Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 122 references

First star clusters can form intermediate-mass black holes by redshift 19, bridging light and heavy seeds for the earliest supermassive black holes.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 01:47 UTC pith:FVLEQHZN

load-bearing objection Solid N-body grid with cosmologically weighted IMBH mass functions; the ~200 M⊙ peak is robust, the heavy-seed end is optimistic and rests on the IH25 mass-to-cluster mapping the authors themselves flag. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03536 v1 pith:FVLEQHZN submitted 2026-07-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Pebbles to Gems: Intermediate-mass black holes in the first star clusters

Benedetta Mestichelli , Manuel Arca Sedda , Marta Volonteri , Michela Mapelli , Stefano Torniamenti , Alessandro Lupi , Marica Branchesi , Shingo Hirano
show 4 more authors
Tomoaki Ishiyama Ralf S. Klessen Veronika Lipatova Boyuan Liu
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords Population III starsstar clustersintermediate-mass black holessupermassive black hole seedsstellar collisionsN-body simulationsearly Universeminihalos
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 paper asks whether the first metal-free star clusters can produce intermediate-mass black holes early enough and in large enough numbers to help explain the supermassive black holes already seen at redshift 7 and beyond. Using direct N-body simulations with cosmologically motivated cluster and minihalo masses, the authors show that by redshift about 19 the IMBH mass function peaks near 200 solar masses at comoving densities of order 0.2 to 5 per cubic megaparsec. In the densest, most massive clusters, repeated stellar collisions build very massive stars that collapse into black holes up to roughly 6200 solar masses, with densities of 10 to the minus 4 to 10 to the minus 2 per cubic megaparsec. Most of these black holes stay bound inside their clusters. A sympathetic reader cares because this channel can supply both the abundant light seeds and a non-negligible population of heavier seeds without requiring the extreme conditions of classical direct-collapse models, even if only a modest fraction of Pop. III stars form in such dense clusters.

Core claim

By redshift approximately 19, Pop. III star clusters with masses from about 10^3 to 4 times 10^5 solar masses produce an IMBH mass function that peaks at roughly 200 solar masses with number densities 0.2 to 5 per cubic megaparsec; in sufficiently dense and massive systems, IMBHs above 10^3 solar masses (reaching about 6200 solar masses via collapse of collisionally assembled very massive stars) form with densities 10^{-4} to 10^{-2} per cubic megaparsec and retention fractions of at least 88 percent, so these clusters can incubate both light and heavy supermassive-black-hole seeds.

What carries the argument

Direct N-body evolution of cosmologically weighted Pop. III clusters (King or fractal profiles, half-mass radii 0.5 or 1 pc) that couples stellar and binary evolution (two overshooting tracks, two binary-orbit distributions) with dynamical collisions and mergers, then weights each remnant by the comoving abundance of its host cluster mass.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the entire Pop. III stellar mass formed inside each minihalo starts as a single dense star cluster; if real fragmentation splits that mass into several lower-mass or less dense systems, the high-mass IMBH channel and the elevated densities largely disappear.

What would settle it

A clear observational or high-resolution simulation result showing that typical Pop. III minihalos never assemble star clusters more massive than a few thousand solar masses with half-mass densities high enough for runaway collisions would eliminate the heavy-seed end of the predicted IMBH population.

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

If this is right

  • Even a ~10 percent clustering efficiency among Pop. III stars can supply enough retained IMBHs to match the observed high-redshift supermassive black hole number density.
  • The ~200 solar-mass peak remains robust across stellar tracks and binary prescriptions, while the >10^3 solar-mass tail requires dense, massive, preferably fractal clusters.
  • Because most IMBHs stay bound, subsequent minihalo mergers and dynamical friction can deliver them efficiently to galactic centers for further growth.
  • Models that combine large stellar radii with tight primordial binaries produce the largest excess of IMBHs relative to purely isolated Pop. III evolution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If hierarchical minihalo mergers later compress or reassemble these clusters, the same collision channels could continue growing the heaviest IMBHs beyond the 6200 solar-mass ceiling found here.
  • The predicted retained IMBH population supplies a natural target for future gravitational-wave searches of intermediate-mass-ratio inspirals at high redshift.
  • A top-heavy IMF or a lower maximum stellar mass would mainly rescale the number densities while leaving the qualitative light-plus-heavy seed picture intact, as long as dense clusters still form.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses a suite of direct N-body simulations (PeTar + bseEmp) of Pop. III star clusters, initialized with cosmologically motivated cluster and minihalo masses from Hartwig et al. (2022; H22) and Ishiyama & Hirano (2025; IH25), to quantify IMBH formation by z∼19. Across stellar tracks (L/M), binary orbital distributions (S12/SB13), and dynamical setups (monolithic/fractal, rh=0.5–1 pc), the IMBH mass function peaks at m_IMBH∼200 M⊙ with cosmologically weighted number densities n_IMBH∼0.2–5 cMpc−3. In the densest, most massive IH25 clusters, repeated stellar collisions build VMSs that collapse to IMBHs up to ∼6200 M⊙, with n_IMBH∼10−4–10−2 cMpc−3 for m>10^3 M⊙ and retention ≳88%. The authors conclude that dense Pop. III clusters can incubate both light and heavy SMBH seeds even if only a fraction of Pop. III stars form in such systems.

Significance. If the results hold under more conservative multiplicity and density assumptions, the work would strengthen the case that dynamical Pop. III clusters bridge traditional light- and heavy-seed channels at z≳19, with number densities competitive with isolated Pop. III remnants and with a retained high-mass tail that is hard to obtain from direct-collapse scenarios alone. Strengths include: (i) cosmologically weighted mass functions (Fig. 3) rather than raw simulation counts; (ii) explicit isolation baselines with the same binary fraction (Fig. 5); (iii) channel decomposition (Table 2) separating SE, VMS, and BBH pathways; (iv) systematic variation of stellar tracks, binary parameters, and fractal vs monolithic structure; and (v) a clear caveats section (Sec. 4.3) on gas, rotation, GW recoils, IMF, and IH25 multiplicity. These make the light-seed peak and the relative role of dynamics falsifiable and useful for semi-analytic seeding models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1.2, 2.4, 4.3; Abstract; Sec. 5] Sec. 2.1.2, 2.4 and especially Sec. 4.3: equating the total Pop. III stellar mass per minihalo in IH25 to a single dense cluster mass is load-bearing for the heavy-seed claim (m_IMBH>10^3 M⊙ up to ∼6200 M⊙; n_IMBH∼10−4–10−2 cMpc−3) and for the abstract/conclusion statement that clusters incubate both light and heavy seeds “even if only a fraction” of Pop. III stars form there. The paper itself notes that IH25 forms one star per halo and that fragmentation (with streaming velocities) can redistribute mass into multiple lower-mass systems and reduce total stellar mass, so IH25-based M_cl are optimistic upper limits. H22 alone never produces m_IMBH≳500 M⊙ (Fig. 3; App. B.1). Please either (a) add a sensitivity suite with fragmented/lower M_cl consistent with multiplicity, or (b) demote the heavy-seed number densities and the “bridge” language in the abstract and Sec. 5 to explicitly optimis
  2. [Sec. 3.1; Fig. 3] Sec. 3.1: the cosmologically weighted n_IMBH includes IMBHs that are expelled by the end of the run, while the text states they are “unlikely to represent SMBH seeds.” Retention is later quoted as ≳88% (1–12% ejected, mostly ≲500 M⊙). For the seeding narrative, please report retained vs total number densities separately in Fig. 3 (or a companion panel/table), and ensure the abstract and Sec. 4.1–4.2 quotes used for SMBH-seed comparisons refer to the retained population only.
  3. [Sec. 2.2.1; Sec. 3.2; Fig. 4; App. B.2] Sec. 2.2.1 and Sec. 3.2: BH–star collisions assume f_c=0.5 of the stellar mass is accreted. Table 2 shows SE/VMS dominate and BBHm is ≲0.1%, and the text states ≲10% of SE/VMS IMBHs grow further via collisions with only ≲3% accreting >5 M⊙, so the peak at ∼200 M⊙ is unlikely to depend on f_c. However, the most massive objects (App. B.2; Fig. 4) can involve BH–star collisions after VMS assembly. A short sensitivity test (e.g. f_c=0 and f_c=1) for the high-mass tail in the F05/IH25 runs would show whether ∼6200 M⊙ and the n_IMBH for m>10^3 M⊙ are robust or f_c-dependent.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1; Sec. 2.1] Fig. 1 caption and Sec. 2.1: clarify that the cluster mass distribution for IH25 is the total Pop. III stellar mass per minihalo under the single-star assumption, not an independent cluster mass function, so readers do not misread the right-hand panel as observed cluster masses.
  2. [Sec. 2.3.1; Table 2] Sec. 2.3.1: the definition “VMS as a star with m_∗>300 M⊙” coincides with the IMF upper limit m_max=300 M⊙, so all VMSs are collision products. State this explicitly when introducing the VMS channel so Table 2 is unambiguous.
  3. [Fig. 5] Fig. 5: the isolation baseline (black dashed line) is very useful; please state in the caption whether it uses the same IMF, m_max, binary fraction, and L/M tracks as each panel, and whether it is per cluster mass or a continuous curve.
  4. [Appendix A; Fig. A.1] App. A: the IMF comparison uses a single realization. Note the lack of repetitions in the caption so the order-of-magnitude shifts are not over-interpreted relative to the multi-realization main suite.
  5. [Throughout; Sec. 3.3] Typographical: “V olonteri” appears with a space in several places (e.g. author list and references); unify to “Volonteri”. Also “T otal number of IMBHs” (Sec. 3.3 heading) has a spurious space.
  6. [Sec. 2.2.2] Sec. 2.2.2: simulation time is fixed at 20 Myr and stated to be ≳ half-mass relaxation time. A brief table or sentence giving t_rh for the M_cl extremes (H22 vs IH25, rh=0.5 vs 1 pc) would help readers judge whether the most massive systems are fully relaxed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: IMBH mass functions and number densities are independent outputs of new N-body runs, weighted by external semi-analytic abundances.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (IMBH mass function peaking near 200 M⊙ with n_IMBH ~0.2–5 cMpc^{-3}, and rarer >10^3 M⊙ objects up to ~6200 M⊙) are produced by a suite of direct PeTar N-body simulations that evolve cosmologically motivated initial conditions drawn from the external semi-analytic models H22 and IH25. Number densities are obtained by weighting each simulated IMBH by the host-cluster abundance n_III(M_cl) supplied by those models (explicit formula in Sec. 3.1); the IMBH yields themselves are simulation outputs, not free parameters. Stellar-evolution tracks, binary distributions, and dynamical configurations are varied as an exploration of parameter space rather than fitted to a target. Self-citations to prior dynamical work by overlapping authors exist but are not load-bearing for the mass functions or densities. The modeling choice that equates total Pop. III stellar mass per minihalo to a single cluster mass is an assumption (flagged as an upper limit in Sec. 4.3), not a circular reduction of the claimed n_IMBH to an input by construction. No equation, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled via self-citation forces the reported results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a simulation-derived population result. It inherits standard Pop. III and N-body machinery, but load-bearing free choices (cluster mass = total stellar mass, half-mass radii, f_c, IMF upper limit, isolation time) and domain assumptions (no gas, no GW recoil, fixed NFW c) control whether the high-mass seed channel exists. No new physical entity is postulated.

free parameters (8)
  • f_c (BH–star collision accretion fraction) = 0.5
    Fixed at 0.5 following Banerjee/Rizzuto/Arca Sedda practice; directly affects post-collision BH growth.
  • half-mass radius r_h = 0.5 or 1 pc
    Chosen as 0.5 and 1 pc from Marks & Kroupa local scaling; sets initial density and collision rates.
  • King central potential W0 = 5
    Fiducial W0=5 for moderately concentrated clusters; shapes initial density profile.
  • NFW concentration c = 3.5
    Constant c=3.5 for all minihalos (Correa et al.); sets external tidal field.
  • common-envelope efficiency α_CE = 1
    Set to 1 with λ_CE from Claeys et al.; controls binary tightening and mergers.
  • IMF upper mass m_max = 300 M⊙
    Fiducial 300 M⊙ (Appendix A varies 150); controls VMS and PISN-gap pathways.
  • fractal dimension D = 1.6
    D=1.6 for substructured initial conditions; enhances early local densities and collisions.
  • simulation duration = 20 Myr
    20 Myr isolation assumed consistent with minihalo isolation and longer than half-mass relaxation.
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Initial cluster mass equals total Pop. III stellar mass formed in the host minihalo at z∼20.
    Stated in Sec. 2.1/2.4; for IH25 this maps single-star masses onto clusters and is flagged as an upper-limit assumption in Sec. 4.3.
  • domain assumption Pop. III IMF is log-flat (ξ∝m⁻¹) between 0.08 and 300 M⊙ and invariant with cluster mass/environment.
    Sec. 2.3.1; Appendix A tests alternatives but fiducial results use this IMF.
  • domain assumption Host minihalos evolve in isolation for the 20 Myr simulation window with fixed NFW tides.
    Sec. 2.2.2; hierarchical mergers deferred to future work (Sec. 4.2).
  • domain assumption Core-collapse SN, natal kicks, and (P)PISN follow Fryer rapid / Belczynski / Leung moderate prescriptions in bseEmp.
    Sec. 2.3.2; sets remnant masses and the PISN gap that shapes the ~200 M⊙ peak.
  • domain assumption GW recoil kicks after compact mergers are neglected; only first-generation BBH mergers can form IMBHs.
    Sec. 2.2.1 and 4.3; justified by low escape speeds but biases retention and multi-generation growth.
  • domain assumption No residual gas, no cluster rotation, and no second-generation star formation after the first SNe.
    Sec. 4.3; authors argue low escape velocity limits gas retention but growth pathways are incomplete.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 28722 in / 3850 out tokens · 34913 ms · 2026-07-12T01:47:52.506308+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The rapid assembly of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) observed at $z\gtrsim7$ requires efficient seeding mechanisms in the early Universe. Population III (Pop. III) star clusters have recently emerged as a promising pathway that may bridge the gap between traditional light- and heavy-seed scenarios by producing intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) with masses up to $\sim10^4\,\rm M_{\odot}$. We investigate the properties and number densities of IMBHs forming in Pop. III star clusters with masses $M_{\rm cl}\sim10^3-4\times10^5\,\rm M_{\odot}$, and hosted in isolated dark matter minihalos, using a suite of direct $N$-body simulations. We adopt cosmologically motivated initial conditions and explore different stellar evolution prescriptions, binary orbital parameter distributions, and cluster dynamical configurations. By $z\sim19$, the IMBH mass function consistently peaks at $m_{\rm IMBH}\sim200\,\rm M_{\odot}$, with number densities of $n_{\rm IMBH}\sim0.2-5\,\rm cMpc^{-3}$. In sufficiently dense and massive clusters, IMBHs with masses $>10^3\,\rm M_{\odot}$ can already form by $z\sim19$, reaching number densities of $n_{\rm IMBH}\sim10^{-4}-10^{-2}\,\rm cMpc^{-3}$. The most massive IMBHs in our models reach $\sim6200\,\rm M_{\odot}$ through the collapse of very massive stars assembled by repeated stellar collisions, a process enhanced in fractal clusters. Lower-mass IMBHs form instead predominantly through single and binary stellar evolution and binary stellar mergers. We find that models combining large stellar radii and tight binaries produce the highest IMBH abundances relative to isolated Pop. III evolution. Owing to the high retention fraction of IMBHs ($\gtrsim88\%$), massive dense Pop. III star clusters can act as efficient incubators of both light and heavy SMBH seeds, even if only a fraction of Pop. III stars formed in such environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03536 by Alessandro Lupi, Benedetta Mestichelli, Boyuan Liu, Manuel Arca Sedda, Marica Branchesi, Marta Volonteri, Michela Mapelli, Ralf S. Klessen, Shingo Hirano, Stefano Torniamenti, Tomoaki Ishiyama, Veronika Lipatova.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Star formation rate density, halo mass distribution, and cluster mass distribution obtained from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Initial density at half-mass radius ρh as a function of the initial cluster mass Mcl for the two cosmological sets (H22 on the left and IH25 on the right) and for the four dynamical configurations (different markers): monolithic with rh = 0.5 pc (M05), monolithic with rh = 1 pc (M1), fractal with rh = 0.5 pc and D = 1.6 (F05), and fractal with rh = 1 pc and D = 1.6 (F1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Number density of IMBHs per logarithmic mass bin at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of mass growth tracks leading to the formation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Median of the total number of IMBHs with 90% confidence interval computed over all the repetitions of the simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.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

122 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 246

    Ryon, J. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 246

    2015

  2. [2]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 4209

    Agarwal, B., Smith, B., Glover, S., Natarajan, P., & Khochfar, S. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 4209

    2016

  3. [3]

    B., Casey, C

    Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 37

    2025

  4. [4]

    & Natarajan, P

    Alexander, T. & Natarajan, P. 2014, Science, 345, 1330

    2014

  5. [5]

    A., Wise, J

    Alvarez, M. A., Wise, J. H., & Abel, T. 2009, ApJ, 701, L133

    2009

  6. [6]

    2013, ApJ, 763, 62 Arca Sedda, M., Kamlah, A

    Antonini, F. 2013, ApJ, 763, 62 Arca Sedda, M., Kamlah, A. W. H., Spurzem, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5119 Arca Sedda, M., Kamlah, A. W. H., Spurzem, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 429

    2013

  7. [7]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 3002

    Banerjee, S. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3002

    2021

  8. [8]

    & Loeb, A

    Barkana, R. & Loeb, A. 2001, Phys. Rep., 349, 125

    2001

  9. [9]

    C., V olonteri, M., & Rees, M

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

    2006

  10. [10]

    E., Bulik, T., & O’Shaughnessy, R

    Belczynski, K., Holz, D. E., Bulik, T., & O’Shaughnessy, R. 2016, Nature, 534, 512

    2016

  11. [11]

    E., et al

    Belczynski, K., Klencki, J., Fields, C. E., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A104

    2020

  12. [12]

    2026, A&A, 708, A10

    Mastrobuono-Battisti, A. 2026, A&A, 708, A10

    2026

  13. [13]

    & Loeb, A

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

    2003

  14. [14]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 4175

    Chon, S., Omukai, K., & Schneider, R. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4175

    2021

  15. [15]

    Claeys, J. S. W., Pols, O. R., Izzard, R. G., Vink, J., & Verbunt, F. W. M. 2014, A&A, 563, A83

    2014

  16. [16]

    C., Glover, S

    Clark, P. C., Glover, S. C. O., Smith, R. J., et al. 2011, Science, 331, 1040

    2011

  17. [17]

    A., Wyithe, J

    Correa, C. A., Wyithe, J. S. B., Schaye, J., & Duffy, A. R. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1217

    2015

  18. [18]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 2891 Di Carlo, U

    Costa, G., Mapelli, M., Iorio, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2891 Di Carlo, U. N., Giacobbo, N., Mapelli, M., et al. 2019, MN- RAS, 487, 2947

    2023

  19. [19]

    R., Kulkarni, M., Visbal, E., & Hazlett, R

    Feathers, C. R., Kulkarni, M., Visbal, E., & Hazlett, R. 2024, ApJ, 962, 62

    2024

  20. [20]

    L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91

    2012

  21. [21]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 829

    Fukushima, H., Hosokawa, T., Chiaki, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 829

    2020

  22. [22]

    2006, MNRAS, 371, 484

    Giersz, M. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 484

    2006

  23. [23]

    E., Setton, D

    Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 996, 129

    2026

  24. [24]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257

    2020

  25. [25]

    H., Springel, V ., White, S

    Greif, T. H., Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 75

    2011

  26. [26]

    F., Dooley, G

    Griffen, B. F., Dooley, G. A., Ji, A. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 443

    2018

  27. [27]

    F., Ji, A

    Griffen, B. F., Ji, A. P., Dooley, G. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 10

    2016

  28. [28]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 529

    Habouzit, M., V olonteri, M., Latif, M., Dubois, Y ., & Peirani, S. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 529

    2016

  29. [29]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  30. [30]

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

    2024

  31. [31]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 45

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

    2022

  32. [32]

    Hirano, S., Hosokawa, T., Yoshida, N., Omukai, K., & Yorke, H. W. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 568

    2015

  33. [33]

    2014, ApJ, 781, 60

    Hirano, S., Hosokawa, T., Yoshida, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 60

    2014

  34. [34]

    2026, MNRAS, 548, stag634

    Hirano, S., Sakai, Y ., & Umeda, H. 2026, MNRAS, 548, stag634

    2026

  35. [35]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5737

    Hirano, S., Shen, Y ., Nishijima, S., Sakai, Y ., & Umeda, H. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5737

    2023

  36. [36]

    Hirano, S., Yoshida, N., Sakurai, Y ., & Fujii, M. S. 2018, ApJ, 855, 17

    2018

  37. [37]

    Hosokawa, T., Omukai, K., Yoshida, N., & Yorke, H. W. 2011, Science, 334, 1250

    2011

  38. [38]

    A., Pawlik, A

    Hummel, J. A., Pawlik, A. H., Milosavljevi ´c, M., & Bromm, V . 2012, ApJ, 755, 72

    2012

  39. [39]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  40. [40]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897

    2002

  41. [41]

    & Tanaka, T

    Inayoshi, K. & Tanaka, T. L. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4350

    2015

  42. [42]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

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

    2020

  43. [43]

    & Hirano, S

    Ishiyama, T. & Hirano, S. 2025, ApJ, 994, 107

    2025

  44. [44]

    A., et al

    Ishiyama, T., Prada, F., Klypin, A. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4210

    2021

  45. [45]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 9

    Ishiyama, T., Sudo, K., Yokoi, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 9

    2016

  46. [46]

    L., & Bromm, V

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

    2019

  47. [47]

    Jaura, O., Glover, S. C. O., Wollenberg, K. M. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 116

    2022

  48. [48]

    L., Dalla Vecchia, C., & Khochfar, S

    Johnson, J. L., Dalla Vecchia, C., & Khochfar, S. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1857

    2013

  49. [49]

    Kamlah, A. W. H., Spurzem, R., Berczik, P., et al. 2022, MN- RAS, 516, 3266

    2022

  50. [50]

    King, I. R. 1966, AJ, 71, 64 Kıro˘glu, F., Kremer, K., Biscoveanu, S., González Prieto, E., &

    1966

  51. [51]

    Rasio, F. A. 2025a, ApJ, 979, 237 Kıro˘glu, F., Kremer, K., & Rasio, F. A. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.05415

    arXiv

  52. [52]

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

    2023

  53. [53]

    S., Rui, N

    Kremer, K., Ye, C. S., Rui, N. Z., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 48

    2020

  54. [54]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3008

    2012

  55. [55]

    Kulkarni, M., Visbal, E., & Bryan, G. L. 2021, ApJ, 917, 40 Küpper, A. H. W., Maschberger, T., Kroupa, P., & Baumgardt, H. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2300

    2021

  56. [56]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 72

    Leung, S.-C., Nomoto, K., & Blinnikov, S. 2019, ApJ, 887, 72

    2019

  57. [57]

    & Bromm, V

    Liu, B. & Bromm, V . 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2475

    2020

  58. [58]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 290

    Liu, B., Gurian, J., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 290

    2024

  59. [59]

    F., Ma, X., et al

    Ma, L., Hopkins, P. F., Ma, X., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1973

    2021

  60. [60]

    & Rees, M

    Madau, P. & Rees, M. J. 2001, ApJ, 551, L27

    2001

  61. [61]

    2022, A- SLOTH: Semi-analytical model to connect first stars and galaxies to observables, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2209.001

    Magg, M., Hartwig, T., Chen, L.-H., & Tarumi, Y . 2022, A- SLOTH: Semi-analytical model to connect first stars and galaxies to observables, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2209.001

    2022

  62. [62]

    2024, Nature, 627, 59

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 59

    2024

  63. [63]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 3432

    Mapelli, M. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3432

    2016

  64. [64]

    2021, MN- RAS, 505, 339

    Mapelli, M., Dall’Amico, M., Bouffanais, Y ., et al. 2021, MN- RAS, 505, 339

    2021

  65. [65]

    & Kroupa, P

    Marks, M. & Kroupa, P. 2012, A&A, 543, A8

    2012

  66. [66]

    H., Regan, J

    Mehta, D. H., Regan, J. A., & Prole, L. 2026, Nature Astronomy [arXiv:2601.14395]

    arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    2024, A&A, 690, A106

    Mestichelli, B., Mapelli, M., Torniamenti, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A106

    2024

  68. [68]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.17762 Milosavljevi´c, M., Couch, S

    Branchesi, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.17762 Milosavljevi´c, M., Couch, S. M., & Bromm, V . 2009, ApJ, 696, L146 Article number, page 11 of 14 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda

    arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    & Di Stefano, R

    Moe, M. & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15

    2017

  70. [70]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 1413

    Natarajan, P. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1413

    2021

  71. [71]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563 O’Brennan, H., Regan, J. A., Brennan, J., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 88

    1996

  72. [72]

    2011, PASJ, 63, 881

    Oshino, S., Funato, Y ., & Makino, J. 2011, PASJ, 63, 881

    2011

  73. [73]

    2026, A&A, 708, A200 pandas development team, T

    Paiella, L., Arca Sedda, M., Mestichelli, B., & Ugolini, C. 2026, A&A, 708, A200 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas

    2026

  74. [74]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224

    1964

  75. [75]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 101

    Pfister, H., V olonteri, M., Dubois, Y ., Dotti, M., & Colpi, M. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 101

    2019

  76. [76]

    Phinney, E. S. 1992, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal So- ciety of London Series A, 341, 39 Planck Collaboration, Adam, R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A108 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6 Portegies Zwart, S. F., Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., &

    1992

  77. [77]

    McMillan, S. L. W. 2004, Nature, 428, 724 Portegies Zwart, S. F. & McMillan, S. L. W. 2002, ApJ, 576, 899

    2004

  78. [78]

    R., Clark, P

    Prole, L. R., Clark, P. C., Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4019

    2022

  79. [79]

    R., Regan, J

    Prole, L. R., Regan, J. A., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A31

    2024

  80. [80]

    R., Regan, J

    Prole, L. R., Regan, J. A., Mehta, D., et al. 2026, The Open Jour- nal of Astrophysics, 9, 59236

    2026

Showing first 80 references.