Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

C, N, Na, and K hold the key to first-star mass recovery.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 19:20 UTC pith:VAHSSJ6M

load-bearing objection Careful in-sample simulation study that yields a useful element ranking and planning metric, but the quantitative precision claims are only as good as the HW10 grid. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.02440 v1 pith:VAHSSJ6M submitted 2026-03-02 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Quantifying Element Importance for Mass Recovery from Population III Supernova Yield Fits

Zhongyuan Zhang , Alexander P Ji , Vinicius M Placco , Sanjana Curtis This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords Population III starsstellar archaeologyinitial mass functionsupernova yieldselement abundancesmass recoverymetal-poor starsyield fitting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The first stars have never been observed, so astronomers infer their masses by fitting supernova yield models to the chemical abundances of ancient metal-poor stars. This paper asks which measured elements actually control the quality of that mass recovery, and whether the elements we can already measure are enough to constrain the initial mass function. The authors generate mock observations from a theoretical yield grid, refit them, and rank elements by how much adding or removing each one changes a mass-recovery score. They find that C, N, Na, and K are consistently the most important, with O, Al, Co, and Ni as reliable secondary contributors. Their headline conclusion is that the element set currently measurable with high-resolution spectroscopy is already sufficient for practical Population III IMF constraints, provided the yield grid itself is trustworthy.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is a quantitative, grid-wide ranking of elemental importance for progenitor mass recovery. The most consistently 'very important' elements are C, N, Na, and K; O, Al, Co, and Ni consistently improve recovery when present. The paper further constructs a smooth mapping from its fit-quality metric to the expected fractional mass error, showing that element sets at or above the medium-coverage baseline typically recover mass within about 20% for 75% of mock stars, and the high-coverage baseline, which corresponds to elements actually measurable today, recovers mass almost perfectly. The practical claim is that stellar archaeology, with current high-re

What carries the argument

The quantitative engine is a mass-recovery score. For each model in the adopted core-collapse supernova yield grid, 100 noisy mock observations are generated and refit; a recovery counts as correct if the fitted mass lies within 10% of the true mass. Each grid frame is scored by a weighted count of correct and incorrect recoveries, and the score averages those frames over mixing prescriptions. Element importance is measured by how far the score moves when one element is added to or removed from a baseline set. This add/remove experiment, repeated for low-, medium-, and high-coverage baselines, yields the element ranking and the mapping between the score and expected mass precision.

Load-bearing premise

The mock observations are generated from the same yield grid that is later used as the fitting search space, so the measured recovery quality is an in-sample self-consistency test; if those theoretical yields do not represent real Population III supernovae, the quantitative precision mapping and the 'current elements suffice' conclusion do not transfer to observations.

What would settle it

Generate mock observations from a different core-collapse supernova yield grid with different physical assumptions, then refit them using the original grid. If mass recovery precision degrades significantly or the element importance ranking shifts substantially, the paper's central claim is an artifact of using the same grid for both mock generation and fitting.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Observational programs can prioritize measuring C, N, Na, and K; the paper shows that K, often neglected in metal-poor star abundance studies, is a high-value addition.
  • The score-to-precision mapping gives a quantitative planning tool: choose a target mass precision and success rate, read the required score, and select element sets that achieve it.
  • Both light and iron-peak elements are needed, and odd-Z elements are critical, so survey designs should not restrict to even-Z elements only.
  • The current measurable element set is sufficient for practical IMF constraints, so waiting for future instruments is not necessary.
  • Element rankings are robust to changes in the metric definition and correctness threshold, according to the paper.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The element ranking is calibrated entirely inside one yield grid; a natural extension is to test whether the same hierarchy survives when mock observations are drawn from an independent grid or a semi-analytic model. The sensitivity of C, N, and O may be robust, but the specific role of K could be grid-specific.
  • Inference: The global ranking averages over mass and energy, and the paper itself notes subregion analyses could reveal mass-dependent importance. A pragmatic follow-up is per-mass-bin rankings to guide observations targeting the low-mass cutoff that matters for reionization.
  • Inference: The framework treats all elements with equal noise; in reality, K and N are harder to measure. Coupling the importance ranking with realistic per-element uncertainties could change the recommended measurement priorities.
  • Inference: If real extremely metal-poor stars are fit using this element guidance, the inferred IMF can be compared with predictions from first-star formation simulations; a mismatch would localize where yield models break down.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a systematic, end-to-end mock-and-refit study to quantify which elements most control progenitor mass recovery when fitting Population III core-collapse supernova yields. Using the Heger & Woosley (2010, HW10) grid, the authors generate mock observations with Gaussian noise (σ=0.2 dex), fit them back to the same grid, and summarize recovery quality with a metric d̄. By adding/removing single elements from low-, medium-, and high-coverage baselines, they rank elements and identify C, N, Na, and K as consistently very important, with O, Al, Co, Ni also helpful. They then construct a d̄-to-δ mapping that relates fit quality to percentile fractional mass errors, and conclude that currently measurable elements from high-resolution spectroscopy can deliver practical Pop III IMF constraints, assuming the HW10 yields are representative. The analysis is thorough, with 100 mock realizations per model and tests of alternative metric choices.

Significance. If the results are robust, the paper provides the first quantitative element-importance ranking for Pop III mass recovery and a practical mapping from observed element sets to expected mass precision, which can guide observational campaigns and IMF inference. The controlled end-to-end pipeline, the explicit treatment of noise, and the robustness tests of the metric are strengths. However, the central quantitative claims are in-sample: mocks are drawn from and fit to the same HW10 grid, and all elements are assigned the same measurement uncertainty. These two assumptions directly affect both the element ranking and the precision mapping, so the practical conclusions require external validation or a more cautious framing. The authors acknowledge the single-grid limitation in Section 4, but the constant-noise assumption is not discussed as a limitation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 and 2.5] The mock observations are generated from HW10 and fit to the same HW10 grid, so the d̄-to-δ mapping and the near-perfect high-coverage recovery (Figures 5 and 6) are measures of self-consistency, not of performance under real yield-model errors. The paper's central claim that currently measurable elements can deliver practical IMF constraints depends on this mapping. Please either validate the ranking and δ percentiles with an independent yield grid (e.g., Nomoto et al. 2013 or Limongi & Chieffi 2018) or explicitly restrict all quantitative precision claims to 'within HW10' and add a quantitative discussion of how systematic errors in key elements would shift the mapping.
  2. [Section 2.1/2.2] The assumption that all elements have the same observational uncertainty σ=0.2 dex is unlikely to hold: elements such as K, Co, Ni, and N are typically harder to measure than Mg, Fe, or Ca, and many are only upper limits. Because the importance ranking is the paper's main output, the sensitivity of the ranking to element-dependent noise should be tested, e.g., by assigning larger σ to odd-Z/iron-peak elements and re-running the add/remove experiments. Without this, the recommendation to prioritize C, N, Na, K may not transfer to real spectra.
  3. [Section 2.4] The assignment of elements to 'very important' vs 'important' tiers is based on horizontal thresholds chosen by visual inspection of the Δd̄ values (Figure 4). Since the abstract's headline result is the identity of the most important elements, the thresholds should be justified quantitatively. Please report the numerical Δd̄ values (with scatter across the 14 mixing frames) and use a statistical criterion, e.g., a bootstrap confidence interval or a clustering algorithm, to define the tiers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] The sentence 'the complete version of Figure 5 is provided in the Appendix' appears to refer to Figure 6 (element combinations), not Figure 5 (d̄-δ mapping). The appendix figure is labeled 'Full version of Figure 5' but shows element sets; update the cross-reference.
  2. [Section 2.5] There is a broken sentence: 'identify which element sets typically achieve that ¯d with Figure 5. Here we define...' This should be rephrased, likely as '...achieve that ¯d (Figure 6). Here we define...'.
  3. [Table 1] The red highlighting for Sc, Cr, Cu, Zn may not be distinguishable in black-and-white print; suggest using a symbol or a separate note.
  4. [Section 2.2] The exclusion of Sc, Cr, Cu, Zn is justified by HW10 modeling limitations, but the rationale could be expanded for readers unfamiliar with the starfit caveats.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the in-sample mock-and-refit framework is an explicit calibration, not an independent prediction, and the paper states its model-dependence as a limitation.

full rationale

The only potentially self-referential element is that mock observations are drawn from the Heger & Woosley (2010) grid and then fit to the same grid (Section 2.1). This is a controlled Monte Carlo calibration of the fitting procedure, not an independent validation of HW10 or an empirical prediction. The paper explicitly frames it that way: 'we address the question in a controlled setting: beginning with yield models rather than observations, we generate mock abundance vectors, perturb them within realistic uncertainties, and refit to the same grid to quantify mass-recovery fidelity.' The dbar-to-delta mapping is described as a calibration ('Our goal in this subsection is to calibrate the summary metric dbar to the expected uncertainty in progenitor mass recovery'), and the central conclusion is explicitly conditional: 'assuming the core-collapse supernova yield models provide a good representation of stellar evolution in the early universe.' Section 4 lists as a key limitation that 'all results are based on a single core-collapse supernova yield grid.' No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no element importance is defined in terms of the conclusion, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or self-citation chain is used to force the result. The element rankings are a sensitivity analysis within a stated model assumption, so the derivation does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The paper's contribution rests on a fixed yield grid, an assumed noise model, and an arbitrary quality metric; these are the main hidden inputs from the literature or from the authors' choices.

free parameters (5)
  • noise level sigma = 0.2 dex
    Fixed uniform observational uncertainty for all elements; directly controls recovery quality and all reported performance numbers.
  • correctness threshold = delta < 10%
    Defines a 'correct' mass recovery in the dbar metric; chosen as a practical accuracy target, with alternative definitions only briefly tested.
  • dbar category weights = green 1, blue 0.5, yellow -0.5, red -1
    Arbitrary weighting that compresses recovery-rates into a single score; authors state the metric is 'somewhat arbitrary.'
  • importance-tier thresholds = visual cuts, different per baseline
    Horizontal dashed lines separating very important / important / unimportant / very unimportant are placed by visual inspection in Figure 4.
  • exponential percentile fits = exponential curves fitted to 50/68/75/90th percentiles
    Used to build the smooth dbar-to-mass-error mapping in Figure 5; the functional form is chosen for convenience, not derived.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Heger & Woosley (2010) yield grid faithfully represents Population III core-collapse supernova nucleosynthesis.
    The entire mock-generation and fitting loop uses this grid as both truth and model; the paper states this as a limitation.
  • domain assumption Each extremely/ultra metal-poor star's heavy-element pattern comes from a single Population III star.
    Standard stellar archaeology assumption invoked in Section 1; required for mapping a single recovered mass to an IMF.
  • domain assumption Independent Gaussian noise in logepsilon with sigma=0.2 adequately represents real abundance measurement uncertainties.
    Adopted in Section 2.1; real uncertainties are element-dependent and not purely Gaussian, which affects the quantitative dbar-to-delta calibration.
  • domain assumption Minimizing chi-square over the HW10 grid is the appropriate way to recover progenitor mass.
    The fitting procedure in Section 2.1 assumes least-squares grid search is sufficient and does not marginalize over model uncertainties.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13141 in / 8681 out tokens · 88642 ms · 2026-08-02T19:20:57.798799+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Massive Population III stars are currently not observed, but their initial mass function (IMF) can be inferred through stellar archaeology: fitting core-collapse supernova yield models to elemental abundances of low-mass, long-lived metal-poor stars. While prior work demonstrates that yield fitting can recover progenitor properties, it remains unclear which measured elements most control mass recovery quality and what level of IMF precision is achievable for a measured element set. We perform a systematic study of element importance for progenitor mass recovery. Using the Heger & Woosley (2010) yield grid, we generate mock observations, fit the initial mass, and evaluate the typical performance on the fractional mass recovery. Add/remove-one-element experiments and comparisons among different baseline element sets are used to rank elements by importance. We find that the most important elements for accurate mass recovery are C, N, Na, and K, with O, Al, Co, and Ni consistently improving performance when available. Overall, with currently measurable elements from high-resolution spectroscopy, stellar archaeology can deliver practical Population III IMF constraints assuming the core-collapse supernova yield models provide a good representation of stellar evolution in the early universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.02440 by Alexander P Ji, Sanjana Curtis, Vinicius M Placco, Zhongyuan Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example of mock observation generation and mass recovery for a HW10 model. Top panel: black circles show the original model abundances in log ε with Mtrue = 17.4M⊙, Etrue = 2.4B, and Xtrue = 0.0; blue trian￾gles show one mock observation generated by adding inde￾pendent Gaussian noise with σ = 0.2 dex to each element (er￾ror bars indicate 1σ); orange squares show the best-fit HW10 model returned by a full-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: presents fits for the three baselines at E = 0.3B and zero mixing with noise level σ = 0.2 dex. We adopt σ = 0.2 dex as a representative uncertainty for abundance measurements in metal-poor stars, and use it as our fixed noise level throughout this work. For simplicity and to allow controlled comparisons across el￾ement sets, we apply a constant σ to all elements, treat￾ing it as an effective observational… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Demonstration of the metric calculation on the Mtrue–Etrue grid at a fixed mixing X. For each HW10 model (Mtrue, Etrue), 100 mock observations are gener￾ated and fit to recover 100 Mf it. Points are colored by the fraction of correct recoveries, where a recovery is correct if δ = |(Mtrue − Mf it)/Mtrue| < 0.1: green 76 − 100%, blue 51 − 75%, yellow 26 − 50%, red 0 − 25%. The frame-level metric is d = (g + … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Here we define the percentage mass error as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Element-by-element perturbations of the baselines. (a) Medium baseline: d¯ versus atomic number Z when a single element is modified. The dashed line is the unmodified medium-baseline d¯. Purple circle markers indicate the element is removed from the baseline; orange square markers indicate an element is added to the baseline. Greater differences from the dashed line imply a larger effect on the metric. (b-… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mapping between the fit quality metric d¯and the fractional mass error δ = |(Mtrue − Mf it)/Mtrue|. At the d¯ attained by ten representative element sets (Fe-Peak, Low, Low+Ni, Even-Z, Mid, Mid+, Mid+N-O-K, High, High+, All), scatter points show all δ values across the HW10 grid (16,800 models × 100 mocks = 1.68 × 106 points per set). Symbols mark the 50th, 68th, 75th, and 90th percentile thresholds at eac… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Summary of mass recovery performance across different element sets. Each point corresponds to a tested element combination grouped by the category labels listed on the left. For each element set, we report its d¯ value together with the corresponding δ75 value, where δ75 denotes the 75th-percentile fractional mass error. The dashed reference lines indicate the low (red), medium (blue), and high (green) cov… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Full version of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., & Norman, M

    Abel, T., Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 2002, Science, 295, 93, doi: 10.1126/science.1063991

    doi:10.1126/science.1063991 2002

  2. [2]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 238, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9 12

    Abohalima, A., & Frebel, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 238, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9 12

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9 2018

  3. [3]

    2001, Physics Reports, 349, 125, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00019-9

    Barkana, R., & Loeb, A. 2001, Physics Reports, 349, 125, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00019-9

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(01)00019-9 2001

  4. [4]

    C., & Christlieb, N

    Beers, T. C., & Christlieb, N. 2005, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 43, 531, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134057

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 608, L45, doi: 10.1086/422172

    Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., & Rudak, B. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 608, L45, doi: 10.1086/422172

    doi:10.1086/422172 2004

  6. [6]

    S., Collet, R., Keller, S

    Bessell, M. S., Collet, R., Keller, S. C., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 806, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L16

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/l16 2015

  7. [7]

    2025, The most metal poor stars, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06335

    Bonifacio, P., Caffau, E., Franois, P., & Spite, M. 2025, The most metal poor stars, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06335

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    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

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/76/11/112901 2013

  9. [9]

    S., & Larson, R

    Bromm, V., Coppi, P. S., & Larson, R. B. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 527, L5, doi: 10.1086/312385

    doi:10.1086/312385 1999

  10. [10]

    S., & Larson, R

    Bromm, V., Coppi, P. S., & Larson, R. B. 2002b, The Astrophysical Journal, 564, 23, doi: 10.1086/323947

    doi:10.1086/323947

  11. [11]

    2004, A&A, 416, 1117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034074

    Cayrel, R., Depagne, E., Spite, M., et al. 2004, A&A, 416, 1117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034074

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034074 2004

  12. [12]

    R., Gilmore, G., Heger, A., & Chan, C

    Fraser, M., Casey, A. R., Gilmore, G., Heger, A., & Chan, C. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 418, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx480

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx480 2017

  13. [13]

    P., Jacobson, H

    Frebel, A., Chiti, A., Ji, A. P., Jacobson, H. R., & Placco, V. M. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 810, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L27

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/l27 2015

  14. [14]

    Frebel, A., & Norris, J. E. 2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 631, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122423

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122423 2015

  15. [15]

    H., Glover, S

    Greif, T. H., Glover, S. C. O., Bromm, V., & Klessen, R. S. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 716, 510, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/510

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/510 2010

  16. [16]

    J., Nordstrm, B., Bonifacio, P., et al

    Hansen, C. J., Nordstrm, B., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2011, A&A, 527, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015076

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015076 2011

  17. [17]

    N., Kobayashi, C., Tominaga, N., & Nomoto, K

    Hartwig, T., Ishigaki, M. N., Kobayashi, C., Tominaga, N., & Nomoto, K. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbcc6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbcc6 2023

  18. [18]

    Hartwig, T., Lipatova, V., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 516, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2318

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2318 2024

  19. [19]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 567, 532, doi: 10.1086/338487

    doi:10.1086/338487 2002

  20. [20]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 341, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/341

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/341 2010

  21. [21]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/60

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/2/60 2014

  22. [22]

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

    doi:10.1126/science.1207433 2011

  23. [23]

    Hosokawa, T., Yoshida, N., Omukai, K., & Yorke, H. W. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 760, L37, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/2/L37

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/760/2/l37 2012

  24. [24]

    N., Tominaga, N., Kobayashi, C., & Nomoto, K

    Ishigaki, M. N., Tominaga, N., Kobayashi, C., & Nomoto, K. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 792, L32, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/2/L32

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/792/2/l32 2014

  25. [25]

    N., Tominaga, N., Kobayashi, C., & Nomoto, K

    Ishigaki, M. N., Tominaga, N., Kobayashi, C., & Nomoto, K. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3de

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab3de 2018

  26. [26]

    Jiang, R., Li, H., Zhao, G., Xing, Q., & Xin, W. 2025, Abundance Pattern Fitting with Bayesian Inference: Constraining First Stars’ Properties and Their Explosion Mechanism with Extremely Metal-poor Stars, https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05712

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad808a

    Jiang, R., Zhao, G., Li, H., & Xing, Q. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad808a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad808a 2024

  28. [28]

    2013, Rev

    Karlsson, T., Bromm, V., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2013, Rev. Mod. Phys., 85, 809, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.85.809

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.85.809 2013

  29. [29]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1022

    Kinugawa, T., Inayoshi, K., Hotokezaka, K., Nakauchi, D., & Nakamura, T. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1022

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1022 2014

  30. [30]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 1093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2624

    Kinugawa, T., Miyamoto, A., Kanda, N., & Nakamura, T. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 1093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2624

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2624 2015

  31. [31]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3 2013

  32. [32]

    S., & Glover, S

    Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2023, The first stars: formation, properties, and impact, https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12500

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    2012, A&A, 541, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118604

    Kowalska, I., Bulik, T., & Belczynski, K. 2012, A&A, 541, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118604

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118604 2012

  34. [34]

    2006, A&A, 459, 1001, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065080

    Kulczycki, K., Bulik, T., Belczyski, K., & Rudak, B. 2006, A&A, 459, 1001, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065080

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065080 2006

  35. [35]

    Magg, M., Nordlander, T., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2624

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2624 2020

  36. [36]

    F., & Tan, J

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

    doi:10.1086/587434 2008

  37. [37]

    2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 457, doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-082812- 140956 13

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 457, doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-082812- 140956 13

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812- 2013

  38. [38]

    S., DaCosta, G

    Nordlander, T., Bessell, M. S., DaCosta, G. S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 488, L109, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz109

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz109 2019

  39. [39]

    M., Lind, K., et al

    Nordlander, T., Amarsi, A. M., Lind, K., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629202

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629202 2017

  40. [40]

    W., & Norman, M

    OShea, B. W., & Norman, M. L. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 654, 66, doi: 10.1086/509250

    doi:10.1086/509250 2007

  41. [41]

    M., Frebel, A., Lee, Y

    Placco, V. M., Frebel, A., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/136

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/2/136 2015

  42. [42]

    M., Frebel, A., Beers, T

    Placco, V. M., Frebel, A., Beers, T. C., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 21, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/21

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/833/1/21 2016

  43. [43]

    M., Roederer, I

    Placco, V. M., Roederer, I. U., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 912, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf93d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abf93d 2021

  44. [44]

    M., Gupta, A

    Placco, V. M., Gupta, A. F., Almeida-Fernandes, F., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8646

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8646 2024

  45. [45]

    M., Limberg, G., Chiti, A., et al

    Placco, V. M., Limberg, G., Chiti, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf846

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf846 2025

  46. [46]

    2002, A&A, 382, 28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011619

    Schaerer, D. 2002, A&A, 382, 28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011619

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011619 2002

  47. [47]

    H., Gerasimov, R., et al

    Sharda, P., Menon, S. H., Gerasimov, R., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 541, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf043 Sk´ ulad´ ottir, ., Salvadori, S., Amarsi, A. M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 915, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0dc2

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf043 2025

  48. [48]

    H., & Bromm, V

    Stacy, A., Greif, T. H., & Bromm, V. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 422, 290, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20605.x

    arXiv 2012

  49. [49]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/32

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/32 2014

  50. [50]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/98

    Tominaga, N., Iwamoto, N., & Nomoto, K. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/98

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/98 2014

  51. [51]

    Tumlinson, J., Venkatesan, A., & Shull, J. M. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 612, 602, doi: 10.1086/422571

    work page doi:10.1086/422571 2004

  52. [52]

    2008, Science, 321, 669, doi: 10.1126/science.1160259

    Yoshida, N., Omukai, K., & Hernquist, L. 2008, Science, 321, 669, doi: 10.1126/science.1160259

    doi:10.1126/science.1160259 2008