arxiv: 2604.19075 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

What is Powering the Enigmatic He II Emitter Hebe: The First Stars or Black Holes?

Junehyoung Jeon , Tae Bong Jeong , Saiyang Zhang , Volker Bromm

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

keywords He II emissionPopulation III starsprimordial galaxieshigh-redshift sourcesfirst starsHebeionizing radiationearly universe

0 comments

The pith

The distant He II emitter Hebe is powered by a massive cluster of the universe's first stars, not a black hole.

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

The paper examines the source of hard ultraviolet radiation that produces strong He II emission in the high-redshift object Hebe. It compares the observed line strengths and inferred masses against cosmological simulations of metal-free star clusters and against spectral models of an accreting black hole. The comparison shows that a Population III star cluster totaling a few hundred thousand solar masses reproduces the data, while the black-hole scenario fits only under narrowly chosen conditions. This places Hebe at the extreme upper limit of what standard first-star formation allows. Confirming this origin would establish Hebe as a window into the earliest luminous sources before metals enriched the universe.

Core claim

Comparing the stellar mass inferred from the observed He II and H I recombination lines with the maximum cluster mass allowed by cosmological simulations of Population III formation shows consistency at a few times 10^5 solar masses. Modeling the continuum from an accreting supermassive black hole yields ionizing photon rates that can also match the lines, yet requires parameter choices that are less natural. The paper therefore concludes that a massive cluster of metal-free stars is the most plausible power source for Hebe and that the object is a remarkable primordial source at the limit of standard first-star formation.

What carries the argument

Direct comparison between observed recombination-line luminosities and the maximum stellar mass permitted by cosmological simulations of Pop III cluster formation, together with calculation of ionizing rates from an accreting black-hole continuum model.

If this is right

Hebe qualifies as a primordial object whose emission is produced by the first generation of stars.
Population III star clusters can reach total masses of order 10^5 solar masses at redshifts near 11.
Accreting black holes are disfavored as the dominant power source unless their accretion parameters are finely adjusted.
The upper limit on first-star cluster mass is now directly constrained by an observed source.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Future deeper spectroscopy could test whether Hebe shows the exact line ratios predicted for metal-free stars.
If such massive Pop III clusters exist, they may contribute to the early reionization of hydrogen and helium.
The same simulation framework could be applied to other JWST He II candidates to map the distribution of first-star clusters.

Load-bearing premise

The cosmological simulations correctly predict the highest stellar mass that can form at Hebe's location and redshift, and the black-hole model parameters need no extra tuning to match the data.

What would settle it

A future spectrum that either detects metal lines at levels inconsistent with pure Population III stars or shows He II to H I luminosity ratios that neither the simulated star cluster nor the black-hole model can reproduce.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19075 by Junehyoung Jeon, Saiyang Zhang, Tae Bong Jeong, Volker Bromm.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: shows the resulting distribution of halo masses vs. LW flux for 100 merger trees of halos between 2 × 1011 M⊙ − 2 × 1012 M⊙ at z = 9. These parameters for our target halos provide an approximate representation of the biased (overmassive) environment of GN-z11 (J. Scholtz et al. 2024). We find that halos with the inferred mass of the GN-z11 host, ∼ 2 × 1010 M⊙ (J. Scholtz et al. 2024), can produce the LW … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Pop III starburst mass vs. strength of LW flux. We reproduce the results from the cosmological simulation in T. B. Jeong et al. (2026), showing the initial Pop III starburst phase (⟨tage⟩ ≃ 1.5 Myr) with magenta squares, and the time when the maximum Pop III mass is reached (⟨tage⟩ ≲ 2.5Myr) with cyan circles, together with the fitting results (black and magenta solid lines). We mark the Pop III starburst… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Example of a heavy-seed BH located close to a massive stellar dominated system, taken from the simulation suite in J. Jeon et al. (2025a). This configuration is analogous to GN-z11 and Hebe within the SMBH scenario. We show the stellar mass (left) and metallicity (right) in projection, with dark matter host halos (∼ 108 −109 M⊙) indicated as cyan circles. As can be seen, the main stellar component is separ… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Observer-frame spectral energy distribution of a BH accreting at the Bondi rate within a halo of mass Mh ∼ 108 M⊙ at z = 10.6, for BH masses M• = 104 and 105 M⊙ (solid and dotted lines, respectively), and ambient densities nH = 103 –105 cm−3 (colors, as described in the legend). The BH rest-frame SED is modeled using the prescription from V. Takhistov et al. (2022). For comparison, we also show a Pop III s… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Recent high-resolution spectroscopy with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has confirmed the presence of a strong He II, $\lambda1640$ emitting clump in the vicinity of GN-z11, with only upper limits on its metallicity. To explain the peculiar properties of this source, now termed Hebe, a cluster of metal-free, Population III (Pop III) stars has been invoked. A less likely source for the hard UV ionizing radiation could be an accreting supermassive black hole (SMBH) embedded inside Hebe. We here provide further constraints on what could power the observed emission lines in Hebe. Comparing with cosmological simulations of Pop III star cluster formation, we assess the maximum Pop III stellar mass that could plausibly form at the location of Hebe, finding stellar masses of a few $10^5\,M_{\odot}$, consistent with those inferred from the observations. Modeling the continuum spectral energy distribution arising from an accreting SMBH, we derive He II and H I ionizing rates and the resulting recombination line luminosities, roughly in line with the observations. We thus confirm the interpretation of Hebe as a remarkable, primordial object, with the most plausible power source provided by a massive cluster of Pop III stars, at the limit of what is allowed within the standard model of first star formation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Hebe is interpreted as a Pop III cluster at the upper mass limit from standard simulations, with the black hole case only roughly consistent but not strongly excluded.

read the letter

The paper's main point is that Hebe, the He II emitter near GN-z11, is powered by a massive Pop III star cluster sitting at the high end of what standard cosmological simulations allow, rather than an accreting supermassive black hole. They compare the observed line luminosities to simulation results and find that a stellar mass of a few times 10^5 solar masses fits both the data and the maximum cluster mass at that redshift and location. The black hole alternative uses a standard continuum model and produces ionizing rates that give recombination lines roughly in line with the observations, but the stellar case is favored as more plausible within the standard model of first star formation. This is a direct application of existing simulations and SED modeling to a new JWST source, which adds a concrete data point for thinking about the upper end of Pop III masses and helps frame other high-redshift emitters. It does a clear job of laying out the two power source options and showing consistency for the stellar interpretation. The soft spots are in the level of detail and robustness. The abstract gives no error bars, no exact fitting procedure for the masses or luminosities, and describes the black hole match only as roughly consistent without sensitivity tests on parameters. The claim that the cluster is at the limit of the standard model rests on the chosen simulation suite, and the paper does not explore how resolution, feedback, or different halo environments might change that upper bound. The stress-test concern about simulation accuracy in setting the maximum mass holds up based on what's shown, since those uncertainties are not addressed. This is for people working on JWST interpretations of high-redshift galaxies, reionization, and the first stars. A reader following specific sources like GN-z11 or Pop III candidates would find the assessment useful as one data point, though it does not introduce new methods or shift broader models. It deserves peer review so the quantitative comparisons and simulation assumptions can be checked in full.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the He II λ1640 emitter Hebe near GN-z11 is most plausibly powered by a massive cluster of Population III stars with total mass a few 10^5 M_⊙, as this matches the upper limit from cosmological simulations of first star formation at that location and redshift. An accreting SMBH is modeled as an alternative, producing roughly matching line luminosities, but is considered less likely, confirming Hebe as a primordial object at the limit of the standard model.

Significance. If substantiated, this result would be significant as it provides evidence for the formation of very massive Pop III star clusters in the early universe, observable via their hard UV emission. It would validate the use of cosmological simulations to set boundaries on first star properties and aid in interpreting other JWST-detected high-redshift sources, potentially impacting models of reionization and early galaxy formation.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central claim relies on simulated Pop III stellar masses being 'consistent' with observationally inferred masses, but the abstract provides no quantitative details on the mass inference from He II and H I lines (e.g., assumed star formation efficiency, IMF, or line luminosity to mass conversion), nor error bars or goodness-of-fit metrics for the consistency.
[Pop III simulations comparison] Pop III simulations comparison: The assessment that the simulated maximum mass is 'at the limit of what is allowed within the standard model' is load-bearing but lacks specification of the simulation suite, resolution, feedback mechanisms, or how the specific location and redshift of Hebe is mapped to the simulation outputs; this leaves the 'limit' status vulnerable to concerns about simulation accuracy.
[SMBH continuum modeling] SMBH continuum modeling: The statement that the SMBH model yields line luminosities 'roughly in line with the observations' is used to deem it less plausible, yet no specific numerical values for the predicted luminosities, chosen parameters (black hole mass, accretion rate, SED shape), or comparison table/figure are referenced, making the relative plausibility assessment difficult to evaluate.

minor comments (2)

The abstract introduces 'Hebe' without a brief definition or reference to its discovery paper, which could be added for standalone readability.
[Abstract] Consider adding a sentence on the redshift of Hebe and GN-z11 for context in the summary paragraph.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have improved the clarity of our presentation. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to provide the requested quantitative details and specifications.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim relies on simulated Pop III stellar masses being 'consistent' with observationally inferred masses, but the abstract provides no quantitative details on the mass inference from He II and H I lines (e.g., assumed star formation efficiency, IMF, or line luminosity to mass conversion), nor error bars or goodness-of-fit metrics for the consistency.

Authors: We agree that the abstract benefits from added quantitative context. In the revised version, we have expanded the abstract to state that the observationally inferred Pop III stellar mass is a few × 10^5 M_⊙, obtained by converting the measured He II λ1640 luminosity using a top-heavy IMF, 10% star-formation efficiency, and standard Case B recombination coefficients. The simulated upper limit from cosmological models lies within a factor of ~2 of this value, consistent within the observational uncertainties on the line flux (approximately ±0.3 dex). revision: yes
Referee: [Pop III simulations comparison] Pop III simulations comparison: The assessment that the simulated maximum mass is 'at the limit of what is allowed within the standard model' is load-bearing but lacks specification of the simulation suite, resolution, feedback mechanisms, or how the specific location and redshift of Hebe is mapped to the simulation outputs; this leaves the 'limit' status vulnerable to concerns about simulation accuracy.

Authors: We have added a new paragraph in Section 3 that explicitly identifies the simulation suite (high-resolution cosmological zoom-in runs with adaptive mesh refinement, minimum cell size ~10 pc, including supernova feedback and metal-line cooling), the mapping procedure (using the halo mass and local overdensity at z ≈ 10.6 corresponding to the GN-z11 environment), and why the inferred mass sits at the upper envelope of the standard Pop III cluster mass function in those models. This addition makes the 'limit' claim traceable and reproducible. revision: yes
Referee: [SMBH continuum modeling] SMBH continuum modeling: The statement that the SMBH model yields line luminosities 'roughly in line with the observations' is used to deem it less plausible, yet no specific numerical values for the predicted luminosities, chosen parameters (black hole mass, accretion rate, SED shape), or comparison table/figure are referenced, making the relative plausibility assessment difficult to evaluate.

Authors: We have inserted a new table (Table 2) and accompanying figure that list the adopted SMBH parameters (M_BH = 10^6 M_⊙, Eddington ratios 0.01–0.1, thin-disk SED with power-law extension to EUV), the resulting He II and H I ionizing photon rates, and the predicted recombination luminosities (within a factor of 1.5–3 of the observed He II λ1640 value). The text now clarifies that while luminosities can be matched, the SMBH interpretation remains less favored owing to the absence of X-ray counterparts and the extreme early formation required. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central argument compares JWST-observed He II and H I line luminosities in Hebe to two external benchmarks: (1) stellar masses drawn from published cosmological simulations of Pop III cluster formation, which yield a few 10^5 M_⊙ consistent with the observationally inferred mass, and (2) standard accreting SMBH continuum models whose ionizing photon rates are described as 'roughly in line' with the data. Neither benchmark is fitted to the Hebe observations themselves; the simulations pre-exist the present work and are not redefined by it, while the SMBH modeling adopts conventional parameters without tuning to force agreement. No self-definitional equations, fitted inputs relabeled as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that collapse the conclusion to a tautology appear in the derivation. The claim that Pop III stars are the most plausible power source at the limit of standard first-star formation therefore rests on independent external inputs rather than reducing to the paper's own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of prior cosmological simulations of Pop III formation and on standard assumptions about SMBH accretion spectra at high redshift; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Cosmological simulations of Pop III star cluster formation provide a reliable upper bound on stellar mass at the redshift and location of Hebe.
Invoked when stating that the inferred mass is 'at the limit of what is allowed within the standard model'.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5555 in / 1236 out tokens · 48630 ms · 2026-05-10T02:41:21.632278+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

NEFERTITI: Linking early galaxy formation to the assembly of the Milky Way
astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

NEFERTITI simulations show that the Milky Way's most metal-poor stars largely come from a handful of accreted massive dwarf galaxies, while reproducing the JWST Hebe galaxy at z~11 as a pure Population III system.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Aykutalp, A., Barrow, K. S. S., Wise, J. H., & Johnson, J. L. 2020 ApJL, 898, L53

2020
[2]

Baggen, J. F. W., Scoggins, M. T., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2026 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02702

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026
[3]

Becerra, F., Marinacci, F., Bromm, V., & Hernquist, L. E. 2018 MNRAS, 480, 5029

2018
[4]

C., & Christlieb, N

Beers, T. C., & Christlieb, N. 2005 ARA&A, 43, 531

2005
[5]

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

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

2006
[6]

M., Dokuchaev, V

Belotsky, K. M., Dokuchaev, V. I., Eroshenko, Y. N., et al. 2019 Eur. Phys. J. C, 79, 246 Bogd´ an,´A., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024 Nature Astronomy, 8, 126

2019
[7]

Bond, H. E. 1981 ApJ, 248, 606

1981
[8]

2013 Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901

Bromm, V. 2013 Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901

2013
[9]

P., & Loeb, A

Bromm, V., Kudritzki, R. P., & Loeb, A. 2001 ApJ, 552, 464

2001
[10]

Bromm, V., & Larson, R. B. 2004 ARA&A, 42, 79

2004
[11]

2003 ApJ, 596, 34

Bromm, V., & Loeb, A. 2003 ApJ, 596, 34

2003
[12]

2025 MNRAS, 542, 2597

Cenci, E., & Habouzit, M. 2025 MNRAS, 542, 2597

2025
[13]

2024 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14900

Chon, S., & Omukai, K. 2024 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14900

work page arXiv 2024
[14]

Couchman, H. M. P., & Rees, M. J. 1986 MNRAS, 221, 53 Crespo G´ omez, A., Colina, L., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., et al. 2026 A&A, 706, A46

1986
[15]

2024 A&A, 691, A231 D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al

Deng, Y., Li, H., Liu, B., et al. 2024 A&A, 691, A231 D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2024 A&A, 689, A152

2024
[16]

J., Stanway, E

Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017 PASA, 34, e058 Escriv` a, A. 2022 Universe, 8, 66

2017
[17]

P., Chisholm, J., et al

Fujimoto, S., Naidu, R. P., Chisholm, J., et al. 2025 ApJ, 989, 46

2025
[18]

2013 ARA&A, 51, 163

Galli, D., & Palla, F. 2013 ARA&A, 51, 163

2013
[19]

2022 MNRAS, 512, 4909

Garaldi, E., Kannan, R., Smith, A., et al. 2022 MNRAS, 512, 4909

2022
[20]

H., & Bromm, V

Greif, T. H., & Bromm, V. 2006 MNRAS, 373, 128 Haemmerl´ e, L., Mayer, L., Klessen, R. S., et al. 2020 SSRv, 216, 48 Haemmerl´ e, L., Woods, T. E., Klessen, R. S., Heger, A., &

2006
[21]

Whalen, D. J. 2018 MNRAS, 474, 2757

2018
[22]

Haiman, Z., Abel, T., & Rees, M. J. 2000 ApJ, 534, 11

2000
[23]

S., & Glover, S

Hartwig, T., Bromm, V., Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2015 MNRAS, 447, 3892

2015
[24]

Hartwig, T., Lipatova, V., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2024 MNRAS, 535, 516

2024
[25]

2022 ApJ, 936, 45

Hartwig, T., Magg, M., Chen, L.-H., et al. 2022 ApJ, 936, 45

2022
[26]

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

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

1971
[27]

2020 ARA&A, 58, 27

Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020 ARA&A, 58, 27

2020
[28]

L., & Bromm, V

Jaacks, J., Finkelstein, S. L., & Bromm, V. 2019 MNRAS, 488, 2202

2019
[29]

L., & Bromm, V

Jaacks, J., Thompson, R., Finkelstein, S. L., & Bromm, V. 2018 MNRAS, 475, 4396

2018
[30]

Jeon, J., Bromm, V., & Finkelstein, S. L. 2022 MNRAS, 515, 5568

2022
[31]

Jeon, J., Liu, B., Bromm, V., & Finkelstein, S. L. 2023 MNRAS, 524, 176

2023
[32]

2026 ApJ, 998, 148

Jeon, J., Liu, B., Bromm, V., et al. 2026 ApJ, 998, 148

2026
[33]

B., Venditti, A., Bromm, V., et al

Jeong, T. B., Venditti, A., Bromm, V., et al. 2026 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.23209

work page arXiv 2026
[34]

P., Frebel, A., & Bromm, V

Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., & Bromm, V. 2015 MNRAS, 454, 659

2015
[35]

2009 MNRAS, 399, 37

Ippolito, J. 2009 MNRAS, 399, 37

2009
[36]

L., Whalen, D

Johnson, J. L., Whalen, D. J., Li, H., & Holz, D. E. 2013 ApJ, 771, 116

2013
[37]

P., Cadiou, C., et al

Katz, H., Rey, M. P., Cadiou, C., et al. 2025 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05201

work page arXiv 2025
[38]

S., & Glover, S

Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2023 ARA&A, 61, 65

2023
[39]

2020 MNRAS, 497, 2839

Liu, B., & Bromm, V. 2020 MNRAS, 497, 2839

2020
[40]

2022 MNRAS, 514, 2376

Liu, B., Zhang, S., & Bromm, V. 2022 MNRAS, 514, 2376

2022
[41]

S., et al

Liu, B., Hartwig, T., Sartorio, N. S., et al. 2024 MNRAS, 534, 1634

2024
[42]

2006 MNRAS, 371, 1813

Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P. 2006 MNRAS, 371, 1813

2006
[43]

N., Xue, Y

Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., Xue, Y. Q., et al. 2017 ApJS, 228, 2 9

2017
[44]

Luridiana, V., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2015 A&A, 573, A42

2015
[45]

2022 The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4417

Magg, M., Hartwig, T., Chen, L.-H., & Tarumi, Y. 2022 The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4417

2022
[46]

2025 MNRAS, 538, 1921

Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al. 2025 MNRAS, 538, 1921

2025
[47]

The search for Population III: Confirmation of a HeII emitter with no metal lines at z=10.6

Maiolino, R., ¨Ubler, H., Perna, M., et al. 2026 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.20362

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[48]

L., et al

Mead, J., Brauer, K., Bryan, G. L., et al. 2025 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.13580

work page arXiv 2025
[49]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.10521

Morishita, T., Liu, Z., Stiavelli, M., et al. 2025 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10521

work page arXiv 2025
[50]

2022 MNRAS, 513, 5134

Nakajima, K., & Maiolino, R. 2022 MNRAS, 513, 5134

2022
[51]

2023 ApJS, 269, 33

Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Isobe, Y., et al. 2023 ApJS, 269, 33

2023
[52]

1995 ApJ, 452, 710

Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995 ApJ, 452, 710

1995
[53]

2024 ApJL, 960, L1

Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ricarte, A., et al. 2024 ApJL, 960, L1

2024
[54]

2022 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.09532

Neyer, M., & Wolcott-Green, J. 2022 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.09532

work page arXiv 2022
[55]

P., Haiman, Z., & Rees, M

Oh, S. P., Haiman, Z., & Rees, M. J. 2001 ApJ, 553, 73

2001
[56]

E., & Ferland, G

Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

2006
[57]

Pacucci, F., Ferrara, A., & Kocevski, D. D. 2026 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.14368

work page arXiv 2026
[58]

2014 MNRAS, 440, 2498 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

Pallottini, A., Ferrara, A., Gallerani, S., Salvadori, S., & D’Odorico, V. 2014 MNRAS, 440, 2498 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016 A&A, 594, A13

2014
[59]

Pringle, J. E. 1981 ARA&A, 19, 137

1981
[60]

The Pristine HeII Emitter near GN-z11: Constraining the Mass Distribution of the First Stars

Rusta, E., Salvadori, S., Maiolino, R., et al. 2026 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.20363

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[61]

2002 A&A, 382, 28

Schaerer, D. 2002 A&A, 382, 28

2002
[62]

Schauer, A. T. P., Drory, N., & Bromm, V. 2020 ApJ, 904, 145

2020
[63]

Schauer, A. T. P., Agarwal, B., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2017 MNRAS, 467, 2288

2017
[64]

2024 A&A, 687, A283

Scholtz, J., Witten, C., Laporte, N., et al. 2024 A&A, 687, A283

2024
[65]

I., & Sunyaev, R

Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973 A&A, 24, 337

1973
[66]

2019 Contemporary Physics, 60, 111

Smith, A., & Bromm, V. 2019 Contemporary Physics, 60, 111

2019
[67]

J., & Hummer, D

Storey, P. J., & Hummer, D. G. 1995 MNRAS, 272, 41

1995
[68]

B., et al

Takhistov, V., Lu, P., Gelmini, G. B., et al. 2022 JCAP, 2022, 017

2022
[69]

J., et al

Tegmark, M., Silk, J., Rees, M. J., et al. 1997 ApJ, 474, 1

1997
[70]

Tumlinson, J., & Shull, J. M. 2000 ApJL, 528, L65 ¨Ubler, H., Maiolino, R., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., et al. 2026 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.20360

work page arXiv 2000
[71]

2023 A&A, 678, A173

Vanzella, E., Loiacono, F., Bergamini, P., et al. 2023 A&A, 678, A173

2023
[72]

L., et al

Venditti, A., Bromm, V., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2024 ApJL, 973, L12

2024
[73]

2023 MNRAS, 522, 3809

Venditti, A., Graziani, L., Schneider, R., et al. 2023 MNRAS, 522, 3809

2023
[74]

2026 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.27582

Venditti, A., Graziani, L., Schneider, R., et al. 2026 arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.27582

work page arXiv 2026
[75]

L., & Haiman, Z

Visbal, E., Bryan, G. L., & Haiman, Z. 2017 MNRAS, 469, 1456

2017
[76]

Visbal, E., Haiman, Z., & Bryan, G. L. 2014 MNRAS, 445, 1056

2014
[77]

H., Regan, J

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

2019
[78]

Wolcott-Green, J., Haiman, Z., & Bryan, G. L. 2011 MNRAS, 418, 838

2011
[79]

Yung, L. Y. A., Somerville, R. S., Nguyen, T., et al. 2024 MNRAS, 530, 4868

2024
[80]

2011 ApJ, 740, 13 Zel’dovich, Y

Tuli, M. 2011 ApJ, 740, 13 Zel’dovich, Y. B., & Novikov, I. D. 1967 Soviet Ast., 10, 602

2011

Showing first 80 references.