feeds a single protostar. The same section acknowledges that sub-pc processes such as turbulence, radiative transfer, and angular momentum transport are unresolved and could instead produce a rotationally supported disk or fragmentation into multiple cores; if fragmentation-induced starvation operates, the secondary mass and q are not the simulated m_col. Because Section 4 presents q ~ 0.1 and ~10 pc separations as baseline predictions, this unresolved scale is load-bearing for the central claim rather than a minor caveat.
  3. [§2.3] The ad hoc veto on sink formation at z>200 is introduced to avoid numerical artifacts, but no test is shown demonstrating that high-redshift dense structures are indeed spurious rather than physical collapse events. Since the proposed channel targets z ~ 20-10, the veto may not change the final conclusions, yet the paper should justify it with a resolution study or by following one vetoed event; otherwise the collapse criterion is not consistently applied.
  4. [§2.1, Table 1, §3.1] The threshold v_bchi >= 0.8 sigma_bchi is inferred from a single 0.4 sigma run without collapse and a single 0.8 sigma run with collapse. The paper itself notes the stochastic nature of collapse and the lack of a clear trend with streaming amplitude. With one realization per velocity, the apparent threshold could be sampling noise; multiple realizations per streaming value, or an analytic criterion, are needed to support a 'critical regime' claim.
  5. [Table 1, §2.2] All successful collapse runs use the fiducial thermal feedback coupling epsilon_r = 0.005; the runs that vary epsilon_r (0.05, 0.005, 0.0005) have no streaming and do not collapse, while the streaming runs hold epsilon_r fixed. Since epsilon_r is a free parameter and the paper identifies it as critical in prior work, the central result is not demonstrated to be robust to epsilon_r in the regime where collapse actually occurs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Equation (4)] Please define all symbols in the equation caption and state explicitly whether J_LW is an unshielded or self-shielded intensity; the text later applies a shielding factor, but Eq. (4) appears to give unshielded values.
  2. [Figure 2] The blue star marking the collapsing cloud and the black dot marking the PBH are very small; larger markers or a zoomed inset would make the ~10 pc separation and the relative velocity vectors clearer.
  3. [References] The reference list contains two distinct 2025 entries by Zhang, Liu, and Bromm (one Zenodo, one ApJ); please use year-letter suffixes and disambiguate in the text so the reader can tell which prior work is being cited.
  4. [Table 1] The entries without collapse use '-' for z_col, but the footnote explaining symbols does not define '-'; please add a short definition for clarity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The q~0.1 binary prediction is the simulated cloud mass divided by the assumed PBH mass under an unresolved single-protostar assumption, and the collapse outcome relies on a fiducial feedback efficiency inherited from the authors' prior work.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.2 (Mass Inflow and DCBH Formation Criterion); also abstract, Sec. 4, Sec. 5]
    "Comparing the mass of this collapsed core with that of the central PBH yields a mass ratio of q∼0.05–0.1, confirming the emergence of a massive binary system. ... we have assumed that the inflow feeds a single protostar. ... the sink particles do not represent individual stars but are only meant to estimate the mass of collapsing gas that would form stars and DCBHs at the limit of our resolution."

    The secondary black hole is not actually simulated. In the sink-particle formalism, the future DCBH mass is defined as the accumulated collapsing-gas mass m_col, while the primary mass m_BH = 10^6 Msun is a fixed input. The reported mass ratio is therefore q = m_col/m_BH by construction, i.e., the simulated clump mass normalized by the assumed PBH mass, rather than an independent binary-dynamical prediction. The additional mapping from m_col to a single ~1e5 Msun black hole is an explicit, unresolved assumption: the paper admits that sub-pc turbulence, radiative transfer, and angular momentum transport could instead produce a disk or multiple cores, in which case the same m_col would not produce a single secondary BH and q~0.1 would not follow.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. 3.1, fiducial heating efficiency paragraph; Sec. 2.2; Table 1]
    "we focus on conditions for DCBH formation around a fiducial heating efficiency value of ϵr ∼0.5%, previously identified by S. Zhang et al. (2025) as critical to the formation of collapsing gas clouds in the absence of L W radiation."

    The successful streaming cases (PBH LW str/mstr/sstr fd005) all use ϵr = 0.005, a value described in Sec. 2.2 as a free parameter and taken from the same authors' prior work, where it was identified as critical for cloud collapse. No streaming run is presented with other ϵr values, so the claimed 'critical regime' for DCBH formation is conditional on a self-cited calibration rather than on an independently fixed physical parameter. This is a load-bearing self-citation, although the LW suppression of H2 cooling and the streaming-induced wake are independent physical ingredients, so the circularity is partial rather than complete.

full rationale

The paper's physical machinery is largely self-contained: hydrodynamical evolution around a PBH, Bondi accretion, LW feedback from external spectral fits (Takhistov et al.), and comparison of infall rates to literature DCBH thresholds are not circular. The circularity is concentrated in the headline binary prediction. The secondary object is never resolved; its mass is defined as the accumulated sink-particle mass, and the reported q~0.1 is that sink mass divided by the input 1e6 Msun PBH mass under a single-protostar assumption. Even though the cloud mass is a simulation output, the mapping from cloud mass to a single secondary BH is an input assumption, so q is not an independent prediction. The paper honestly flags sub-pc fragmentation as unresolved, but the abstract and conclusions present q~O(0.1) without that caveat. Additionally, the collapse outcome is obtained only for ϵr = 0.005, a fiducial value inherited from the same authors' prior work and described there as 'critical' to cloud collapse, so a self-citation carries a load-bearing calibration. These issues make the central quantitative claim partially circular rather than fully forced: the LW suppression of H2 and the streaming-induced wake are independent physical effects, and infall rates are checked against external benchmarks.

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

The central claim rests on a tuned thermal feedback efficiency, a coarse streaming threshold, a resolution-dependent sink criterion, and an artificial early-collapse veto, plus the existence of 1e6 Msun PBHs. The paper itself flags the single-protostar assumption and the lack of sub-pc resolution as critical limitations.

free parameters (5)
  • epsilon_r (thermal feedback coupling efficiency) = 0.005 fiducial; 0.05, 0.005, 0.0005 tested
    Controls how much accretion energy heats the gas. Collapse occurs only for the intermediate 0.005 value in the LW-enabled runs, so the result is sensitive to this hand-tuned parameter.
  • minimum baryon-DM streaming velocity for collapse = >=0.8 sigma_bchi (grid: 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6)
    The threshold is inferred from a coarse grid with no 0.6 sigma run and only one realization per value, so the 0.8 boundary is effectively an empirical cutoff.
  • sink particle density threshold = n_H >= 1e6 cm^-3
    Chosen as the maximum resolvable density; close to the free-fall collapse threshold. Changing it changes when and whether collapsing clouds are identified.
  • early-collapse veto = no sink formation at z>200
    Added to remove numerical artifacts during the initial collapse phase; this artificially postpones collapse and affects the timing and mass of the final cloud.
  • PBH mass = 1e6 Msun
    Fixed input motivated by the QCD/e+e- equation-of-state transition; the central claim depends on this mass but it is not varied.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Bondi-Hoyle accretion formula (Eq. 1) governs gas accretion onto the PBH.
    Standard prescription for accretion onto a point mass from a uniform medium, cited from the literature.
  • domain assumption Lambda-CDM cosmology with Planck18 parameters.
    Assumed background cosmology for the simulations.
  • domain assumption PBHs of ~1e6 Msun exist in the early universe.
    PBHs are a hypothesized dark matter component; the paper explicitly avoids assuming a global abundance but relies on isolated PBHs of this mass.
  • domain assumption LW radiation from PBH accretion suppresses H2 cooling, shifting coolant to atomic hydrogen.
    Based on prior spectral models (Takhistov et al. 2022); adopted as input to the chemistry network.
  • ad hoc to paper The unresolved sub-pc gas inflow feeds a single protostar (SMS).
    Stated in Sec. 3.2; if instead the gas fragments into multiple cores, the DCBH mass and binary mass ratio would change.
  • ad hoc to paper Feedback is isotropic thermal injection with no mechanical outflows or radiative transfer.
    Acknowledged in footnote 9 as a limitation; directional feedback could alter the cloud structure.
  • domain assumption Effective PBH mass fraction in the simulation is below 6e-4.
    The box contains a single PBH; the authors note this is consistent with current constraints but not a cosmological population.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Novel Formation Channel for Supermassive Black Hole Binaries in the Early Universe via Primordial Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QVTRX23S

@misc{pith2026250800774,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Novel Formation Channel for Supermassive Black Hole Binaries in the Early Universe via Primordial Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QVTRX23S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00774}
}
abstract

We present a novel formation channel for supermassive black hole (SMBH) binaries in the early Universe, driven by primordial black holes (PBHs). Using high-resolution hydrodynamical simulations, we explore the role of massive PBHs ($m_{BH} \sim 10^6 M_\odot$) in catalyzing the formation of direct-collapse black holes (DCBHs), providing a natural in situ pathway for binary SMBH formation. PBHs enhance local overdensities, accelerate structure formation, and exert thermal feedback on the surrounding medium via accretion. Lyman-Werner (LW) radiation from accreting PBHs suppresses H$2$ cooling, shifting the dominant gas coolant to atomic hydrogen. When combined with significant baryon-dark matter streaming velocities ($v_{b\chi} \gtrsim 0.8 \sigma_{b\chi}$, where $\sigma_{b\chi}$ is the root-mean-square streaming velocity), these effects facilitate the formation of dense, gravitationally unstable, atomically cooling gas clouds in the PBH's wake. These clouds exhibit sustained high inflow rates ($\dot{M}_{infall} \gtrsim 0.01 - 0.1 M_\odot yr^{-1}$), providing ideal conditions for DCBH formation from rapidly growing supermassive stars of $\sim 10^5 M_\odot$ at redshifts $z \sim 20 - 10$. The resulting systems form SMBH binaries with initial mass ratios $q \sim O(0.1)$ and separations of $\sim 10$ pc. Such PBH-DCBH binaries provide testable predictions for JWST and ALMA, potentially explaining select high-$z$ sources such as the Little Red Dots (LRDs), and represent gravitational-wave sources for future missions like LISA and TianQin-bridging early-Universe black hole physics, multi-messenger astronomy, and dark matter theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.00774 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Normalized Lyman–Werner (LW) inten￾sity, JLW/J21, as a function of the Eddington ratio, η ≡ m˙ acc/m˙ Edd, for black holes of varying masses (mBH = 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 M⊙). The JLW values are com￾puted at a distance of r = 1 kpc from the black hole. The results based on the semi-analytical spectra models for TD and ADAF accretion profiles in V. Takhistov et al. (2022) are shown by the thin solid and dashed lines, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Onset of gaseous cloud collapse. We show projections of gas density (left panel) and temperature (right panel) for the gas surrounding the central PBH taken from the PBH LW str fd005 simulation, within a physical 200 pc scale. The snapshot is taken at z ≃ 17.4, corresponding to the moment where the first collapsing sink particle emerges. The simulation assumes a BH thermal feedback efficiency of ϵr = 0.5%, a relativ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gas properties in the vicinity of the central PBH. We present phase diagrams of temperature (T) vs. hydrogen number density (nH) for several simulation runs at the moment where collapsing particles were first identified. The simulation without a PBH (CDM) and without Lyman–Werner (LW) feedback from BH accretion (PBH fd005) are included as a reference (taken from S. Zhang et al. 2025) to demonstrate the effects of PB… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of gas infall rate (left panel) and total collapsing cloud mass (right panel) as a function of cosmic time since the initial collapse event, comparing select simulation scenarios: PBH LW sstr fd005 (blue), PBH LW mstr fd005 (or￾ange) and PBH LW str fd005 (gre…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. ATLAS. II. Extremely High Incidence of Balmer Line Absorption with Predominant Blueshifts in LRDs: Statistical Insights through Comparison with Type 1 AGNs

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Balmer-line absorption occurs in ~35% (14/40) of JWST little-red-dot AGNs, roughly 850x the rate in SDSS type-1 AGNs, with mostly slow blueshifted absorber velocities.

  2. Fuzzy dark matter soliton core hosting a supermassive black hole as a dense low-mass perturber in strong gravitational lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A soliton core of fuzzy dark matter, compressed by an embedded supermassive black hole, reproduces the observed mass profile of the ~10^6 Msun perturber in JVAS B1938+666 for FDM mass ~3.6e-21 eV and subhalo mass ~7e6 Msun.

  3. Inflation driven by repulsive-like primordial black holes

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Repulsive-like primordial black holes in the Swiss-cheese framework produce quasi-de Sitter expansion, enabling inflation with evaporation reheating and acting as early dark energy for certain masses and densities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Abel, T., Anninos, P., Zhang, Y., & Norman, M. L. 1997, NewA, 2, 181, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00010-9

    doi:10.1016/s1384-1076(97)00010-9 1997

  2. [2]

    Afshordi, N., McDonald, P., & Spergel, D. N. 2003, ApJL, 594, L71, doi: 10.1086/378763

    doi:10.1086/378763 2003

  3. [3]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 4209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw929

    Khochfar, S. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 4209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw929

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw929 2016

  4. [4]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18a Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, Y., & Kamionkowski, M. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 043534, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043534

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace18a 2023

  5. [5]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f ...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.00786 2017

  6. [6]

    Becerra, F., Marinacci, F., Bromm, V., & Hernquist, L. E. 2018a, MNRAS, 480, 5029, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2210

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2210

  7. [7]

    Hernquist, L. E. 2018b, ApJ, 857, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab8f4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab8f4

  8. [8]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307, doi: 10.1038/287307a0

    doi:10.1038/287307a0 1980

Show all 141 references
  1. [10]

    M., Dokuchaev, V

    Belotsky, K. M., Dokuchaev, V. I., Eroshenko, Y. N., et al. 2019, Eur. Phys. J. C, 79, 246, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6741-4 Bogd´ an,´A., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    2019 doi

  2. [11]

    2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/76/11/112901

    Bromm, V. 2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/76/11/112901

    2013 doi

  3. [12]

    S., & Larson, R

    Bromm, V., Coppi, P. S., & Larson, R. B. 2002, ApJ, 564, 23, doi: 10.1086/323947

    2002 doi

  4. [13]

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

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

    2003 doi

  5. [14]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac332d

    Cappelluti, N., Hasinger, G., & Natarajan, P. 2022, ApJ, 926, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac332d

    2022 doi

  6. [15]

    2021a, Physics of the Dark Universe, 31, 100755, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2020.100755

    Carr, B., Clesse, S., Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, J., & K¨ uhnel, F. 2021a, Physics of the Dark Universe, 31, 100755, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2020.100755

    2020

  7. [16]

    2021b, Reports on Progress in Physics, 84, 116902, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31

    Carr, B., Kohri, K., Sendouda, Y., & Yokoyama, J. 2021b, Reports on Progress in Physics, 84, 116902, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31

    doi

  8. [17]

    2020, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 70, 355, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-050520-125911

    Carr, B., & K¨ uhnel, F. 2020, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 70, 355, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-050520-125911

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 3756, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1204

    Carr, B., & Silk, J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3756, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1204

    2018 doi

  10. [19]

    Carr, B. J. 1975, ApJ, 201, 1, doi: 10.1086/153853

    1975 doi

  11. [20]

    B., Liu, B., & Bromm, V

    Casanueva-Villarreal, C., Padilla, N., Tissera, P. B., Liu, B., & Bromm, V. 2025, A&A, 699, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554032

    2025 doi

  12. [21]

    L., & Ben-Dayan, I

    Chluba, J., Erickcek, A. L., & Ben-Dayan, I. 2012, ApJ, 758, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/76

    2012 doi

  13. [22]

    H., Aghanim, N., et al

    Chluba, J., Abitbol, M. H., Aghanim, N., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 1515, doi: 10.1007/s10686-021-09729-5

    2021 doi

  14. [23]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 2851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa863

    Chon, S., & Omukai, K. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa863

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    2025, MNRAS, 539, 2561, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf598

    Chon, S., & Omukai, K. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2561, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf598

    2025 doi

  16. [25]

    E., Stasyszyn, F., & Padilla, N

    Colazo, P. E., Stasyszyn, F., & Padilla, N. 2024, A&A, 685, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449565

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17833, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17833

    Cyr, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.17833, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17833

    2025 doi arXiv

  18. [27]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08116, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08116 De Luca, V., Desjacques, V., Franciolini, G., Malhotra, A., & Riotto, A

    Dayal, P., & Maiolino, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.08116, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08116 De Luca, V., Desjacques, V., Franciolini, G., Malhotra, A., & Riotto, A. 2019, JCAP, 2019, 018, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/05/018 De Luca, V., Franciolini, G., Pani, P., & Riotto,...

    2025 doi

  19. [28]

    2018, ApJS, 239, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    Diemer, B. 2018, ApJS, 239, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaee8c

    2018 doi

  20. [29]

    T., & Bertoldi, F

    Draine, B. T., & Bertoldi, F. 1996, ApJ, 468, 269, doi: 10.1086/177689 EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346844 Escriv` a, A. 2022, Universe, 8, 66, doi: 10.3390/universe8020066

    1996 doi

  21. [30]

    2013, ApJL, 777, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L14

    Fiacconi, D., Mayer, L., Roˇ skar, R., & Colpi, M. 2013, ApJL, 777, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L14

    2013 doi

  22. [31]

    Fragione, G., Loeb, A., Kocsis, B., & Rasio, F. A. 2022, ApJ, 933, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75d0

    2022 doi

  23. [32]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 163, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141029

    Galli, D., & Palla, F. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 163, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141029

    2013 doi

  24. [33]

    D., Greene, J

    Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c5

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f Haemmerl´ e, L. 2021, A&A, 647, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039686 Haemmerl´ e, L., Woods, T. E., Klessen, R. S., Heger, A., &

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    Whalen, D. J. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2919

    2018 doi

  27. [37]

    1971, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 152, 75

    Hawking, S. 1971, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 152, 75

    1971

  28. [38]

    P., Whalen, D

    Herrington, N. P., Whalen, D. J., & Woods, T. E. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 463, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad572

    2023 doi

  29. [39]

    Hirano, S., Yoshida, N., Sakurai, Y., & Fujii, M. S. 2018, ApJ, 855, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaaba

    2018 doi

  30. [40]

    Hirano, S., Zhu, N., Yoshida, N., Spergel, D., & Yorke, H. W. 2015, ApJ, 814, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/18

    2015 doi

  31. [41]

    2017, National Science Review, 4, 707, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwx126 13

    Hobbs, G., & Dai, S. 2017, National Science Review, 4, 707, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwx126 13

    2017 doi

  32. [42]

    2024, JCAP, 2024, 021, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/021

    Hooper, D., Ireland, A., Krnjaic, G., & Stebbins, A. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 021, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/021

    2024 doi

  33. [43]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    2015 doi

  34. [44]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/178

    Yoshida, N. 2013, ApJ, 778, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/178

    2013 doi

  35. [45]

    2024, PhRvD, 110, 103540, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103540

    Huang, H.-L., Jiang, J.-Q., & Piao, Y.-S. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 103540, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103540

    2024 doi

  36. [46]

    2018, ApJL, 863, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad8ad

    Inayoshi, K., Ichikawa, K., & Haiman, Z. 2018, ApJL, 863, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad8ad

    2018 doi

  37. [47]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad344c

    Inayoshi, K., Kashiyama, K., Li, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad344c

    2024 doi

  38. [48]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, L109, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu151

    Inayoshi, K., Omukai, K., & Tasker, E. 2014, MNRAS, 445, L109, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu151

    2014 doi

  39. [49]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.05322, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.05322

    Haiman, Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.05322, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.05322

    2025 doi arXiv

  40. [50]

    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

  41. [51]

    2019, PhRvD, 100, 083528, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.083528

    Inman, D., & Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, Y. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 083528, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.083528

    2019 doi

  42. [52]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 850, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae054

    Ito, M., & Omukai, K. 2024, PASJ, 76, 850, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae054

    2024 doi

  43. [53]

    2024, PhRvD, 109, 123524, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123524

    Jiao, H., Brandenberger, R., & Refregier, A. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 123524, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123524

    2024 doi

  44. [55]

    2021, PhRvL, 126, 011101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.011101

    Kashlinsky, A. 2021, PhRvL, 126, 011101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.011101

    2021 doi

  45. [56]

    2019, PhRvD, 100, 103521, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103521

    Kawasaki, M., & Murai, K. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 103521, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103521

    2019 doi

  46. [57]

    S., & Glover, S

    Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 65, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-053453

    2023 doi

  47. [58]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbc7d

    2025 doi

  48. [59]

    2025, JCAP, 2025, 020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/020

    Kogut, A., Aghanim, N., Chluba, J., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/020

    2025 doi

  49. [60]

    2022, PhRvD, 106, 043539, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043539

    Kohri, K., Sekiguchi, T., & Wang, S. 2022, PhRvD, 106, 043539, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043539

    2022 doi

  50. [61]

    I., Greene, J

    Kokorev, V., Caputi, K. I., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4265 Kov´ acs, O. E., Bogd´ an,´A., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 965, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad391f Labb´ e, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266, ...

    2024 doi

  51. [62]

    E., Bezanson, R., et al

    Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3551

    2025 doi

  52. [63]

    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

  53. [64]

    A., Khochfar, S., Schleicher, D., & Whalen, D

    Latif, M. A., Khochfar, S., Schleicher, D., & Whalen, D. J. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1756, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2708

    2021 doi

  54. [65]

    A., Khochfar, S., & Whalen, D

    Latif, M. A., Khochfar, S., & Whalen, D. 2020, ApJL, 892, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7c61

    2020 doi

  55. [66]

    A., Whalen, D

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

    2022 doi

  56. [67]

    Leung, G. C. K., Finkelstein, S. L., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.12005. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12005

    2024 arXiv

  57. [68]

    2025, Reports on Progress in Physics, 88, 056901, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/adc9be

    Li, E.-K., Liu, S., Torres-Orjuela, A., et al. 2025, Reports on Progress in Physics, 88, 056901, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/adc9be

    2025 doi

  58. [69]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 1826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty350

    Liu, B., & Bromm, V. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty350

    2018 doi

  59. [70]

    2022, ApJL, 937, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac927f

    Liu, B., & Bromm, V. 2022, ApJL, 937, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac927f

    2022 doi

  60. [71]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.04085, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.04085

    Liu, B., & Bromm, V. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.04085, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.04085

    2023 doi arXiv

  61. [72]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 290, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2066

    Liu, B., Gurian, J., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 290, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2066

    2024 doi

  62. [73]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 2376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1472

    Liu, B., Zhang, S., & Bromm, V. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1472

    2022 doi

  63. [74]

    Liu, S., Wang, L., Hu, Y.-M., Tanikawa, A., & Trani, A. A. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1946

    2024 doi

  64. [75]

    2006, MNRAS, 371, 1813, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10801.x

    Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1813, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10801.x

    2006

  65. [76]

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

    1994 doi

  66. [77]

    B., et al

    Lu, P., Takhistov, V., Gelmini, G. B., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdcb6

    2021 doi

  67. [78]

    Lu, Y., Picker, Z. S. C., & Kusenko, A. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 123016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123016

    2024 doi

  68. [79]

    2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    Luo, J., Chen, L.-S., Duan, H.-Z., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    2016 doi

  69. [80]

    F., Ma, X., et al

    Ma, L., Hopkins, P. F., Ma, X., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1973, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2713

    2021 doi

  70. [81]

    J., Ostriker, J

    Mack, K. J., Ostriker, J. P., & Ricotti, M. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1277, doi: 10.1086/518998

    2007 doi

  71. [82]

    2024, A&A, 691, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    2024 doi

  72. [83]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22567, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.22567

    Maiolino, R., Uebler, H., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22567, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.22567

    2025 doi arXiv

  73. [84]

    2024, ApJL, 965, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad35c7

    Matsuoka, Y., Izumi, T., Onoue, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 965, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad35c7

    2024 doi

  74. [85]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.18850, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.18850 14

    Matteri, A., Ferrara, A., & Pallottini, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.18850, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.18850 14

    2025 doi

  75. [86]

    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

  76. [87]

    1975, A&A, 38, 5 Milosavljevi´ c, M., & Merritt, D

    Meszaros, P. 1975, A&A, 38, 5 Milosavljevi´ c, M., & Merritt, D. 2003a, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 686, The Astrophysics of Gravitational Wave Sources, ed. J. M. Centrella (AIP), 201–210, doi: 10.1063/1.1629432 Milosavljevi´ c, M., & Merritt, D. 2...

    1975 doi

  77. [88]

    2020, JCAP, 2020, 017, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/017

    Mirbabayi, M., Gruzinov, A., & Nore˜ na, J. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 017, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/017

    2020 doi

  78. [89]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 1584, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2495

    Sumiyoshi, K. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1584, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2495

    2022 doi

  79. [90]

    2018, PhRvD, 97, 043525, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.043525

    Nakama, T., Carr, B., & Silk, J. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 043525, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.043525

    2018 doi

  80. [91]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf8c9

    Naoz, S., & Haiman, Z. 2023, ApJL, 955, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf8c9

    2023 doi

  81. [92]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade706

    Napolitano, L., Castellano, M., Pentericci, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade706

    2025 doi

  82. [93]

    2024, ApJL, 960, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

    Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ricarte, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

    2024 doi

  83. [94]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 3475, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx362

    Negri, A., & Volonteri, M. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3475, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx362

    2017 doi

  84. [95]

    P., & Haiman, Z

    Oh, S. P., & Haiman, Z. 2002, ApJ, 569, 558, doi: 10.1086/339393 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 Popovi´ c, L.ˇC. 2012, NewAR, 56, 74, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2011.11.001

    2002 doi

  85. [96]

    T., Lesgourgues, J., & Sharma, D

    Pritchard, X., Byrnes, C. T., Lesgourgues, J., & Sharma, D. 2025, JCAP, 07, 079, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/079

    2025 doi

  86. [97]

    R., Clark, P

    Prole, L. R., Clark, P. C., Klessen, R. S., Glover, S. C. O., & Pakmor, R. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2223, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2327

    2022 doi

  87. [98]

    R., Regan, J

    Prole, L. R., Regan, J. A., Mehta, D., Coles, P., & Dayal, P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11233, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11233

    2025 doi arXiv

  88. [99]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.13858, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.13858

    Qin, W., Kumar, S., Natarajan, P., & Weiner, N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.13858, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.13858

    2025 doi arXiv

  89. [100]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    2023 doi

  90. [101]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 72, doi: 10.33232/001c.123239

    Regan, J., & Volonteri, M. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 72, doi: 10.33232/001c.123239

    2024 doi

  91. [102]

    A., Wise, J

    Regan, J. A., Wise, J. H., Woods, T. E., et al. 2020, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 3, 15, doi: 10.21105/astro.2008.08090

    2020

  92. [103]

    S., Schleicher, D., Glover, S

    Reinoso, B., Klessen, R. S., Schleicher, D., Glover, S. C. O., & Solar, P. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3553, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad790

    2023 doi

  93. [104]

    D., Abdikamalov, E., et al

    Reisswig, C., Ott, C. D., Abdikamalov, E., et al. 2013, PhRvL, 111, 151101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.151101

    2013 doi

  94. [105]

    P., & Mack, K

    Ricotti, M., Ostriker, J. P., & Mack, K. J. 2008, ApJ, 680, 829, doi: 10.1086/587831

    2008 doi

  95. [106]

    H., & Miller, M

    Roedig, C., Krolik, J. H., & Miller, M. C. 2014, ApJ, 785, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/115

    2014 doi

  96. [107]

    D., & Cornish, N

    Romano, J. D., & Cornish, N. J. 2017, Living Reviews in Relativity, 20, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-017-0004-1

    2017 doi

  97. [108]

    S., & Hirano, S

    Sakurai, Y., Yoshida, N., Fujii, M. S., & Hirano, S. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2044

    2017 doi

  98. [109]

    2018, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35, 063001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aaa7b4

    Sasaki, M., Suyama, T., Tanaka, T., & Yokoyama, S. 2018, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35, 063001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aaa7b4

    2018 doi

  99. [110]

    Schauer, A. T. P., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Colston, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accc2c

    2023 doi

  100. [111]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 3510, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz013

    Ceverino, D. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3510, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz013

    2019 doi

  101. [112]

    Schauer, A. T. P., Regan, J., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 4878, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1915

    2017 doi

  102. [113]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt034

    Sesana, A. 2013, MNRAS, 433, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt034

    2013 doi

  103. [114]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad93a4

    Shibata, M., Fujibayashi, S., Jockel, C., & Kawaguchi, K. 2025, ApJ, 978, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad93a4

    2025 doi

  104. [115]

    Shibata, M., & Shapiro, S. L. 2002, ApJL, 572, L39, doi: 10.1086/341516

    2002 doi

  105. [116]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/112

    Silk, J. 2013, ApJ, 772, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/112

    2013 doi

  106. [117]

    A., Reinoso, B., Schleicher, D

    Solar, P. A., Reinoso, B., Schleicher, D. R. G., Klessen, R. S., & Banerjee, R. 2025, A&A, 699, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450903

    2025 doi

  107. [118]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    2005

  108. [119]

    2011, ApJL, 730, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/730/1/L1

    Stacy, A., Bromm, V., & Loeb, A. 2011, ApJL, 730, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/730/1/L1

    2011 doi

  109. [120]

    W., Shu, F

    Stahler, S. W., Shu, F. H., & Taam, R. E. 1980, ApJ, 241, 637, doi: 10.1086/158377

    1980 doi

  110. [121]

    Suazo, M., Prieto, J., Escala, A., & Schleicher, D. R. G. 2019, ApJ, 885, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45eb

    2019 doi

  111. [122]

    Sugimura, K., Omukai, K., & Inoue, A. K. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1778

    2014 doi

  112. [123]

    B., et al

    Takhistov, V., Lu, P., Gelmini, G. B., et al. 2022, JCAP, 2022, 017, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/03/017

    2022 doi

  113. [124]

    J., Finkelstein, S

    Taylor, A. J., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add15b 15

    2025 doi

  114. [125]

    2021, ApJ, 907, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcfc2

    Toyouchi, D., Inayoshi, K., Hosokawa, T., & Kuiper, R. 2021, ApJ, 907, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcfc2

    2021 doi

  115. [126]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 1601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3191

    Toyouchi, D., Inayoshi, K., Li, W., Haiman, Z., & Kuiper, R. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3191

    2023 doi

  116. [127]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 1121

    Tremmel, M., Karcher, M., Governato, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1121

    2017

  117. [128]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac062 ¨Ubler, H., Maiolino, R., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P

    Trinca, A., Schneider, R., Valiante, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac062 ¨Ubler, H., Maiolino, R., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae943

    2022 doi

  118. [129]

    J., & Byrd, G

    Valtaoja, L., Valtonen, M. J., & Byrd, G. G. 1989, ApJ, 343, 47, doi: 10.1086/167683

    1989 doi

  119. [130]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 5106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2043

    Wang, L., Tanikawa, A., & Fujii, M. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2043

    2022 doi

  120. [131]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18144, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18144

    Wang, Z., Ma, Y., Li, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18144, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18144

    2025 doi

  121. [132]

    2022, PhRvD, 106, 103010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103010

    Haiman, Z. 2022, PhRvD, 106, 103010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103010

    2022 doi

  122. [133]

    White, S. D. M., & Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52, doi: 10.1086/170483

    1991 doi

  123. [134]

    White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341

    1978 doi

  124. [135]

    Wolcott-Green, J., Haiman, Z., & Bryan, G. L. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 838, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19538.x

    2011

  125. [136]

    E., Patrick, S., Whalen, D

    Woods, T. E., Patrick, S., Whalen, D. J., & Heger, A. 2024, ApJ, 960, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad054a

    2024 doi

  126. [137]

    E., Agarwal, B., Bromm, V., et al

    Woods, T. E., Agarwal, B., Bromm, V., et al. 2019, PASA, 36, e027, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.14

    2019 doi

  127. [138]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5 Zel’dovich, Y

    Xu, H., Chen, S., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5 Zel’dovich, Y. B. 1970, A&A, 5, 84 Zel’dovich, Y. B., & Novikov, I. D. 1967, Soviet Ast., 10, 602

    2023 doi

  128. [139]

    2024a, ApJ, 975, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b0d

    Zhang, S., Bromm, V., & Liu, B. 2024a, ApJ, 975, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b0d

    doi

  129. [140]

    2024b, MNRAS, 528, 180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3986

    Zhang, S., Liu, B., & Bromm, V. 2024b, MNRAS, 528, 180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3986

    doi

  130. [141]

    2025, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17025634

    Zhang, S., Liu, B., & Bromm, V. 2025, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17025634

    2025 doi

  131. [142]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adddb4

    Zhang, S., Liu, B., Bromm, V., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adddb4

    2025 doi

  132. [143]

    2025, JCAP, 2025, 040, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/040

    Ziparo, F., Gallerani, S., & Ferrara, A. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 040, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/040

    2025 doi

  133. [144]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 1086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2705

    Ziparo, F., Gallerani, S., Ferrara, A., & Vito, F. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2705

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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