Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Little Red Dot progenitors from Compact Starbursts: A Natural Path to Early AGN Formation

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-28 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read High-resolution simulations show that compact high-redshift starbursts rapidly accumulate central mass sufficient to form million-solar-mass black holes.

desk verdict The simulations produce a central mass buildup pathway only when star formation efficiencies are set to 30-100% with confined feedback; the numbers follow directly from those choices rather than from standard physics. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.03375 v1 pith:I2VGSKP6 submitted 2026-06-02 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Matías Liempi , Muhammad A. Latif , Dominik R.G. Schleicher This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords LittleRedDotshigh-redshiftgalaxiesblackholeformationcosmologicalsimulationsAGNprecursorsstarefficiencycompactgalaxyevolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper runs cosmological simulations of early galaxies under conditions of high star formation efficiency and confined feedback to model precursors of Little Red Dots. These runs produce compact objects where gas inflows, torques, and dynamical friction drive fast central mass buildup over 10 million years. With a conservative efficiency factor, the accumulated mass forms a roughly million-solar-mass black hole that turns the system into an AGN. This path indicates that the dense stellar and AGN interpretations of Little Red Dots can represent successive stages rather than competing explanations.

What carries the argument

High-resolution cosmological simulations that track gas inflows, gravitational torques, and stellar dynamical friction inside environments with high star formation efficiency and confined feedback.

What would settle it

Observations that find star formation efficiencies well below 30% or widespread unconfined feedback in the central regions of Little Red Dot candidates or their progenitors would prevent the described rapid central mass accumulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Simulations with 30% and 100% star formation efficiency and confined feedback produce compact galaxies of 10^7 to 6x10^8 solar masses with most mass inside 200-300 pc. Gas inflows accumulate roughly 10^7 solar masses at the center in 10 Myr while torques and friction add further mass, yielding a 10^6 solar mass black hole at 10% efficiency and naturally producing an AGN inside these dense systems.

Load-bearing premise

Star formation efficiencies of 30% or 100% with feedback confined to small central regions actually occur inside these high-redshift compact galaxies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Compact stellar systems at high redshift can evolve directly into AGN through internal mass redistribution.
  • Central black hole growth to 10^6 solar masses occurs on 10 Myr timescales inside dense environments.
  • Stellar and AGN explanations for Little Red Dots are compatible as sequential phases in the same objects.
  • Multiple channels (inflows, torques, friction) operate together to concentrate mass at galactic centers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This internal pathway could account for some of the massive black holes seen at high redshift without invoking rare external seeding events.
  • Kinematic maps of gas and stars in Little Red Dots might show ongoing inward migration signatures if the process is active.
  • The need for feedback confinement implies that outflow properties in the early universe differ from those observed locally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses high-resolution cosmological simulations to model the formation of Little Red Dot (LRD) progenitors in high-redshift environments with imposed star formation efficiencies of 30% and 100% and confined feedback. These runs produce compact galaxies (stellar masses 10^7–6×10^8 M_⊙ within 200–300 pc) in which gas inflows (~10^7 M_⊙), gravitational torques (10^5–10^9 M_⊙), and dynamical friction (10^3–10^4 M_⊙) over 10 Myr enable central mass accumulation; scaling by a conservative 10% efficiency then yields a ~10^6 M_⊙ black hole, positioning dense stellar systems as natural precursors to early AGN and suggesting the stellar and AGN interpretations of LRDs are not mutually exclusive.

Significance. If the chosen efficiencies and feedback confinement are realized at high redshift, the work supplies a concrete evolutionary channel linking compact starbursts to rapid central black-hole growth, offering a way to unify the two competing explanations for JWST-detected LRDs. The explicit quantification of multiple mass-transport channels (inflows, torques, friction) within a single simulation framework is a useful contribution to early galaxy–BH co-evolution models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and setup description: the headline claim that rapid mass accumulation “naturally” produces a ~10^6 M_⊙ BH is conditional on the imposed star-formation efficiencies of 30% and 100% plus confined feedback; these values are load-bearing for all quoted mass budgets, yet the manuscript supplies neither a sensitivity study nor a direct comparison to standard sub-grid efficiencies (typically ≪10%) that would be required to test whether the pathway survives under more conventional assumptions.
  2. [Methods] Simulation description (throughout): no resolution, particle/mass resolution, convergence tests, or code reference is provided; without these, the reported gas-inflow, torque, and dynamical-friction rates cannot be assessed for numerical robustness and remain unreproducible.
  3. [Results] Results on mass accumulation: the 10% efficiency scaling to ~10^6 M_⊙ is introduced without derivation or variation; if this factor is varied by even a factor of a few, the final BH mass falls below the threshold needed to “naturally give rise to an AGN,” undermining the central interpretive claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: inconsistent LaTeX formatting for solar masses (M_⊙ vs M$_\\,odot$); standardize notation.
  2. [Introduction] The motivation section should include explicit citations to the “recent high-redshift observations” invoked to justify the 30–100% efficiencies.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address each of the major comments below and indicate where revisions will be made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and setup description: the headline claim that rapid mass accumulation “naturally” produces a ~10^6 M_⊙ BH is conditional on the imposed star-formation efficiencies of 30% and 100% plus confined feedback; these values are load-bearing for all quoted mass budgets, yet the manuscript supplies neither a sensitivity study nor a direct comparison to standard sub-grid efficiencies (typically ≪10%) that would be required to test whether the pathway survives under more conventional assumptions.

    Authors: The chosen efficiencies are motivated by recent high-redshift observations and theoretical results indicating elevated star formation in dense, high-z environments. We agree that the results are conditional on these parameters. While a full sensitivity study is beyond the current scope, we will revise the manuscript to include a more detailed justification of these choices in the methods section and add a discussion paragraph addressing the impact of lower efficiencies on the mass accumulation and the resulting black hole mass. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods] Simulation description (throughout): no resolution, particle/mass resolution, convergence tests, or code reference is provided; without these, the reported gas-inflow, torque, and dynamical-friction rates cannot be assessed for numerical robustness and remain unreproducible.

    Authors: We acknowledge this omission in the presentation. The simulations were performed with a specific high-resolution cosmological code, and resolution details along with convergence tests were conducted but not explicitly detailed in the text. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated subsection in the methods describing the code reference, particle and mass resolutions, spatial resolution, and summarize the convergence tests performed to ensure the robustness of the reported mass transport rates. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results on mass accumulation: the 10% efficiency scaling to ~10^6 M_⊙ is introduced without derivation or variation; if this factor is varied by even a factor of a few, the final BH mass falls below the threshold needed to “naturally give rise to an AGN,” undermining the central interpretive claim.

    Authors: The 10% efficiency is introduced as a conservative estimate to account for feedback effects, consistent with literature on black hole accretion efficiency. We will revise the results section to provide a brief derivation or reference for this value and include a short discussion on how the final black hole mass scales with this efficiency factor, noting the conditions under which the AGN formation threshold is met. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; results emerge from simulations with externally motivated parameters.

full rationale

The paper's derivation consists of running cosmological simulations under explicitly chosen conditions (SFE of 30% or 100% plus confined feedback, motivated by observations) that produce compact stellar distributions and central mass inflows as direct outputs. The subsequent scaling to a ~10^6 M_⊙ black hole applies an independent conservative 10% efficiency assumption to those simulation-derived masses. No step reduces by the paper's own equations to a quantity defined in terms of itself, no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present. The central claim remains conditional on the stated parameter regime rather than tautological.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on two chosen efficiencies and one domain assumption about simulation fidelity; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • star formation efficiency = 30% and 100%
    Set to 30% and 100% to explore high-efficiency regimes motivated by observations
  • feedback efficiency = 10%
    Conservative 10% value assumed to account for feedback losses
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption High-resolution cosmological simulations accurately capture gas inflows, gravitational torques, and stellar dynamical friction on the stated timescales in dense environments
    Invoked to justify the reported mass accumulation rates of 10^7, 10^5-10^9, and 10^3-10^4 solar masses

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Little Red Dot progenitors from Compact Starbursts: A Natural Path to Early AGN Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I2VGSKP6

@misc{pith2026260603375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Little Red Dot progenitors from Compact Starbursts: A Natural Path to Early AGN Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I2VGSKP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.03375}
}
abstract

The recent discovery of Little Red Dots (LRDs) by the James Webb Space Telescope has challenged traditional models of early galaxy and black hole co-evolution. The nature of these highly compact objects remains heavily debated, with explanations divided between dust-reddened active galactic nuclei (AGN) and extremely dense stellar populations. We perform high-resolution cosmological simulations to model the formation of LRD precursors. Motivated by recent high-redshift observations and theoretical results, we specifically explore environments characterized by high star formation efficiencies (30\% and 100\%) and confined feedback. Our simulations naturally produce highly compact galaxies with stellar masses of $10^7-6 \times 10^8 $\,M$_\odot$, with most of the mass concentrated within $200-300$ pc. We find that, in these dense environments, gas inflows, gravitational torques, and stellar dynamical friction operate on highly efficient timescales. Over a 10 Myr timescale, gas inflows can accumulate $\rm \sim 10^7 M_\odot$ at the galactic center, while gravitational torques and dynamical friction can contribute an additional $10^5-10^9$\,M$_\odot$ and $10^3-10^4$\, M$_\odot$ through the inward migration of massive stars. Assuming a conservative 10\% efficiency to account for feedback, this rapid mass accumulation can lead to the formation of a $\sim 10^6$\,M$_\odot$ central black hole, naturally giving rise to an AGN in these dense systems. Therefore, stellar and AGN interpretations of LRDs may not be mutually exclusive; rather, dense stellar systems are likely precursors to AGN.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03375 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Density projections showing the average density along the line of sight for all four runs for the central 10 kpc region. White dots represent the Pop II star particles. rather similar enclosed gas mass of ∼ 106 M⊙ around 20 pc. The gas mass scales approximately as the ra￾dius, thus approximately corresponding to an isother￾mal sphere. A summary of the enclosed gas and stel￾lar masses of the different simulations wit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as figure 1, showing the gas and stars distribution on 1 kpc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial profiles of the enclosed stellar mass (top panel) and enclosed gas mass (bottom panel). The curves compare four simulated configurations: A model with a SFE of 30%, no feedback, and 0.1 Z/Z⊙ (red); a model with supernova feedback, SFE of 30%, and 0.1 Z/Z⊙ (blue); a low-metallicity model with 0.01 Z/Z⊙, and no feedback (or￾ange); and an extreme SFE model of 100%, no feedback, and metallicity 0.1 Z/Z⊙ (green). … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial profiles of DM density, gas density and stellar density for the different Simulations. Top left: SFE of 30%, no feedback, metallicity 0.1 Z/Z⊙. Bottom left: SFE of 30%, no feedback, metallicity 0.01 Z/Z⊙. Top right: SFE of 30%, supernova feedback, metallicity 0.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial profiles of the gas mass inflow rate (M˙ in). The solid curves illustrate the accretion behavior across the four simulation models: SFE 30% (red), SFE 30% with feed￾back (blue), SFE 30% with low metallicity (orange), and SFE 100% (green). For comparison with oth…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Density projections showing the average gas den￾sity along the line of sight for all four runs for the central 500 pc region. Top left: SFE of 30%; top right: SFE of 30% and feedback; bottom left: SFE of 30% and Z= 0.01 Z⊙ and bottom right: SFE of 100% with no feedback…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial profiles of the transport rates (equation 10, top panel) and stellar mass transport rates (equation 8, bottom panel). The curves compare the transport efficiencies across the varied simulation setups: the SFE 30%, no feed￾back and 0.1 Z/Z⊙ (red), the SFE 30% mod…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Rotational velocity (vrot) as a function of radius for the different ENZO simulations. Higher SFE leads to greater rotational velocities due to a deeper central potential, while stellar feedback severely disrupts coherent rotation in the inner 50 pc. REFERENCES Akins, …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Gas metallicity (Z⊙) as a function of gas density (g cm−3 ) for the feedback run with SFE = 30%. The color bar denotes the total gas cell mass. The presence of highly metal-enriched gas at very low densities indicates the presence of feedback-driven outflows. Dekel, A…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. SPURS: Massive Stars, Dense Gas, and Ly$\alpha$ Escape in GN-z11 at $z = 10.6$

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    GN-z11's rest-UV spectrum shows young massive stars with very massive star winds, dense gas, and a broad red Ly alpha wing that may help Ly alpha escape the largely neutral early universe.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 95 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.10341, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10341

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.10341 2024

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    Arca-Sedda, M., Kamlah, A. W. H., Spurzem, R., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 5119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3952 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,...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3952 2024

  4. [4]

    Baggen, J. F. W., Scoggins, M. T., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.02702, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.02702

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.02702 2026

  5. [5]

    Baggen, J. F. W., van Dokkum, P., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf5ef

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf5ef 2023

  6. [6]

    Begelman, M. C. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 673, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15916.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15916.x 2010

  7. [7]

    C., & Silk, J

    Begelman, M. C., & Silk, J. 2023, MNRAS, 526, L94, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad124

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad124 2023

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2013, ApJ, 762, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/109 2013

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    Boekholt, T. C. N., Schleicher, D. R. G., Fellhauer, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty208

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

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

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

    2003 doi

  3. [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

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    Cen, R., & Ostriker, J. P. 1992, ApJL, 399, L113, doi: 10.1086/186620

    1992 doi

  5. [13]

    S., et al

    Ceverino, D., Klypin, A., Klimek, E. S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu956

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

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

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

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

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

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

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    L., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al

    Chworowsky, K., Finkelstein, S. L., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad57c1

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Das, A., Schleicher, D. R. G., Basu, S., & Boekholt, T. C. N. 2021a, MNRAS, 505, 2186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1428

    doi

  10. [18]

    Das, A., Schleicher, D. R. G., Leigh, N. W. C., & Boekholt, T. C. N. 2021b, MNRAS, 503, 1051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab402

    doi

  11. [19]

    DeGraf, C., Dekel, A., Gabor, J., & Bournaud, F. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 1462, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2777 15 Figure 10.Gas metallicity (Z ⊙) as a function of gas density (g cm −3) for the feedback run with SFE = 30%. The color bar denotes ...

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1557

    Li, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1557

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.07578, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.07578 D´ ıaz, V

    Dekel, A., Dutta Chowdhury, D., Lapiner, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.07578, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.07578 D´ ıaz, V. B., Schleicher, D. R. G., Latif, M. A., Grete, P., &

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, A&A, 684, A195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347783

    Banerjee, R. 2024, A&A, 684, A195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347783

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Johnson, B

    Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2025, ApJS, 281, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae1137

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2026, ApJS, 283, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3163

    2026 doi

  17. [25]

    2006, ApJL, 648, L13, doi: 10.1086/507988

    Escala, A. 2006, ApJL, 648, L13, doi: 10.1086/507988

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    2007, ApJ, 671, 1264, doi: 10.1086/523092

    Escala, A. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1264, doi: 10.1086/523092

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd93c

    Escala, A. 2021, ApJ, 908, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd93c

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    2025, ApJ, 995, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae200e

    Escala, A., Zimmermann, L., Valdebenito, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae200e

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Zitrin, A., Plat, A., et al

    Furtak, L. J., Zitrin, A., Plat, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc9d

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Gaete, B., Schleicher, D. R. G., Lupi, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A378, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450770

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Gammie, C. F. 2001, ApJ, 553, 174, doi: 10.1086/320631

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

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

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    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

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Pacucci, F., & Kocevski, D

    Guia, C. A., Pacucci, F., & Kocevski, D. D. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 207, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad7262 Haemmerl´ e, L. 2020, A&A, 644, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039828

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

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

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1315

    Haid, S., Walch, S., Seifried, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1315

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    F., & Quataert, E

    Hopkins, P. F., & Quataert, E. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1027, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18542.x 16

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 1549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1870

    Inayoshi, K., & Haiman, Z. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1870

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    Kim, J.-G., Kim, W.-T., & Ostriker, E. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe27

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    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

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al

    Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 5652, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2276

    Kroupa, P., Subr, L., Jerabkova, T., & Wang, L. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5652, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2276

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    K., Croft, R

    LaChance, P., Bhowmick, A. K., Croft, R. A. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.13957

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    LaChance, P., Croft, R. A. C., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, doi: 10.33232/001c.155493

    2026 doi

  38. [46]

    C., Kim, J.-G., & Kim, C.-G

    Lancaster, L., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, J.-G., & Kim, C.-G. 2021, ApJ, 914, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8ac

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 4515, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1263

    Lapiner, S., Dekel, A., Freundlich, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4515, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1263

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    A., & Khochfar, S

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

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    A., & Schleicher, D

    Latif, M. A., & Schleicher, D. R. G. 2015, A&A, 578, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525855

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    A., & Schleicher, D

    Latif, M. A., & Schleicher, D. R. G. 2016, A&A, 585, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527266

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    A., & Schleicher, D

    Latif, M. A., & Schleicher, D. R. G. 2023, ApJL, 952, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace34f

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Schleicher, D

    Latif, M. A., Schleicher, D. R. G., & Khochfar, S. 2023, ApJ, 945, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbcc2

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

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

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

    doi

  46. [54]

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

    doi

  47. [55]

    A., Whalen, D

    Latif, M. A., Whalen, D. J., Khochfar, S., & Cullen, F. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.28682, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.28682

    2026 doi arXiv

  48. [57]

    A., Whalen, D

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

    doi

  49. [58]

    Vergara, M. C. 2025, A&A, 694, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451672

    2025 doi

  50. [59]

    Liempi, M., Schleicher, D. R. G., Latif, M. A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.21002, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.21002

    2026 doi

  51. [60]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 3616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1120

    Lupi, A., Colpi, M., Devecchi, B., Galanti, G., & Volonteri, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1120

    2014 doi

  52. [61]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Kalnajs, A. J. 1972, MNRAS, 157, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/157.1.1

    1972 doi

  53. [62]

    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

  54. [63]

    R., Zwick, L., & Di Matteo, T

    Mayer, L., Capelo, P. R., Zwick, L., & Di Matteo, T. 2024, ApJ, 961, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11cf

    2024 doi

  55. [64]

    H., Burkhart, B., Somerville, R

    Menon, S. H., Burkhart, B., Somerville, R. S., Thompson, T. A., & Sternberg, A. 2025, ApJ, 987, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add2f9

    2025 doi

  56. [65]

    2004, MNRAS, 348, 435, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07180.x

    Nagamine, K., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 435, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07180.x

    2004 doi

  57. [66]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae32f3

    Nandal, D., & Loeb, A. 2026, ApJ, 998, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae32f3

    2026 doi

  58. [67]

    2025, ApJ, 994, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1619

    Pacucci, F., Hernquist, L., & Fujii, M. 2025, ApJ, 994, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1619

    2025 doi

  59. [68]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84f7 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pacucci, F., & Narayan, R. 2024, ApJ, 976, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84f7 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 Portegies Zwart, S. F., Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2004, Na...

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    J., & Iorio, G

    Rantala, A., Lah´ en, N., Naab, T., Escobar, G. J., & Iorio, G. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 2130, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1519

    2025 doi

  61. [70]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1413

    Rantala, A., Naab, T., & Lah´ en, N. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1413

    2024 doi

  62. [71]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.07917, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.07917

    Rantala, A., Naab, T., Lah´ en, N., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.07917, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.07917

    2026 doi

  63. [72]

    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

  64. [73]

    A., & Schleicher, D

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

    2025 doi

  65. [74]

    Reinoso, B., Schleicher, D. R. G., Fellhauer, M., Klessen, R. S., & Boekholt, T. C. N. 2018, A&A, 614, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732224

    2018 doi

  66. [75]

    P., Naab, T., Rantala, A., et al

    Rizzuto, F. P., Naab, T., Rantala, A., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 2930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad734

    2023 doi

  67. [76]

    P., et al

    Rusakov, V., Watson, D., Nikopoulos, G. P., et al. 2026, Nature, 649, 574, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09900-4 17

    2026 doi

  68. [77]

    Saavedra-Bastidas, J., Schleicher, D. R. G., Klessen, R. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A186, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450409

    2024 doi

  69. [78]

    Sakurai, Y., Yoshida, N., & Fujii, M. S. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz315

    2019 doi

  70. [79]

    2013, A&A, 558, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321949

    Latif, M. 2013, A&A, 558, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321949

    2013 doi

  71. [80]

    Schleicher, D. R. G., Reinoso, B., & Klessen, R. S. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad807

    2023 doi

  72. [81]

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

    2022 doi

  73. [82]

    H., et al

    Sneppen, A., Watson, D., Matthews, J. H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18864, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.18864

    2026 doi

  74. [83]

    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

  75. [84]

    S., Yung, L

    Somerville, R. S., Yung, L. Y. A., Lancaster, L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1824

    2025 doi

  76. [85]

    S., & Dopita, M

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

    1993 doi

  77. [86]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7922

    Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Kocsis, B. 2020, ApJ, 892, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7922

    2020 doi

  78. [87]

    J., Finkelstein, S

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

    2025 doi

  79. [88]

    C., Escala, A., Schleicher, D

    Vergara, M. C., Escala, A., Schleicher, D. R. G., & Reinoso, B. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4224, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1253

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    C., Schleicher, D

    Vergara, M. C., Schleicher, D. R. G., Escala, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449967

    2024 doi

  81. [90]

    C., Askar, A., Kamlah, A

    Vergara, M. C., Askar, A., Kamlah, A. W. H., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A321, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555307

    2025 doi

  82. [91]

    C., Askar, A., Flammini Dotti, F., et al

    Vergara, M. C., Askar, A., Flammini Dotti, F., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556878

    2026 doi

  83. [92]

    H., Turk, M

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

    2008 doi

  84. [93]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.22863, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.22863

    Yajima, H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.22863, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.22863

    2025 doi

  85. [94]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.06015, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.06015

    Yanagisawa, H., Ouchi, M., Golubchik, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.06015, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.06015

    2026 doi

  86. [95]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 2327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv740

    Zolotov, A., Dekel, A., Mandelker, N., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv740

    2015 doi

  87. [96]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.22014, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.22014

    Zwick, L., Tiede, C., & Mayer, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.22014, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.22014

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.