pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.28682 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

How Overmassive Black Holes Formed at Cosmic Dawn

Muhammad A. Latif , Daniel J. Whalen , Sadegh Khochfar , Fergus Cullen
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 21:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords overmassive black holesdirect collapse black holeshigh redshift galaxiescosmic dawnJWST observationsblack hole growthprimordial halosPopulation III supernovae
0
0 comments X

The pith

Direct collapse black holes born in primordial halos at redshift 25 produce the overmassive black hole galaxies seen at redshift 10.

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

The paper argues that overmassive black hole galaxies at redshifts around 10 are a direct result of direct collapse black holes forming in primordial halos early in cosmic history. In the simulation a 70,000 solar mass black hole forms at redshift 25.7 and grows at half the Eddington rate to reach 6 million solar masses by redshift 10.1 while its host galaxy assembles 400 million solar masses in stars. The black hole to stellar mass ratio settles near 0.01 because the black hole first suppresses star formation and later Population III supernovae blow metals out of the system. This setup reproduces the observed properties and spectra of specific objects such as UHZ1 and GHZ9.

Core claim

Overmassive black hole galaxies at z approximately 10 are simply the result of DCBH birth in primordial halos at early times. A 70,000 solar mass DCBH forming at z = 25.7 grows at about half the Eddington rate to 6.0 times 10 to the 6 solar masses by z = 10.1. Its host galaxy reaches a stellar mass of 4 times 10 to the 8 solar masses, a metallicity Z = 0.1 solar, a star formation rate of 2 solar masses per year, and a black hole to stellar mass ratio of about 0.01 on par with observed objects. This ratio is a natural result of initial suppression of star formation by the DCBH and the later violent blowout of metals by Pop III supernovae.

What carries the argument

The coevolution of a direct collapse black hole and its host galaxy in a cosmological simulation, where black hole feedback initially suppresses star formation and later Population III supernovae drive metal blowout to set the observed mass ratio.

Load-bearing premise

A 70,000 solar mass direct collapse black hole forms at redshift 25.7 in a primordial halo, grows at half the Eddington rate, and the host galaxy experiences star formation suppression followed by Pop III supernova metal blowout without major mergers changing the mass ratio.

What would settle it

Measuring a black hole to stellar mass ratio substantially below 0.01 in galaxies at redshift 10 or finding spectra that lack the metal blowout signatures predicted for these objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.28682 by Daniel J. Whalen, Fergus Cullen, Muhammad A. Latif, Sadegh Khochfar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Panel (a): 10 kpc image of the DCBH at birth at z = 25.7. Panel (b): 20 kpc image of the OBG at z = 11.4 centered on the black hole. Panel (c): 1 kpc image of the DCBH at z = 25.7. Panel (d): 5 kpc image of the OBG at z = 11.4. the BH on small scales, and treated luminosity from the BH as heat rather than X-rays, which can catalyze Pop III star formation on small scales (e.g., Machacek et al. 2003). Cosmol… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stellar masses (a), average metallicity (b) and SFRs (c) in the host galaxy of the DCBH over cosmic time in Myr after the Big Bang. 1997) evolves mass fractions for H, H+, He, He+, He++, H2, H−, H+ 2 , and e−, and we include cooling due to collisional excitation and ionization of H and He, re￾combinations in H and He, bremsstrahlung emission, H2 ro-vibrational transitions, and inverse Compton scatter￾ing. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: BH accretion rate (a), mass (b) and MBH/M∗ (c) over cosmic time in Myr after the Big Bang. Myr before collapsing to a BH. The formation and death of this star is visible as the first peak in stellar mass at 125 Myr in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of Cloudy spectra for the OBG to those for GHZ9, UHZ1 and GN-z11. lation and Stellar Synthesis (BPASS) v.2.3 models (El￾dridge et al. 2017; Byrne et al. 2022) and constructed a global SED based on the masses, ages and metal￾licities of the individual star particles, again assuming a spherical geometry but with a fixed gas density of nH = 103 cm−3 and a metallicity log(Z/Z⊙) = −1.7. The stellar a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Overmassive black hole galaxies (OBGs) at redshifts $z \sim$ 10, or 450 Myr after the Big Bang, are one of the most puzzling discoveries by the James Webb Space Telescope to date because they formed by such early epochs and their black-hole to stellar mass ratios are a hundred times higher than those in galaxies today. Here we show that OBGs are simply the result of DCBH birth in primordial halos at early times. A 70,000 M$_{\odot}$ DCBH forming at $z =$ 25.7 in our cosmological simulation grows at about half the Eddington rate to $6.0 \times 10^6$ M$_{\odot}$ by $z =$ 10.1. Its host galaxy reaches a stellar mass of $4 \times 10^8$ M$_{\odot}$, a metallicity $Z =$ 0.1 Z$_{\odot}$, a star formation rate of 2 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, and $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\ast}$ $\sim$ 0.01, on par with OBGs like GN-z11, UHZ1, and GHZ9 at $z =$ 10.6, 10.1, and 10.2, respectively. Our simulation, the first to follow the coevolution of a DCBH and its host galaxy for several hundred Myr, shows that this ratio is a natural result of initial suppression of star formation by the DCBH and the later, violent blowout of metals by Pop III supernovae. Our models provide an excellent match to the spectra of UHZ1 and GHZ9 at $z =$ 10.1 and 10.4, respectively.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that overmassive black hole galaxies (OBGs) at z~10 are a natural outcome of direct collapse black holes (DCBHs) forming in primordial halos, demonstrated via a cosmological simulation in which a 70,000 M⊙ DCBH seeds at z=25.7, accretes at ~0.5 Eddington to reach 6.0×10^6 M⊙ by z=10.1, and its host galaxy attains 4×10^8 M⊙ stellar mass, Z=0.1 Z⊙, SFR=2 M⊙ yr^{-1} and M_BH/M_*~0.01, matching observed properties and spectra of UHZ1 and GHZ9; the high ratio arises from DCBH-driven star-formation suppression followed by Pop III supernova metal blowout.

Significance. If the simulation physics and assumptions hold, the work supplies a concrete, standard-physics channel for the high-redshift overmassive BHs reported by JWST, showing that extreme M_BH/M_* ratios can emerge self-consistently from early DCBH formation and feedback without fine-tuning beyond conventional prescriptions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulation description and results] The central result rests on a single simulation run with an imposed 70,000 M⊙ DCBH seed at z=25.7 and fixed ~0.5 Eddington accretion; no resolution study, convergence test, or variation of these free parameters is shown, leaving open whether the final M_BH/M_*~0.01 and spectral match are robust or specific to the chosen initial conditions and subgrid choices.
  2. [Results and discussion] The isolated-evolution assumption (no mergers that would add stellar mass or alter the mass ratio) is load-bearing for the claimed natural outcome, yet the manuscript provides neither a merger tree nor quantitative halo-assembly statistics to demonstrate that the selected halo experiences negligible mergers between z=25.7 and z=10.1.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Spectral comparison] Quantitative metrics (e.g., reduced χ² or residual plots) for the claimed 'excellent match' to the UHZ1 and GHZ9 spectra would strengthen the comparison.
  2. [Methods] The methods section should explicitly state the numerical resolution, subgrid accretion and feedback implementations, and any metal-mixing or supernova prescriptions used for the Pop III blowout phase.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for their insightful comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation description and results] The central result rests on a single simulation run with an imposed 70,000 M⊙ DCBH seed at z=25.7 and fixed ~0.5 Eddington accretion; no resolution study, convergence test, or variation of these free parameters is shown, leaving open whether the final M_BH/M_*~0.01 and spectral match are robust or specific to the chosen initial conditions and subgrid choices.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the results are based on a single simulation and that a full resolution study or parameter exploration is not presented. The 70,000 M⊙ seed is a representative value drawn from the expected DCBH mass range in atomic-cooling halos, and the ~0.5 Eddington rate is a physically motivated, conservative choice given the strong radiative feedback from the DCBH. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the methods section with additional justification for these choices and added a brief discussion of how the final mass ratio and spectral properties arise from the included DCBH feedback and Pop III supernova physics rather than from fine-tuning. A comprehensive convergence study and parameter sweep remain computationally intensive and are reserved for follow-up work; the current run demonstrates a viable channel for OBG formation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results and discussion] The isolated-evolution assumption (no mergers that would add stellar mass or alter the mass ratio) is load-bearing for the claimed natural outcome, yet the manuscript provides neither a merger tree nor quantitative halo-assembly statistics to demonstrate that the selected halo experiences negligible mergers between z=25.7 and z=10.1.

    Authors: We agree that explicit demonstration of the merger history strengthens the claim. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection and figure that present the halo merger tree extracted directly from the cosmological simulation, together with quantitative assembly statistics. These show that between z=25.7 and z=10.1 the halo experiences only minor mergers (mass ratios <1:10) whose stellar-mass contribution is negligible compared with in-situ star formation. The M_BH/M_* ratio is therefore set primarily by the DCBH-driven suppression of star formation and the subsequent Pop III supernova blowout, validating the isolated-evolution approximation for this particular halo. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: simulation outcome is emergent from independent initial conditions and standard physics

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on a cosmological simulation in which a 70,000 M⊙ DCBH forms at z=25.7 in a primordial halo and grows at ~0.5 Eddington while the host evolves with initial star-formation suppression and later Pop III supernova metal blowout. This sequence is presented as an outcome of the run rather than a parameter tuned to JWST data; the match to UHZ1/GHZ9 masses and spectra is shown after the fact as a comparison. No equations reduce a prediction to a fitted input by construction, no self-citation chain supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the result, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the formation of a specific-mass DCBH at high redshift and the accuracy of subgrid physics for star formation suppression and feedback; these are not independently verified within the provided abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • Initial DCBH mass = 70000 M_sun
    Set to 70,000 solar masses at z=25.7 to seed the growth that reaches observed values
  • Eddington accretion fraction = 0.5
    Assumed growth at about half the Eddington rate to match final mass at z=10.1
axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard Lambda-CDM cosmology governs halo formation and expansion
    Invoked as the background for the cosmological simulation of primordial halos
  • domain assumption Direct collapse black holes can form with 70,000 solar masses in metal-free halos at z=25.7
    Core premise for the initial condition of the simulated object
invented entities (1)
  • Direct collapse black hole (DCBH) no independent evidence
    purpose: Seed black hole whose early formation and growth produces the overmassive ratio
    Postulated formation channel for the initial 70,000 M_sun object

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5636 in / 1814 out tokens · 75590 ms · 2026-05-14T21:48:25.646259+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    L., Khochfar, S., & Paardekooper, J.-P

    Agarwal, B., Dalla Vecchia, C., Johnson, J. L., Khochfar, S., & Paardekooper, J.-P. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1112

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1112 2014

  2. [2]

    Dunlop, J. S. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3438, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt696

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt696 2013

  3. [3]

    2012 , month = apr, journal =

    Agarwal, B., Khochfar, S., Johnson, J. L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2854, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21651.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21651.x 2012

  4. [4]

    Anninos, P., Zhang, Y., Abel, T., & Norman, M. L. 1997, New Astronomy, 2, 209, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00009-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s1384-1076(97)00009-2 1997

  5. [5]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 5486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1998

    Atek, H., Chemerynska, I., Wang, B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1998

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1998 2023

  6. [6]

    H., Spaans, M., & Meijerink, R

    Aykutalp, A., Wise, J. H., Spaans, M., & Meijerink, R. 2014, ApJ, 797, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/139

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/139 2014

  7. [7]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2210 2018

  8. [8]

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

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2607 Bogd´ an,´A., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2607 2026

  9. [9]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/377529 2003

  10. [10]

    Ostriker, J. P. 1995, Computer Physics Communications, 89, 149, doi: 10.1016/0010-4655(94)00191-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0010-4655(94)00191-4 1995

  11. [11]

    L., Norman, M

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 2014

  12. [12]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 2023

  13. [13]

    M., Stanway, E

    Byrne, C. M., Stanway, E. R., Eldridge, J. J., McSwiney, L., & Townsend, O. T. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5329, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac807

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac807 2022

  14. [14]

    and Kinney, Anne L

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/308692 2000

  15. [15]

    2023a, ApJL, 948, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accea5 —

    Castellano, M., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2023a, ApJL, 948, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accea5 —. 2023b, ApJL, 948, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accea5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accea5 2041

  16. [16]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.04955, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.04955

    Springel, V. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.04955, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.04955

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.04955 2026

  17. [17]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 700, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab061

    Chon, S., Hosokawa, T., & Omukai, K. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 700, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab061

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab061 2021

  18. [18]

    Couchman, H. M. P. 1991, ApJL, 368, L23, doi: 10.1086/185939

    work page doi:10.1086/185939 1991

  19. [19]

    Efstathiou, G., Davis, M., White, S. D. M., & Frenk, C. S. 1985, ApJS, 57, 241, doi: 10.1086/191003

    work page doi:10.1086/191003 1985

  20. [20]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  21. [21]

    P., et al

    Fei, Q., Fujimoto, S., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.20452, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.20452

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.20452 2025

  22. [22]

    Glover, S. C. O., & Abel, T. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1627, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13224.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13224.x 2008

  23. [23]

    Glover, S. C. O., & Jappsen, A.-K. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1, doi: 10.1086/519445

    work page doi:10.1086/519445 2007

  24. [24]

    T., Smith, B

    Gordon, S. T., Smith, B. D., Khochfar, S., & Beckmann, R. S. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 674, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf054

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf054 2025

  25. [25]

    D., Greene, J

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c5 2023

  26. [26]

    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 8Latif et al

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f 2024

  27. [27]

    Ferland, G. J. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 246, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0e75

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad0e75 2023

  28. [28]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1924 Haemmerl´ e, L., Woods, T

    Peirani, S. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1924 Haemmerl´ e, L., Woods, T. E., Klessen, R. S., Heger, A., &

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1924 2016

  29. [29]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2919 2018

  30. [30]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Hahn, O., & Abel, T. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x 2011

  31. [31]

    Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    work page doi:10.1086/375341 2003

  32. [32]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/338487 2002

  33. [33]

    2017, Science, 357, 1375, doi: 10.1126/science.aai9119

    Hirano, S., Hosokawa, T., Yoshida, N., & Kuiper, R. 2017, Science, 357, 1375, doi: 10.1126/science.aai9119

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aai9119 2017

  34. [34]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/178 2013

  35. [35]

    Jeon, J., Bromm, V., Liu, B., & Finkelstein, S. L. 2025a, ApJ, 979, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9f3a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9f3a

  36. [36]

    J., et al

    Jeon, J., Liu, B., Taylor, A. J., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 988, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade2e1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade2e1

  37. [37]

    C., Almgren, A., Bell, J., et al

    Joggerst, C. C., Almgren, A., Bell, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/11

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/709/1/11 2010

  38. [38]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17197.x

    Johnson, J. L., Khochfar, S., Greif, T. H., & Durier, F. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 919, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17491.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17491.x 2011

  39. [39]

    H., Alvarez, M

    Kim, J.-h., Wise, J. H., Alvarez, M. A., & Abel, T. 2011, ApJ, 738, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/54 Kov´ acs, O. E., Bogd´ an,´A., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 965, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad391f

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/54 2011

  40. [40]

    A., & Khochfar, S

    Latif, M. A., & Khochfar, S. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3761, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2218

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2218 2020

  41. [41]

    2013a, MNRAS, 433, 1607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt834

    Niemeyer, J. 2013a, MNRAS, 433, 1607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt834

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt834

  42. [42]

    Niemeyer, J. C. 2013b, MNRAS, 436, 2989, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1786

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1786

  43. [43]

    A., Volonteri, M., & Wise, J

    Latif, M. A., Volonteri, M., & Wise, J. H. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 5016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty622

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty622 2018

  44. [44]

    A., & Whalen, D

    Latif, M. A., & Whalen, D. J. 2025, ApJL, 990, L58, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfec6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfec6 2025

  45. [45]

    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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04813-y 2022

  46. [46]

    Ram Pressure Stripping of Disc Galaxies: The Role of the Inclination Angle , shorttitle =

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10801.x 2006

  47. [47]

    and Copin, Y

    Machacek, M. E., Bryan, G. L., & Abel, T. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 273, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06054.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06054.x 2003

  48. [48]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Maio, U., Khochfar, S., Johnson, J. L., & Ciardi, B. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1145, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18455.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18455.x 2011

  49. [49]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5 2024

  50. [50]

    J., Latif, M

    Nandal, D., Whalen, D. J., Latif, M. A., & Heger, A. 2025, ApJL, 994, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1a63

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1a63 2025

  51. [51]

    Nanni, R., Vignali, C., Gilli, R., Moretti, A., & Brandt, W. N. 2017, A&A, 603, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730484

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730484 2017

  52. [52]

    2008, ApJ, 686, 801, doi: 10.1086/591636

    Omukai, K., Schneider, R., & Haiman, Z. 2008, ApJ, 686, 801, doi: 10.1086/591636

    work page doi:10.1086/591636 2008

  53. [53]

    J., Whalen, D

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1179 2023

  54. [54]

    R., Regan, J

    Prole, L. R., Regan, J. A., Mehta, D., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.09104, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.09104

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.09104 2026

  55. [55]

    F., Capozziello, S., & Dainotti, M

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14579.x 2009

  56. [56]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/2/82 2015

  57. [57]

    A., & Schleicher, D

    Reinoso, B., Latif, M. A., & Schleicher, D. R. G. 2025, A&A, 700, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554762

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554762 2025

  58. [58]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 1379, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07876.x

    Ripamonti, E., & Abel, T. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1019, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07422.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07422.x 2004

  59. [59]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 1379, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07876.x

    Sazonov, S. Y., Ostriker, J. P., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 144, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07184.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07184.x 2004

  60. [60]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011619 2002

  61. [61]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1915 2017

  62. [62]

    Schleicher, D. R. G., Reinoso, B., Latif, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 6192, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac926

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac926 2022

  63. [63]

    Ram Pressure Stripping of Disc Galaxies: The Role of the Inclination Angle , shorttitle =

    Schneider, R., Omukai, K., Inoue, A. K., & Ferrara, A. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1437, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10391.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10391.x 2006

  64. [64]

    M., & van Steenberg, M

    Shull, J. M., & van Steenberg, M. E. 1985, ApJ, 298, 268, doi: 10.1086/163605

    work page doi:10.1086/163605 1985

  65. [65]

    J., Johnson, J

    Smidt, J., Whalen, D. J., Johnson, J. L., Surace, M., & Li, H. 2018, ApJ, 865, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad7b8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad7b8 2018

  66. [66]

    D., Regan, J

    Smith, B. D., Regan, J. A., Downes, T. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3762, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2103 DCBH growth9

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2103 2018

  67. [67]

    D., Wise, J

    Smith, B. D., Wise, J. H., O’Shea, B. W., Norman, M. L., & Khochfar, S. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1509

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1509 2015

  68. [68]

    S., & Dopita, M

    Sutherland, R. S., & Dopita, M. A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253, doi: 10.1086/191823

    work page doi:10.1086/191823 1993

  69. [69]

    F., Spruce, M., & Speares, W

    Toro, E. F., Spruce, M., & Speares, W. 1994, Shock Waves, 4, 25, doi: 10.1007/BF01414629

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01414629 1994

  70. [70]

    Latif, M. A. 2021, ApJL, 922, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac35e6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac35e6 2021

  71. [71]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Wise, J. H., & Abel, T. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3458, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18646.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18646.x 2011

  72. [72]

    H., Regan, J

    Wise, J. H., Regan, J. A., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 566, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0873-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0873-4 2019

  73. [73]

    H., Turk, M

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

    work page doi:10.1086/588209 2008

  74. [74]

    H., Turk, M

    Wise, J. H., Turk, M. J., Norman, M. L., & Abel, T. 2012, ApJ, 745, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/50

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/50 2012

  75. [75]

    Klessen, R. S. 2017, ApJL, 842, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7412

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7412 2017

  76. [76]

    A., Morton, B., & Smith, B

    Wu, Z., Khochfar, S., Latif, M. A., Morton, B., & Smith, B. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.19385. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19385

    work page arXiv 2026

  77. [77]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 2423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw058

    Yajima, H., & Khochfar, S. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw058 2016