Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Atomic hydrogen shielding raises first-star final masses by 22 percent

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 02:26 UTC pith:5UDLG7II

load-bearing objection A credible, transparent simulation study showing HI shielding of LW raises final Pop III mass by 22% in this suite; the companion claim of a trapped HII region is a numerical injection artifact that the authors themselves concede. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2604.00197 v2 pith:5UDLG7II submitted 2026-03-31 astro-ph.GA

Radiative Feedback in Population III Protostellar Growth: HI Shielding \& HII Region Trapping

Avi Chen , Shyam H. Menon , Blakesley Burkhart , Piyush Sharda , Claire E. Williams , Smadar Naoz , Naoki Yoshida , Federico Marinacci
show 2 more authors
Mark Vogelsberger William Lake
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Population III starsLyman-Werner radiationHI shieldingprotostellar accretionHII regionprimordial star formationinitial mass functionradiation-magnetohydrodynamics
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.

This paper argues that atomic hydrogen (HI) shielding of Lyman-Werner (LW) radiation is a decisive, previously under-weighted control on the growth of Population III protostars. In radiation-magnetohydrodynamics simulations that track roughly 50,000 years of accretion, shielding by dense HI columns near the protostar—especially along the polar axis—preserves molecular hydrogen and keeps the gas cool, sustaining inflow. Without that shielding, LW radiation alone heats the gas, suppresses accretion, and terminates growth by about 55,000 years, producing a 218-solar-mass star instead of 279 solar masses (a 22% difference). The simulations also find that HII regions remain trapped within about 100 AU of the star, so EUV breakout is not the dominant mass-limiting feedback. If right, the work shifts predicted Pop III masses across remnant boundaries and sharpens predictions of the primordial initial mass function.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that atomic-hydrogen cross-shielding of Lyman-Werner photons—not just H2 self-shielding—controls how much mass a Population III protostar can accumulate. Along the polar direction the H2 column is only about 10^18 cm^-2, too low to self-shield, but HI columns of 10^26–10^27 cm^-2 broaden Lyman-series damping wings enough to absorb the dissociating photons. Preserving H2 keeps the gas near the protostar cooler, which lowers thermal pressure support and lets accretion continue. Turning off HI shielding lets LW radiation raise gas temperatures, cut the radial mass inflow, and quench accretion at about 55,000 years. The result is a 22% higher final stellar mass with

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is ray-traced HI cross-shielding of the Lyman-Werner band: the code integrates atomic and molecular hydrogen column densities along rays from each protostar and attenuates the LW flux with separable shielding factors, the HI part of which becomes fully absorbing at NHI ~ 10^26–10^27 cm^-2. This factor sets the local H2 photodissociation rate. In the polar direction, where H2 columns are only ~10^18 cm^-2, HI damping wings are what stop LW photons from dissociating the coolant; that single opacity channel lowers gas temperature, raises accretion, and produces the 22% mass gain. The same radiation-hydrodynamic treatment, together with resolved gas densities near the

Load-bearing premise

The confinement of the HII region—and with it the sustained accretion that yields 279 solar masses—assumes that injecting ionizing radiation below the sink accretion surface is physically equivalent to emission from the stellar surface; if that numerical choice is wrong, the HII region could break out and the final mass could drop.

What would settle it

Run the Fiducial setup with the EUV luminosity injected at the sink surface (radius 75 AU) rather than below it; if the HII region then expands beyond ~100 AU and accretion shuts off before ~55,000 years, the trapped-HII and 279-solar-mass claims would be artifacts of sub-sink injection. Conversely, a surface-injection run that still confines the HII region would confirm the result.

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

If this is right

  • Final masses rise from 218 to 279 solar masses when HI shielding is included, moving the predicted remnant from pair-instability supernova to direct black hole collapse.
  • LW radiation alone can end accretion by about 55,000 years if HI shielding is absent, so simulations that model only H2 self-shielding will overstate LW feedback and cap masses too early.
  • EUV-driven HII regions can remain confined within about 100 AU of the sink for tens of thousands of years even at high ionizing luminosities, because dense gas and recombination balance the ionizing flux.
  • HI shielding weakens small-scale LW feedback enough to alter the conditions assumed in direct-collapse black hole and supermassive black hole seeding scenarios.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct numerical test suggested by the authors' own caveat: injecting ionizing radiation at the sink surface rather than below it would determine whether HII confinement is physical or partly a consequence of the injection prescription; models that differ on this choice should be compared before treating the confined HII region as universal.
  • If HI columns of ~10^26–10^27 cm^-2 are generic around accreting Pop III protostars, then lower-dimensional models that only apply H2 self-shielding will systematically overestimate LW feedback and underpredict final masses; adding a fixed damping-wing opacity term could be a cheap test across a broader parameter space.
  • The LW-only fragmentation path suggests a counterintuitive corollary: removing EUV feedback can promote disk fragmentation, because the missing radiation force allows accretion shocks to heat the inner disk and inflate the disk-to-star mass ratio. EUV feedback may therefore suppress multiplicity as much by its dynamical force as by ionizing the gas.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents four radiation-MHD simulations from the POPSICLE project (Fiducial, No-Hshield, LW-Only, EUV-Only) following Population III protostellar growth for ~44–56 kyr from a 1000 Msun, 1 pc initial cloud. The central claim is that including atomic-hydrogen (HI) shielding of Lyman-Werner radiation preserves H2 near the protostar, lowers gas temperature, and increases the simulation-end stellar mass from 218 Msun (No-Hshield) to 279 Msun (Fiducial), a 22% difference. A second claim is that EUV feedback does not break out: the HII region remains confined to ~100 AU beyond the sink accretion radius even at high ionizing luminosity, and that this confinement is why LW heating can terminate accretion in the No-Hshield run. A third result is that the LW-Only run fragments because the absence of EUV radiation force permits supersonic accretion shocks that heat and destabilize the disk.

Significance. If the results are robust, the paper makes a useful quantitative step for Pop III stellar mass prediction by showing that HI cross-shielding of LW radiation is not a small correction: it changes the final mass channel (PISN vs direct collapse) in the presented simulations. The controlled four-run comparison starting from identical turbulent seeds, the explicit ray-traced column density treatment for shielding, and the internal consistency of the shielding–H2 fraction–temperature–accretion chain are clear strengths. The paper is also unusually candid about its numerical caveats. However, two load-bearing numerical choices — sub-sink EUV injection and marginal resolution of the Strömgren radius — directly affect the HII-confinement claim and hence the attribution of accretion termination to LW feedback. These must be addressed or the headline claims substantially reframed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (1)] The HII-confinement and LW-only termination claims depend on the EUV injection prescription. The Gaussian source width σ*=2Δx_min=60 AU lies inside the sink accretion radius of 75 AU, so ionizing photons are deposited below the sink surface. The paper quotes Jaura et al. (2022) showing this can trap EUV for ~20 kyr and concedes it 'may lead to enhanced local absorption near the protostar and thereby contribute to the delayed expansion and confinement of the HII region.' Because the No-Hshield run includes EUV and terminates at ~55 kyr, the conclusion that LW feedback alone shuts off accretion requires a surface-injection test or a sub-sink radiation-transfer model. Without such a test, both the trapped-HII claim and the 22% HI-shielding mass difference remain conditional.
  2. [§4.3, Eq. (8)] The Strömgren radius R_St≈55 AU is only marginally resolved at Δx=30 AU, corresponding to fewer than two cells across the front. The manuscript notes this may affect EUV coupling and that higher resolution is required to test convergence. Since the HII region's measured size (R_HII≈90 AU) and the confinement argument rely on the balance between ionization and recombination in the immediate protostellar environment, the authors should add a convergence test using, for example, the 7.5 AU run cited from Sharda et al. (2025), or explicitly restrict the confinement claim to the current resolution.
  3. [§3.1, Fig. 1] The comparison labeled 'final stellar mass' (279 vs 218 Msun) is not a comparison of final masses: the Fiducial run is stopped at t=55 kyr while its accretion rate is still stabilized and ongoing, whereas only the No-Hshield run has actually terminated accretion. The 22% is therefore a simulation-endpoint ratio. Either continue the Fiducial run until accretion terminates or explicitly state that 279 Msun is a mass at t=55 kyr and not yet a true final mass. The abstract and §4.5 currently call it final, which overstates the support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §3.3, Eq. (7)] The statement that the HII region is 'confined to ≲100 AU measured outward from the sink accretion radius' should be reconciled with the effective-radius definition in Eq. (7), which is a volume-equivalent radius and includes cells inside that radius. Clarify whether the quoted 100 AU is an effective radius or a physical extent outside 75 AU.
  2. [§4.1] Typo: 'out results' should be 'our results'. Also the comparison with prior work would benefit from explicitly listing other differences (radiation injection method, grid geometry, sink radius, resolution) in addition to HI shielding, since the discrepancy with Hosokawa et al. (2016) and Sugimura et al. (2023) is not controlled.
  3. [§2.1.1] The Wolcott-Green et al. (2011) fitting functions are validated to within a factor of ~2 for N_HI ~1e22–1e24 cm^-2, while the simulations report N_HI ~1e26–1e27 cm^-2. The paper argues the damping-wing limit makes the extrapolation safe; a sentence citing a test at these columns or explaining the asymptotic behavior would strengthen this point.
  4. [§4.4] The discussion of SIGOs and streaming velocities is interesting but not connected to the radiative-feedback results. If retained, tie it explicitly to HI shielding or EUV confinement; otherwise it reads as a tangential review paragraph.
  5. [Fig. 1] The dashed black lines in the top panel are described as 'power-law scalings for reference' but the caption does not give their slopes or normalization. Define them in the caption or remove them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: simulation outputs under specified physics; the 22% mass shift and HII confinement are not fitted predictions, though one acknowledged numerical prescription (sub-sink EUV injection) warrants attention as a robustness concern.

full rationale

The paper's central claims derive from head-to-head radiation-MHD simulations (Fiducial vs. No-Hshield vs. LW-Only vs. EUV-Only) rather than from any parameter fitted to the target quantities. The HI shielding factors are taken from Wolcott-Green et al. (2011), an independent radiative-transfer fit (Eqs. 2 and 3), and the LW photodissociation/heating rates come from standard, externally published prescriptions (Baczynski et al. 2015; Draine & Bertoldi 1996). The stellar luminosity is an external stellar-evolution model (Haemmerlé et al. 2018), not derived from the simulation's own mass growth. The Strömgren-radius check (Eq. 8) is a consistency diagnostic using simulation-measured n_H and Q_EUV to explain the measured R_HII; it is not a fitted prediction that then validates the mass evolution. The 22% mass increase and the ~55 kyr LW termination are direct outputs of the specified physics, with no step in which an output was substituted back into an input. Self-citations to Sharda & Menon (2025) and Sharda et al. (2025) establish the POPSICLE setup and method, but they are not load-bearing for the feedback conclusion; the shielding and radiation implementation are independently referenced. The paper does contain an honest limitation in Section 4.3: 'In our simulations, ionizing radiation is injected below the sink surface, which may lead to enhanced local absorption near the protostar and thereby contribute to the delayed expansion and confinement of the HII region.' This is a numerical-physics caveat about whether the HII confinement result is robust to the radiation injection prescription, not a circular derivation. It could affect the strength of the HII-confinement claim, but no equation or fitted parameter is being recycled as a prediction. Accordingly, the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claims rest on the adopted simulation physics rather than on fitted data. Key hand-chosen inputs are the initial turbulent, rotational, and magnetic conditions; the sink/radiation injection radius; and the numerical resolution. The shielding results depend on the Wolcott-Green et al. fitting functions, used beyond their calibrated column range. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial turbulent velocity dispersion = 1.8 km/s (Mach 1)
    Chosen to represent transonic turbulence in minihalos; affects disk structure, HII confinement, and fragmentation (§2.2).
  • Initial magnetic field amplitude/power spectrum = 28.4 µG, P_mag ∝ k^1.5
    Chosen to emulate dynamo-saturated field at 10% of turbulent kinetic energy; directly affects the claimed magnetic contribution to HII confinement (§2.2, §3.3).
  • Initial rotational energy fraction = 3% of gravitational energy (Ω ~ 2e-14 rad/s)
    Sets disk formation and geometry, which determines polar column densities central to the HI shielding result (§2.2).
  • Sink accretion radius / radiation injection scale = 2.5 Δx_min = 75 AU; σ_* = 2 Δx_min = 60 AU
    Radiation is injected below this radius; the paper itself notes this may enhance HII confinement (§4.3), so this hand-chosen parameter directly affects a headline result.
  • Doppler parameter b_5 in H2 self-shielding = 1
    Set to 1 in Equation 2; authors argue weak sensitivity (~3-6%) at the relevant N_H2, but it is still a hand-set parameter.
  • Maximum AMR resolution and density cap = Δx = 30 AU; n_max ~ 5e12 cm^-3; 64 cells/Jeans length
    Numerical resolution choices; the Strömgren radius is only marginally resolved and higher resolution (7.5 AU) changes the Fiducial outcome to fragmentation (Sharda et al. 2025), as noted in §4.3.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Wolcott-Green et al. (2011) HI cross-shielding fitting function (Eq. 3) remains valid at N_HI ~1e26-27 cm^-2
    Invoked in §2.1.1 and used for the central HI-shielding result; the paper argues the asymptotic optically-thick limit makes extrapolation robust, but this is beyond the calibrated range (1e22-1e24 cm^-2).
  • domain assumption The primordial thermochemistry network (KROME) and its coupling to radiation (VETTAM) are complete and accurate
    Full description is deferred to a forthcoming paper (Menon et al. 2026 in preparation), so the accuracy is assumed (§2.1).
  • domain assumption Stellar luminosity given by the modified 1D GENEVA model (Haemmerlé et al. 2018) accurately represents Pop III protostars as a function of mass and accretion rate
    Used in §2.1 to set L_∗ in each radiation band; the result depends on this luminosity prescription.
  • domain assumption The chosen initial conditions (1000 Msun, 1 pc, T=265 K, Mach 1 turbulence, 3% rotation, 28.4 µG field) are representative of pre-collapse minihalo centers at z~30
    Stated in §2.2; the quantitative results (final masses, fragmentation) are conditional on these initial conditions being typical.
  • domain assumption Omitting accretion luminosity does not alter the relative differences between runs
    The paper cites Smith et al. (2011) in §2.1 and argues the omission is uniform across runs, but this is an unverified modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Truelove criterion with 64 cells per Jeans length is sufficient to resolve shock heating and small-scale dynamo amplification
    Invoked in §2.1; resolution adequacy is asserted via Sharda et al. (2021, Appendix A), but not tested here.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25661 in / 17663 out tokens · 162255 ms · 2026-08-03T02:26:02.752703+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a suite of radiation-magnetohydrodynamics simulations from the Popsicle project that follow the long-term growth ($\sim 50$ kyr) of primordial protostars while self-consistently coupling radiation, turbulence, and magnetic fields. The simulation suite is designed to quantify the relative impacts of the pathways of radiative feedback in Pop III stars -- the extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) ionization and Lyman-Werner (LW) dissociation -- by considering simulations with/without their inclusion. We find that without HI shielding, LW feedback can suppress and ultimately terminate accretion. With HI shielding, the large column densities near the protostar significantly weaken LW feedback. In the polar direction, atomic hydrogen fully shields LW radiation where H$_2$ self-shielding alone is insufficient. This leads to lower gas temperatures near the protostar and higher accretion rates, yielding larger final stellar masses than in models without shielding. The HII region remain confined, extending $\sim$100 AU beyond the sink accretion radius (75 AU), as dense gravitationally bound gas sustains high recombination rates and prevents sustained pressure-driven breakout. Turbulence and magnetic fields may also contribute to its confinement, even at high ionizing luminosities. These results demonstrate that the interplay of gas dynamics, shielding, and radiative feedback can significantly alter the growth of Pop III stars. We discuss the implications for the initial mass function of primordial stars and the influence of feedback from early stellar populations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.00197 by Avi Chen, Blakesley Burkhart, Claire E. Williams, Federico Marinacci, Mark Vogelsberger, Naoki Yoshida, Piyush Sharda, Shyam H. Menon, Smadar Naoz, William Lake.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top panel: Total stellar mass (left axis) and star for￾mation efficiency, ϵ⋆ (right axis), as a function of time since the formation of the first protostar for all four runs. In the run without atomic hydrogen shielding (No-Hshield; yellow curve), the stellar mass is suppressed relative to the Fiducial run (blue curve), which includes H I shielding. In the LW-Only run (pink curve), stellar mass grows slows… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Slice plots of gas number density at four evolutionary stages in the Fiducial run. Each row shows a pair of orthogonal slices through the simulation volume, with the left panel taken per￾pendicular to the xˆ direction and the right panel taken perpendicular to the zˆ direction. The top row shows the dense, oblate structure that forms at the center of the collapsing gas cloud immediately prior to protostar … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Column densities of atomic hydrogen, NH I (top panel), and molecular hydrogen, NH2 (bottom panel), measured from the protostar along the positive x (blue), y (green), and z (red) direc￾tions for the Fiducial run (solid lines) and No-Hshield (dashed lines) at t ≃ 6 kyr and M ≃ 100 M⊙, corresponding to the same snapshot as the third row of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spherically averaged radial profiles for the Fiducial (blue lines) and No-Hshield (yellow lines) runs, centered on the protostar at t ≃ 6 kyr and M⋆ ≃ 100 M⊙, corresponding to the same snap￾shot as the third row of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the H II region in the Fiducial run. Left panel: The size of the H II region, RH II (right axis), shown together with the ionizing photon emission rate, QEUV (left axis), as a function of time. Right panel: The H II region size, RH II (left axis), shown together with the median gas number density, nH (right axis), measured within a cylindrical region centered on the sink particle, with a base … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Multiphase structure of the gas in the Fiducial run at three evolutionary stages (t = 25, 41, and 55 kyr; left to right). Top row: mass fraction of ionized hydrogen, xH+ (left half of each panel), and gas number density (right half). Bottom row: plasma beta, β (left half), and gas temperature (right half). All panels show slices centered on the protostar and taken perpendicular to the simulation xˆ-axis; t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time-averaged radial Mach number profile of infalling gas for the Fiducial and LW-Only runs computed in spherical shells centered on the protostar and averaged over all simulation outputs up to t = 8 kyr. Solid lines show the mean mass-weighted radial Mach number at each radius, while the shaded regions indicate the temporal standard deviation across snapshots. The LW-Only run exhibits persistently superso… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the enclosed mass and gas temperature surrounding the protostar during the first 8 kyr after formation, prior to fragmen￾tation in the LW-Only run. The left and right panels show the LW-Only and Fiducial runs, respectively. Each curve shows the total enclosed mass (stellar mass plus gas mass) within spherical radii of 200, 400, 600, and 1000 AU from the protostar, while the curve color encodes… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Projection map of the minimum Toomre Q parameter in the disk for the LW-Only run (left) at the snapshot immediately preceding fragmentation and for the Fiducial run (right) at the snap￾shot closest to this same time. White circles mark the locations of existing sink particles, while the black circle in the LW-Only panel indicates the location of the sink particle that forms in the subse￾quent snapshot. te… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Lyman-alpha Radiation Pressure in Dense Star Clusters: Implications for Star Formation and Winds at Cosmic Dawn

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Lyα radiation pressure mildly reduces gas-to-star conversion efficiency in dense high-redshift clusters while dominating the launch of rapid outflows.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    L., & Norman, M

    Abel, T., Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 2000, ApJ, 540, 39, doi: 10.1086/309295 —. 2002, Science, 295, 93, doi: 10.1126/science.295.5552.93

    doi:10.1086/309295 2000

  2. [2]

    Ardern-Arentsen, A., Monari, G., Queiroz, A. B. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1049

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1049 2024

  3. [3]

    Baczynski, C., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 380, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1906

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1906 2015

  4. [4]

    S., & Larson, R

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

    doi:10.1086/323947 2002

  5. [5]

    Burgers, J. M. 1948, in Advances in Applied Mechanics, ed. R. von Mises & T. von K´arm´an, V ol. 1 (Elsevier), 171–199, doi: 10.1016/S0065-2156(08)70100-5

    doi:10.1016/s0065-2156(08)70100-5 1948

  6. [6]

    E., et al

    Chen, A., Lake, W., Williams, C. E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae11a8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae11a8 2025

  7. [7]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 2845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad689

    Chiaki, G., Chon, S., Omukai, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad689

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad689 2023

  8. [8]

    S., Naoz, S., Burkhart, B., Marinacci, F., & V ogelsberger, M

    Chiou, Y . S., Naoz, S., Burkhart, B., Marinacci, F., & V ogelsberger, M. 2021, ApJ, 906, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc88f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc88f 2021

  9. [9]

    S., Naoz, S., Marinacci, F., & V ogelsberger, M

    Chiou, Y . S., Naoz, S., Marinacci, F., & V ogelsberger, M. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3108, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2480

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2480 2018

  10. [10]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 2453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1027

    Chon, S., Hosokawa, T., Omukai, K., & Schneider, R. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1027

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1027 2024

  11. [11]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf598 2025

  12. [12]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 2036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1007

    Dijkstra, M., Ferrara, A., & Mesinger, A. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1007

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1007 2014

  13. [13]

    T., & Bertoldi, F

    Draine, B. T., & Bertoldi, F. 1996, ApJ, 468, 269, doi: 10.1086/177689

    doi:10.1086/177689 1996

  14. [14]

    B., & Fisher, R

    Dubey, A., Reid, L. B., & Fisher, R. 2008, Physica Scripta, 2008, 014046, doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/2008/T132/014046

    doi:10.1088/0031-8949/2008/t132/014046 2008

  15. [15]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac7c2 16

    Dunn, G., Bellovary, J., Holley-Bockelmann, K., Christensen, C., & Quinn, T. 2018, ApJ, 861, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac7c2 16

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac7c2 2018

  16. [16]

    Dutta, J., Sur, S., Stacy, A., & Bagla, J. S. 2020, ApJ, 901, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abadf8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abadf8 2020

  17. [17]

    2008, Ap&SS, 316, 43, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9511-y

    Eggenberger, P., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., et al. 2008, Ap&SS, 316, 43, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9511-y

    doi:10.1007/s10509-007-9511-y 2008

  18. [18]

    2016, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, V ol

    Federrath, C. 2016, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 719, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012002, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/719/1/012002

    doi:10.1088/1742-6596/719/1/012002 2016

  19. [19]

    C., & Klessen, R

    Federrath, C., Banerjee, R., Clark, P. C., & Klessen, R. S. 2010a, ApJ, 713, 269, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/269

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/713/1/269

  20. [20]

    C., & Klessen, R

    Federrath, C., Banerjee, R., Seifried, D., Clark, P. C., & Klessen, R. S. 2011, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 270, Computational Star Formation, ed. J. Alves, B. G. Elmegreen, J. M. Girart, & V . Trimble, 425–428, doi: 10.1017/S1743921311000755

    doi:10.1017/s1743921311000755 2011

  21. [21]

    S., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low, M.-M

    Federrath, C., Roman-Duval, J., Klessen, R. S., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2010b, A&A, 512, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912437

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912437

  22. [22]

    S., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low, M.-M

    Federrath, C., Roman-Duval, J., Klessen, R. S., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2022, TG: Turbulence Generator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:2204.001

    2022

  23. [23]

    Federrath, C., Schober, J., Bovino, S., & Schleicher, D. R. G. 2014, ApJL, 797, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L19

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/l19 2014

  24. [26]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 4484, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2272

    Geen, S., Hennebelle, P., Tremblin, P., & Rosdahl, J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 4484, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2272

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2272 2015

  25. [27]

    Glover, S. C. O. 2017, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 88, 682

    2017

  26. [28]

    Grassi, T., Bovino, S., Schleicher, D. R. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2386, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu114

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu114 2014

  27. [30]

    A., & Loeb, A

    Haiman, Z., Thoul, A. A., & Loeb, A. 1996, ApJ, 464, 523, doi: 10.1086/177343

    doi:10.1086/177343 1996

  28. [31]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  29. [32]

    L., Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    doi:10.1086/375341 2003

  30. [33]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 532, doi: 10.1086/338487 —. 2010, ApJ, 724, 341, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/341

    doi:10.1086/338487 2002

  31. [34]

    2025, Formation of first star clusters under the supersonic gas flow – II

    Hirano, S. 2025, Formation of first star clusters under the supersonic gas flow – II. Critical halo mass and core mass function. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17491

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [35]

    Hirano, S., Hosokawa, T., Yoshida, N., Omukai, K., & Yorke, H. W. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv044

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv044 2015

  33. [36]

    2014, ApJ, 781, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/60

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

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

  34. [37]

    Hollenbach, D., & McKee, C. F. 1979, ApJS, 41, 555, doi: 10.1086/190631

    doi:10.1086/190631 1979

  35. [38]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 119, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/119

    Hosokawa, T., Hirano, S., Kuiper, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, 119, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/119

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/2/119 2016

  36. [39]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  37. [40]

    Jaura, O., Glover, S. C. O., Wollenberg, K. M. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac487

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac487 2022

  38. [41]

    2025, ApJ, 995, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae10b9

    Jiang, R., Li, H., Zhao, G., Xing, Q., & Xin, W. 2025, ApJ, 995, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae10b9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae10b9 2025

  39. [42]

    L., Whalen, D

    Johnson, J. L., Whalen, D. J., Even, W., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/107

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/107 2013

  40. [43]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe866

    Kimura, K., Hosokawa, T., & Sugimura, K. 2021, ApJ, 911, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe866

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe866 2021

  41. [44]

    2004, ApJ, 613, 631, doi: 10.1086/423313

    Kitayama, T., Yoshida, N., Susa, H., & Umemura, M. 2004, ApJ, 613, 631, doi: 10.1086/423313

    doi:10.1086/423313 2004

  42. [45]

    Kolmogorov, A. N. 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 32, 16

    1941

  43. [46]

    Komiya, Y ., Suda, T., & Fujimoto, M. Y . 2016, ApJ, 820, 59, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/59

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/59 2016

  44. [47]

    M., Matzner, C

    Kratter, K. M., Matzner, C. D., Krumholz, M. R., & Klein, R. I. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1585, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1585

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/2/1585 2010

  45. [48]

    R., Stone, J

    Krumholz, M. R., Stone, J. M., & Gardiner, T. A. 2007, ApJ, 671, 518, doi: 10.1086/522665

    doi:10.1086/522665 2007

  46. [49]

    2023, ApJL, 956, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfa9b

    Lake, W., Naoz, S., Marinacci, F., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfa9b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acfa9b 2023

  47. [50]

    The Stellar Initial Mass Function of Early Dark Matter-free Gas Objects

    Lake, W., Grudi´c, M. Y ., Naoz, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02868, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02868

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.02868 2024

  48. [51]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 2839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2143

    Liu, B., & Bromm, V . 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2143

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2143 2020

  49. [52]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 5247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2057

    Liu, B., Sibony, Y ., Meynet, G., & Bromm, V . 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2057

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2057 2021

  50. [53]

    2000, Computer Physics Communications, 126, 330, doi: 10.1016/S0010-4655(99)00501-9

    Packer, C. 2000, Computer Physics Communications, 126, 330, doi: 10.1016/S0010-4655(99)00501-9

    doi:10.1016/s0010-4655(99)00501-9 2000

  51. [54]

    F., & Tan, J

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

    doi:10.1086/587434 2008

  52. [55]

    H., Federrath, C., Krumholz, M

    Menon, S. H., Federrath, C., Krumholz, M. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac485

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac485 2022

  53. [56]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11846, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11846

    Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y ., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.11846, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.11846

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.11846 2025

  54. [57]

    2014, ApJL, 791, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/791/1/L8

    Naoz, S., & Narayan, R. 2014, ApJL, 791, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/791/1/L8

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/791/1/l8 2014

  55. [58]

    Naoz, S., Yoshida, N., & Gnedin, N. Y . 2013, ApJ, 763, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/27

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/1/27 2013

  56. [59]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.09532, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.09532

    Neyer, M., & Wolcott-Green, J. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.09532, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.09532

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.09532 2022

  57. [60]

    S., Da Costa, G

    Nordlander, T., Bessell, M. S., Da Costa, G. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, L109, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz109 17

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz109 2019

  58. [61]

    2010, ApJ, 722, 1793, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1793

    Omukai, K., Hosokawa, T., & Yoshida, N. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1793, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1793

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/2/1793 2010

  59. [63]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 508, 141, doi: 10.1086/306395

    Omukai, K., & Nishi, R. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 508, 141, doi: 10.1086/306395

    doi:10.1086/306395 1998

  60. [64]

    2005, ApJ, 626, 627, doi: 10.1086/429955 O’Shea, B

    Omukai, K., Tsuribe, T., Schneider, R., & Ferrara, A. 2005, ApJ, 626, 627, doi: 10.1086/429955 O’Shea, B. W., & Norman, M. L. 2008, ApJ, 673, 14, doi: 10.1086/524006

    doi:10.1086/429955 2005

  61. [65]

    E., & Stahler, S

    Palla, F., Salpeter, E. E., & Stahler, S. W. 1983, ApJ, 271, 632, doi: 10.1086/161231

    work page doi:10.1086/161231 1983

  62. [66]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 6176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2999 —

    Park, J., Ricotti, M., & Sugimura, K. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 6176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2999 —. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5334, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad895

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2999 2021

  63. [67]

    S., & Mac Low, M.-M

    Peters, T., Banerjee, R., Klessen, R. S., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2011, ApJ, 729, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/72

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/1/72 2011

  64. [68]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 1625, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1045

    Popa, C., Naoz, S., Marinacci, F., & V ogelsberger, M. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1625, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1045

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1045 2016

  65. [69]

    R., Clark, P

    Prole, L. R., Clark, P. C., Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4019, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3697

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3697 2022

  66. [70]

    A., Johansson, P

    Regan, J. A., Johansson, P. H., & Wise, J. H. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3377, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw899

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw899 2016

  67. [71]

    2004, MNRAS, 348, 1019, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07422.x

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

    arXiv 2004

  68. [72]

    2002, MNRAS, 334, 401, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05516.x

    Ripamonti, E., Haardt, F., Ferrara, A., & Colpi, M. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 401, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05516.x

    arXiv 2002

  69. [73]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 3658, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts653

    Rydberg, C.-E., Zackrisson, E., Lundqvist, P., & Scott, P. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3658, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts653

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts653 2013

  70. [74]

    R., Bromm, V ., & El Eid, M

    Saad, C. R., Bromm, V ., & El Eid, M. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3130, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2479

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2479 2022

  71. [75]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 823, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae051

    Tomida, K. 2024, PASJ, 76, 823, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae051

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psae051 2024

  72. [76]

    Schauer, A. T. P., Glover, S. C. O., Klessen, R. S., & Ceverino, D. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3510, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz013

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz013 2019

  73. [77]

    Schauer, A. T. P., Whalen, D. J., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2117

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2117 2015

  74. [78]

    Schauer, A. T. P., Agarwal, B., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2288, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx264

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx264 2017

  75. [79]

    Sharda, P., Federrath, C., & Krumholz, M. R. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1926

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1926 2020

  76. [80]

    R., & Schleicher, D

    Sharda, P., Federrath, C., Krumholz, M. R., & Schleicher, D. R. G. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2014, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab531

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab531 2021

  77. [81]

    Sharda, P., & Menon, S. H. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf803

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf803 2025

  78. [82]

    H., Gerasimov, R., et al

    Sharda, P., Menon, S. H., Gerasimov, R., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 541, L1–L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf043 Sk´ulad´ottir, ´A., Koutsouridou, I., Vanni, I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 968, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4b1a

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf043 2025

  79. [83]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 1410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2587

    Bromm, V . 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2587

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2587 2016

  80. [85]

    1978, Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium (Wiley), doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    Spitzer, L. 1978, Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium (Wiley), doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    doi:10.1002/9783527617722 1978

Showing first 80 references.