Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Very massive stars at low metallicity: evolution, synthetic spectroscopy, and impact on the integrated light of starbursts

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that very massive stars at low metallicity retain a distinctive He II 1640 emission line in the integrated light of starbursts down to 0.1 solar metallicity, and that adding them hardens the ionizing spectrum below about…

desk verdict The paper convincingly shows HeII 1640 from VMS is a plausible low-metallicity tracer, but the 'survives down to 0.1 Zsun whatever the SFH' claim is bracketed by two mass-loss recipes that may not cover the real metallicity behavior. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02993 v1 pith:HNQECALI submitted 2025-05-05 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

F. Martins (1) , A. Palacios (1) , D. Schaerer (2) , R. Marques-Chaves (2) ((1) LUPM , CNRS & University of Montpellier , (2) University of Geneva) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords verymassivestarsmasslossstellarevolutionsyntheticspectrapopulationsynthesisHeII1640emissionstarburstslowmetallicity
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

Very massive stars (VMS, stars with initial masses above roughly 100 solar masses) are securely known only in the Milky Way and the Large Magellanic Cloud, and nothing is empirically known about their winds at lower metallicity. This paper predicts their evolution and spectra at 0.2, 0.1 and 0.01 solar metallicity under two bracketing assumptions for wind mass loss: no metallicity dependence, or a linear scaling with metallicity. The central finding is that the helium line He II 1640 stays in emission through most of a VMS lifetime and survives in the integrated light of population synthesis models at least down to 0.1 solar metallicity under either wind assumption, making it a usable signature of very massive stars in unresolved low-metallicity starbursts. Adding VMS to the models also raises the number of ionizing photons below about 45 eV and increases the ionizing photon efficiency, which eases the difficulty standard models have in reaching the high efficiencies measured in some star-forming galaxies. The paper is explicit that the available ultraviolet spectra do not yet identify which wind scaling is correct.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-branch wind mass-loss recipe anchored on the empirical VMS calibration of Gräfener (2021): an optically thin branch and an optically thick branch, with the thick branch scaled by $(Z/Z_{\rm LMC})^x$ for $x=0$ or $x=1$. Stellar evolution tracks for initial masses 150, 200, 250 and 300 $M_\odot$ at $Z=0.2,0.1,0.01\,Z_\odot$ are computed with these recipes, and CMFGEN non-local thermodynamic equilibrium atmosphere models are made at selected ages using the predicted surface abundances, so the synthetic spectra and the population synthesis built from them are internally consistent. The argument-carrying observable is the He II 1640 emission line, formed in the dense winds of hot, helium-enriched VMS; its strength and profile track the stellar temperature, wind density, and surface composition across the model grid.

What would settle it

Observe a very young (≲1 Myr) massive cluster at Z ≈ 0.01 solar metallicity, for example a lensed low-metallicity star-forming galaxy that can be resolved into a compact cluster, and measure whether He II 1640 appears in emission in its integrated UV spectrum. A strong detection would rule out a linear or steeper metallicity scaling of VMS winds, because in those models the stars are too cool and their winds too weak to produce the line; a clean upper limit would rule out metallicity-independent winds, because those models keep the line strong at all ages.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the fate of a 150 to 300 solar mass star at low metallicity is decided by the wind mass-loss recipe. If VMS winds do not weaken with metallicity, the stars keep losing mass, stay near the zero-age main sequence for about 2.5 million years, and then evolve blueward; they remain hot, and their synthetic spectra show strong He II 1640 emission throughout. If the mass-loss rates scale linearly with metallicity, the weaker winds allow a helium II opacity bump to appear below the surface, the star inflates, and the track moves toward the red part of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram; He II 1640 weakens and can disappear at 0.01 solar metallicity. In population synthesis, He II 1640 emission is present in integrated light at 0.2 and 0.1 solar metallicity for both burst and constant star formation histories, and also appears at 0.01 solar metallicity when winds are metallicity-independent. Adding VMS raises the number of ionizing photons below about 45 eV and boosts the ionizing photon efficiency, while the flux above 45 eV depends on age, metallicity, star formation history, and the shortest final phases of VMS evolution. The models reproduce the ultraviolet spectra of the low-metallicity starbursts II Zw 40-A, MrK71-A and SB 126 qualitatively and sometimes quantitatively, but the authors conclude that no clear choice between the two mass-loss frameworks emerges.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two adopted wind prescriptions bracket the true mass-loss behaviour of very massive stars below Large Magellanic Cloud metallicity, with the optically thin/thick wind transition left unchanged from the LMC calibration; no empirical constraint exists in that regime, and if the real metallicity dependence differs from zero or linear scaling, the evolutionary paths, the redward evolution, and the visibility of He II 1640 at 0.01 solar metallicity would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • He II 1640 emission in an unresolved young starburst becomes a usable VMS tracer at metallicities down to at least 0.1 solar, for both burst and constant star formation histories; no resolved spectroscopy of individual stars is needed.
  • At 0.01 solar metallicity, only the metallicity-independent wind family keeps the line strong, so a detection there would indicate that VMS winds scale with metallicity more weakly than linearly.
  • Including VMS raises the number of ionizing photons below about 45 eV and raises the ionizing photon efficiency $\xi_{\rm ion}$, so high efficiencies measured in starburst galaxies no longer require a top-heavy initial mass function.
  • The optical Wolf-Rayet bumps discriminate populations: the blue bump shows He II 4686 without N III 4634-42, and the red bump is a narrow C IV 5802-12 doublet, when VMS dominate instead of classical Wolf-Rayet stars.
  • The short final hot phases of VMS barely affect the ultraviolet and optical integrated spectra, but they can raise $Q({\rm He\,II})/Q({\rm H\,I})$ to a few times $10^{-3}$, enough for nebular He II 4686 at roughly one percent of H$\beta$, yet not enough to explain the strongest observed He II emitters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the true metallicity scaling is shallower than linear but not zero, VMS at 0.01 solar metallicity should show weak but detectable He II 1640 only at the youngest ages; stacking ultraviolet spectra of many low-metallicity star-forming regions could reveal this population-average line even where individual clusters are too faint.
  • The two wind scenarios predict different surface nitrogen enhancement and different amounts of nitrogen ejected into the surroundings, so the nitrogen abundances of young low-metallicity systems, including the high-redshift N-emitters, may discriminate between them even when ultraviolet line ratios cannot.
  • The models imply that the profile of He II 1640 becomes more purely emissive, with less P-Cygni absorption, as metallicity drops; equivalent-width thresholds for VMS selection should therefore be metallicity-dependent rather than fixed.
  • The predictions above 45 eV rest on only a few sampled points in the final phases of VMS evolution, so the claimed nebular He II 4686 contribution is the least secure element of the hard-UV part of the model grid; a finer time sampling of the last 0.2 Myr would settle it.
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, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. Martins et al. compute evolutionary tracks for very massive stars (VMS) of 150-300 Msun at Z=0.2, 0.1 and 0.01 Zsun with the STAREVOL code, using two ad hoc metallicity scalings for optically thick VMS winds (no Z dependence, x=0, and linear Z dependence, x=1, in Eq. 2). They then compute CMFGEN non-LTE atmosphere models at selected ages along the tracks and include the resulting spectra in BPASS-based population synthesis models. The paper finds that VMS with Z-independent mass loss remain hot and near the ZAMS throughout their evolution, whereas VMS with linearly scaled mass loss evolve redward. VMS show HeII 1640 emission in most individual phases except when they become too cool, and this feature appears in integrated light down to 0.1 Zsun under most of the investigated configurations, though it is weaker or absent in the scaled mass-loss case at late ages. The models are compared to HST UV spectra of II Zw 40-A, MrK71-A and SB126, yielding qualitative and sometimes quantitative matches without clearly favouring either mass-loss prescription.

Significance. The paper provides a consistent and useful extension of VMS evolution, atmosphere and population-synthesis modelling to sub-LMC metallicities. Its central predictions, especially the behaviour of HeII 1640 and the increase in ionizing photons below about 45 eV when VMS are included, are falsifiable and can be confronted with existing and future UV spectroscopy of low-metallicity starbursts. A clear strength is the comparison with independent HST observations of three star-forming regions rather than a fit to the data used to calibrate the models. The authors are also transparent about the exploratory nature of the mass-loss assumptions and about the fact that their data cannot identify the preferred framework. The synthetic spectra are made publicly available on the POLLUX database, which aids reproducibility.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sect. 2.1, Eq. (2); Sect. 5.3] The Abstract's claim that HeII 1640 is present in integrated light down to 0.1 Zsun 'whatever the star formation history' is not established for both adopted mass-loss prescriptions simultaneously. In the models with Z-scaled VMS mass loss, Sect. 4.2 states that HeII 1640 disappears at 2.5 Myr, and Sect. 4.3 reports that scaled-mass-loss burst models have almost no EW(HeII 1640) below Z=0.2 Zsun. The conclusion should be rephrased to make explicit which mass-loss framework, age range and detection criterion support the 'presence' claim, or the analysis should be repeated with a quantitative line-detection threshold rather than visual inspection.
  2. [Sect. 2.1, Eq. (2); Sect. 5.3] The two adopted wind prescriptions do not bracket the scenario in which the optically thin/thick wind transition itself shifts to higher luminosity at lower metallicity, as predicted by Sabhahit et al. (2023) and acknowledged by the authors in Sect. 5.3. If the transition moves in that direction, optically thick winds can be suppressed over much of the main sequence even for a linear Mdot(Z) scaling, leading to an earlier redward evolution than in the x=1 tracks. Because the HeII 1640 visibility of the integrated x=1 models already relies on the hottest early phases (the EW drops to near zero at ages near 2.5 Myr in Fig. 7, and to small values in CSF models after roughly 3 Myr), this unbracketed scenario could remove the feature at 0.1 Zsun. Including a third set of models with a metallicity-dependent thin/thick transition, or explicitly limiting the headline claim to the x=0 and x=1 frameworks, is necessary for the stated generality.
  3. [Sect. 4.3; Fig. 8] The paper uses the wording 'a weak emission is detected' for models where EW(HeII 1640) is close to zero after absorption lines over the 1625-1655 A window compensate the emission. This makes the central 'presence' claim difficult to evaluate quantitatively. I recommend defining a detection threshold based on line flux or on an EW significance criterion, so that statements such as 'present' or 'vanishes' are unambiguous across the different models and ages.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 20 caption] The caption gives 'Z=0.001 Zsun' for the orange lines, while the main text and Fig. 20 description refer to Z=0.01 Zsun; this appears to be a typo.
  2. [Table A.6] In the Z=0.01 Zsun scaled-mass-loss table, the 150 Msun model row at 2.50 Myr appears to have a malformed hydrogen abundance entry; the H and He columns should be checked.
  3. [Sect. 4.1] For ages 0 and 0.5 Myr the BPASS 1 Myr model is used for the normal-star population; this approximation is acknowledged in Sect. 4.6.2 for MrK71-A, but its systematic effect on the youngest burst comparisons in Figs. 15 and 16 is not quantified.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'whatever the star formation history' is stronger than what is computed; the authors consider one burst and one constant star-formation history built from discrete age bins, so a formulation such as 'for both the burst and constant star-formation histories considered here' would be more precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HeII 1640 prediction is a forward-model output from evolutionary, atmosphere, and population-synthesis calculations, tested against external UV spectra rather than refit from them.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Stellar evolution models are computed with STAREVOL under two explicitly stated mass-loss frameworks (Sect. 2.1, Eqs. 1-2), with the Gräfener (2021) LMC calibration as the anchor and x=0 or x=1 for the metallicity scaling. These inputs determine the surface parameters along the tracks. CMFGEN atmosphere models then compute synthetic spectra from those parameters; HeII 1640 emission is an emergent radiative-transfer result, not a quantity fed into the evolution or into the mass-loss recipe. Population synthesis spectra are built by combining the VMS spectra with BPASS models (Sect. 4.1), and EW(HeII 1640) is measured from the resulting integrated spectra (Sect. 4.3). The paper does not fit HeII 1640 to the observed starbursts; it compares fixed model grids to II Zw 40-A, MrK71-A, and SB 126 (Sect. 4.6) and reports qualitative or partial quantitative agreement. The sample is admittedly selected on the presence of HeII 1640 in emission, which limits the strength of the observational test, but that selection does not make the model prediction circular. The paper explicitly states its central limitation: 'In absence of empirical constraint, we adopt two frameworks for the mass loss rates of VMS' and 'we are not able to clearly identify which mass loss framework is favoured.' This is an acknowledged uncertainty in the mass-loss prescription, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Self-citations to Martins & Palacios (2022) supply the methodology and earlier LMC results, but the low-metallicity tracks, spectra, and population-synthesis predictions are newly computed here and are not justified by citing the earlier paper as the evidence for the low-Z conclusion. The robustness concern raised by the skeptic—that a metallicity-dependent thin/thick wind transition outside the x=0/x=1 envelope could alter the HeII 1640 visibility at 0.1 Zsun—is a real modeling uncertainty, acknowledged in Sect. 5.3, but it is a risk to the generality of the claim, not a circularity in the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the two mass loss scenarios (x=0 or x=1), which are explicitly unconstrained; the paper brackets rather than derives the Z dependence of VMS winds. All other ingredients are standard stellar evolution and atmosphere inputs from external calibrations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • VMS mass loss metallicity scaling exponent x = 0 or 1 (two scenarios)
    Chosen ad hoc to bracket the unknown Z dependence of VMS winds; appears in Equation (2) as the exponent on (Z/Z_LMC)^x. Not fitted to any VMS data.
  • Wind clumping factor D = 10
    Adopted from the Gräfener (2021) calibration of VMS in the LMC; enters the optically thick mass loss formula in Equation (2).
  • Ratio v_inf/v_esc = 2.6
    Assumed constant following Vink et al. (2001), used in the optically thin mass loss formula in Equation (1).
  • Upper IMF slope for normal stars = -2.35
    Standard Salpeter slope adopted from BPASS models for stars below 100 Msun in the population synthesis (Section 4.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Gräfener (2021) VMS mass loss recipe, calibrated in the LMC, applies unchanged at lower metallicity in the no-scaling scenario.
    Section 2.1: 'we follow Smith et al. (2023) and assume no Z-dependence'. No empirical check exists below LMC metallicity.
  • ad hoc to paper The optically thin/thick wind transition condition of Gräfener (2021) does not vary with metallicity.
    Section 2.1: 'we stick to the recipe of Gräfener (2021) and assume no variation with metallicity'. This directly shapes the mass loss and therefore the evolutionary tracks.
  • domain assumption Solar-scaled chemical compositions and OPAL opacity tables are adequate at Z=0.01 Zsun, with no alpha-element enhancement except for a modest test.
    Section 2.2 states solar-scaled compositions are used; the authors verified that [alpha/Fe]=+0.3 changes Teff by at most 1000 K and barely affects luminosity.
  • domain assumption BPASS models without binaries correctly represent the population of stars below 100 Msun.
    Section 4.1: BPASS models of Eldridge et al. (2017) with upper IMF slope -2.35 and no binaries are adopted for normal stars.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Very massive stars at low metallicity: evolution, synthetic spectroscopy, and impact on the integrated light of starbursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNQECALI

@misc{pith2026250502993,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Very massive stars at low metallicity: evolution, synthetic spectroscopy, and impact on the integrated light of starbursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNQECALI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02993}
}
read the original abstract

We study the spectroscopic appearance of very massive stars and their effect on the integrated light of starbursts at low metallicity (Z). We adopt two frameworks for the mass loss rates of VMS: in one case we assume no Z dependence, in the other case we assume a linear scaling with Z. We compute evolutionary models for masses 150, 200, 250 and 300 Msun at Z=0.2, 0.1 and 0.01 Zsun. We compute the associated synthetic spectra at selected points along the evolutionary tracks. Finally we build population synthesis models including VMS. We find that the evolution of VMS critically depends on the assumptions regarding mass loss rates. In case of no Z dependence VMS remain hot for all their lifetime. Conversely when mass loss rates are reduced because of lower Z VMS follow a classical evolution towards the red part of the HR diagram. VMS display HeII 1640 emission in most phases of their evolution, except when they become too cool. This line is present in the integrated light of population synthesis models down to 0.1 Zsun whatever the star formation history, and is also sometimes seen at Z=0.01 Zsun. HeII 1640 is weaker in models that include a Z scaling of the mass loss rates. The optical spectra of starbursts, especially the Wolf-Rayet bumps, sometimes display VMS signatures when these stars are present. At low Z, adding VMS to population synthesis models produces more ionising photons down to 45 eV. At higher energy the ionising flux depends on age, Z, assumption regarding VMS mass loss rates, and on the very short phases at the end of VMS evolution. HeII ionising fluxes large enough to produce some amount of nebular HeII 4686 emission can be produced under specific circumstances. Our models are able to reproduce qualitatively and sometimes also quantitatively the UV spectra of star-forming regions. However we are not able to clearly identify which mass loss framework is favoured.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02993 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HR diagram for models at Z = 0.2(0.1, 0.01) Z⊙ in the left (middle, right) panel. In each panel the blue (cyan) lines are models without (with) metallicity scaling of the VMS mass loss rates. Squares and circles correspond to the points where atmosphere models and synthetic spectra are calculated. Crosses correspond to the models discussed in Sect. 5.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean Rosseland opacity profiles as a function of temperature at 4 different ages on the main sequence for the 200M⊙model at 0.1 Z⊙ with (left) and without (right) Z-scaling of the VMS mass loss rates. The opacity bumps of CNO nuclei, Fe and He ii are indicated. the larger luminosity-to-mass ratio. These two effects produce the strong helium and nitrogen lines observed in the spectra of VMS. The evolutionary sequence… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Synthetic optical (top) and UV (bottom) spectra of the 200 M⊙ models at Z = 0.1 Z⊙. The left (right) panels correspond to models without (with) metallicity scaling of the mass loss rates. In all panels, the spectra from top to bottom correspond to models with 0.01, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5 Myr as marked by squared on the evolutionary track in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectra of the 200 M⊙ models at 1 Myr for Z=0.2 Z⊙ (black), 0.1 Z⊙ (orange) and 0.01 Z⊙ (cyan). Models have no metallicity scaling of the mass loss rates. The top (bottom) panel shows the UV (optical) range. the same in all three models (Y∼0.28) but the nitrogen and ca…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: In addition to the models calculated for the present p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: UV spectra of burst models for ages between 1 and 2.5 Myr. Coloured lines are models including VMS, black lines models without VMS (i.e. BPASS models). The dark (light) colours correspond to mass loss rates not scaled (scaled) with metallicity. The left (middle, right)…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: EW(He ii 1640) as a function of age for burst models (solid lines) and CSF models (dashed lines). Models with Z=0.2(0.1, 0.01) Z⊙ are shown in red and pink (blue and cyan, orange and yellow). Light colors (pink, cyan, and yellow) are models with a metallicity scaling o…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Luminosity of He ii 1640 as a function of luminosity of He ii 4686 for burst (triangles) and CSF (open squares) models at var￾ious metallicities. Metallicities and assumptions regarding mass loss rates are indicated in the upper left part of the figure. The dotted line…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Morphology of the optical blue and red bumps in burst models. Different colours correspond to different metallicities (see left panels). The top (bottom) panels correspond to models without (with) Z scaling of the VMS mass loss rates. The left panels show burst models…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Number of photons above energy E for Z=0.4 Z⊙, 0.2 Z⊙, 0.1 Z⊙ and 0.01 Z⊙ (from left to right). Lighter and heavier colors in each panel correspond to models with (without) Z-scaling of the VMS mass loss rates. The black and grey lines correspond to the BPASS model in…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Number of ionising photons per second as a function of age for population synthesis models. The upper left (upper right, lower left, lower right) panel is for H i (He i, He ii, Ne ii). Solid (dashed) lines are burst (CSF) models. Grey lines are for BPASS models that d…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: ionising photon efficiency as a function of age. Different colours are used for different metallicities and assumption regarding VMS mass loss rate, as explained in the upper right corner of the Fig￾ure. Solid (dashed) lines are for burst (CSF) models that include neb…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: A direct by-eye inspection indicates that the globa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison between burst population synthesis models including VMS up to 225 M⊙ and the observed UV spectrum of the super star cluster in II Zw 40. All models are for Z = 0.2 Z⊙. Ages range from 0 to 2.5 Myr from top to bottom. The left (right) panels correspond to mo…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison between burst population synthesis models includ￾ing VMS up to 225 M⊙ to the observed UV spectrum of cluster A in II Zw 40 (black line). All models are for Z = 0.2 Z⊙ that is close to the metallicity of the cluster. Ages range from 0 to 2.5 Myr and are colo…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Comparison between burst population synthesis models including VMS up to 225 M⊙ and the observed UV spectrum of MrK71-A (black line). Top (bottom) models are for Z=0.2(0.1) Z⊙. In each panel ages range from 0 to 2.5 Myr from top to bottom. The left (right) panels corr…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Comparison between Z=0.2 Z⊙ CSF population synthesis models including VMS up to 225 M⊙ and the observed UV spectrum of SB126 (black line). Left (right) panels show models without (with) metallicity scaling of the VMS mass loss rates. Martinet et al. (2023) improve on …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparison between the spectrum of the initial CSF population synthesis models at 10 Myr (black line) and the spectrum of a test model in which the contribution of evolved phases of evolution is included (red line). The left (right) panel is for Z=0.1 (0.01) Z⊙. evolv…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Ratio of He ii to H i ionising photons fluxes as a function of age. The dashed (dot-dashed) lines correspond to CSF models in which the advanced phases of evolution are included (not included). In burst models these advanced phases are shown at 2.625 and 2.750 Myr. Bl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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.

  2. pySTARBURST99: The Next Generation of STARBURST99

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Python rewrite of STARBURST99 with new low-metallicity and very massive star models predicts a 0.3 dex boost in HI ionising flux when the upper mass limit is raised from 120 to 300 solar masses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481

    2009

  4. [4]

    M., & Hamann , W

    Barniske , A., Oskinova , L. M., & Hamann , W. R. 2008, , 486, 971

    2008

  5. [5]

    Bestenlehner , J. M. 2020, , 493, 3938

    2020

  6. [6]

    M., Crowther , P

    Bestenlehner , J. M., Crowther , P. A., Caballero-Nieves , S. M., et al. 2020, , 499, 1918

    2020

  7. [7]

    M., Gr \"a fener , G., Vink , J

    Bestenlehner , J. M., Gr \"a fener , G., Vink , J. S., et al. 2014, , 570, A38

    2014

  8. [8]

    M., Vink , J

    Bestenlehner , J. M., Vink , J. S., Gr \"a fener , G., et al. 2011, , 530, L14

    2011

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    A., de Koter , A., Bestenlehner , J

    Brands , S. A., de Koter , A., Bestenlehner , J. M., et al. 2022, , 663, A36

    2022

  2. [10]

    & Charlot , S

    Bruzual , G. & Charlot , S. 2003, , 344, 1000

    2003

  3. [11]

    J., Saxena , A., Cameron , A

    Bunker , A. J., Saxena , A., Cameron , A. J., et al. 2023, , 677, A88

    2023

  4. [12]

    J., Katz , H., Rey , M

    Cameron , A. J., Katz , H., Rey , M. P., & Saxena , A. 2023, , 523, 3516

    2023

  5. [13]

    2009, , 499, 279

    Cantiello , M., Langer , N., Brott , I., et al. 2009, , 499, 279

    2009

  6. [14]

    P., Mathis , J

    Cassinelli , J. P., Mathis , J. S., & Savage , B. D. 1981, Science, 212, 1497

    1981

  7. [15]

    2024, , 972, 143

    Castellano , M., Napolitano , L., Fontana , A., et al. 2024, , 972, 143

    2024

  8. [16]

    I., Abbott , D

    Castor , J. I., Abbott , D. C., & Klein , R. I. 1975, , 195, 157

    1975

  9. [17]

    2023, , 673, L7

    Charbonnel , C., Schaerer , D., Prantzos , N., et al. 2023, , 673, L7

    2023

  10. [18]

    2024, , 976, L15

    Chemerynska , I., Atek , H., Dayal , P., et al. 2024, , 976, L15

    2024

  11. [19]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 771

    Chen , Y., Jones , T., Sanders , R., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 771

    2023

  12. [20]

    Conti , P. S. & Morris , P. W. 1990, , 99, 898

    1990

  13. [21]

    A., Caballero-Nieves , S

    Crowther , P. A., Caballero-Nieves , S. M., Bostroem , K. A., et al. 2016, , 458, 624

    2016

  14. [22]

    Crowther , P. A. & Castro , N. 2024, , 527, 9023

    2024

  15. [23]

    A., Dessart , L., Hillier , D

    Crowther , P. A., Dessart , L., Hillier , D. J., Abbott , J. B., & Fullerton , A. W. 2002, , 392, 653

    2002

  16. [24]

    A., Schnurr , O., Hirschi , R., et al

    Crowther , P. A., Schnurr , O., Hirschi , R., et al. 2010, , 408, 731

    2010

  17. [25]

    J., Stanway , E

    Eldridge , J. J., Stanway , E. R., Xiao , L., et al. 2017, , 34, e058

    2017

  18. [26]

    J., Groh , J

    Farrell , E. J., Groh , J. H., Meynet , G., et al. 2020, , 495, 4659

    2020

  19. [27]

    V., Schlosser , W., Schmidt-Kaler , T., & Winkler , C

    Feitzinger , J. V., Schlosser , W., Schmidt-Kaler , T., & Winkler , C. 1980, , 84, 50

    1980

  20. [28]

    Figer , D. F. 2005, , 434, 192

    2005

  21. [29]

    P., Chisholm , J., et al

    Fujimoto , S., Naidu , R. P., Chisholm , J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints (ApJ submitted), arXiv:2501.11678

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2021, , 647, A13

    Gr \"a fener , G. 2021, , 647, A13

    2021

  23. [31]

    & Hamann , W

    Gr \"a fener , G. & Hamann , W. R. 2008, , 482, 945

    2008

  24. [32]

    2021, , 647, A99

    Grassitelli , L., Langer , N., Mackey , J., et al. 2021, , 647, A99

    2021

  25. [33]

    G., Izotov , Y

    Guseva , N. G., Izotov , Y. I., & Thuan , T. X. 2000, , 531, 776

    2000

  26. [34]

    2015, , 581, A21

    Hainich , R., Pasemann , D., Todt , H., et al. 2015, , 581, A21

    2015

  27. [35]

    2014, , 565, A27

    Hainich , R., R \"u hling , U., Todt , H., et al. 2014, , 565, A27

    2014

  28. [36]

    R., Gr \"a fener , G., & Liermann , A

    Hamann , W. R., Gr \"a fener , G., & Liermann , A. 2006, , 457, 1015

    2006

  29. [37]

    R., Gr \"a fener , G., Liermann , A., et al

    Hamann , W. R., Gr \"a fener , G., Liermann , A., et al. 2019, , 625, A57

    2019

  30. [38]

    R., Vink , J

    Higgins , E. R., Vink , J. S., Hirschi , R., Laird , A. M., & Sabhahit , G. N. 2023, , 526, 534

    2023

  31. [39]

    Hillier , D. J. & Miller , D. L. 1998, , 496, 407

    1998

  32. [40]

    Hummer , D. G. & Storey , P. J. 1987, , 224, 801

    1987

  33. [41]

    2023, , 959, 100

    Isobe , Y., Ouchi , M., Tominaga , N., et al. 2023, , 959, 100

    2023

  34. [42]

    I., Foltz , C

    Izotov , Y. I., Foltz , C. B., Green , R. F., Guseva , N. G., & Thuan , T. X. 1997, , 487, L37

    1997

  35. [43]

    L., Tsamis , Y

    James , B. L., Tsamis , Y. G., Barlow , M. J., et al. 2009, , 398, 2

    2009

  36. [44]

    2024, , 535, 881

    Ji , X., \"U bler , H., Maiolino , R., et al. 2024, , 535, 881

    2024

  37. [45]

    M., Horch , E

    Kalari , V. M., Horch , E. P., Salinas , R., et al. 2022, , 935, 162

    2022

  38. [46]

    M., Guerrero , M

    Kehrig , C., V \' lchez , J. M., Guerrero , M. A., et al. 2018, , 480, 1081

    2018

  39. [47]

    M., P \'e rez-Montero , E., et al

    Kehrig , C., V \' lchez , J. M., P \'e rez-Montero , E., et al. 2015, , 801, L28

    2015

  40. [48]

    2015, , 573, A71

    K \"o hler , K., Langer , N., de Koter , A., et al. 2015, , 573, A71

    2015

  41. [49]

    P., Pauldrach , A., Puls , J., & Abbott , D

    Kudritzki , R. P., Pauldrach , A., Puls , J., & Abbott , D. C. 1989, , 219, 205

    1989

  42. [50]

    1992, , 265, L17

    Langer , N. 1992, , 265, L17

    1992

  43. [51]

    C., & Levesque , E

    Leitherer , C., Byler , N., Lee , J. C., & Levesque , E. M. 2018, , 865, 55

    2018

  44. [52]

    C., & Faisst , A

    Leitherer , C., Lee , J. C., & Faisst , A. 2019, , 158, 192

    2019

  45. [53]

    1987, , 178, 159

    Maeder , A. 1987, , 178, 159

    1987

  46. [54]

    2020, , 499, L105

    Marques-Chaves , R., \'A lvarez-M \'a rquez , J., Colina , L., et al. 2020, , 499, L105

    2020

  47. [55]

    2021, , 507, 524

    Marques-Chaves , R., Schaerer , D., \'A lvarez-M \'a rquez , J., et al. 2021, , 507, 524

    2021

  48. [56]

    2022, , 517, 2972

    Marques-Chaves , R., Schaerer , D., \'A lvarez-M \'a rquez , J., et al. 2022, , 517, 2972

    2022

  49. [57]

    2024, , 681, A30

    Marques-Chaves , R., Schaerer , D., Kuruvanthodi , A., et al. 2024, , 681, A30

    2024

  50. [58]

    2023, , 679, A137

    Martinet , S., Meynet , G., Ekstr \"o m , S., Georgy , C., & Hirschi , R. 2023, , 679, A137

    2023

  51. [59]

    J., Paumard , T., et al

    Martins , F., Hillier , D. J., Paumard , T., et al. 2008, , 478, 219

    2008

  52. [60]

    & Palacios , A

    Martins , F. & Palacios , A. 2022, , 659, A163

    2022

  53. [61]

    2023, , 678, A159

    Martins , F., Schaerer , D., Marques-Chaves , R., & Upadhyaya , A. 2023, , 678, A159

    2023

  54. [62]

    L., Lee , J

    Maschmann , D., Leitherer , C., Faisst , A. L., Lee , J. C., & Minsley , R. 2024, , 961, 159

    2024

  55. [63]

    2023, , 269, 33

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

    2023

  56. [64]

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

    2006

  57. [65]

    F., & Tsang , B

    Pascale , M., Dai , L., McKee , C. F., & Tsang , B. T. H. 2023, , 957, 77

    2023

  58. [66]

    2016, , 456, 4191

    Patr \' cio , V., Richard , J., Verhamme , A., et al. 2016, , 456, 4191

    2016

  59. [67]

    2000, , 141, 23

    Puls , J., Springmann , U., & Lennon , M. 2000, , 141, 23

    2000

  60. [68]

    E., Furlanetto , S

    Robertson , B. E., Furlanetto , S. R., Schneider , E., et al. 2013, , 768, 71

    2013

  61. [69]

    N., Vink , J

    Sabhahit , G. N., Vink , J. S., Higgins , E. R., & Sander , A. A. C. 2022, , 514, 3736

    2022

  62. [70]

    N., Vink , J

    Sabhahit , G. N., Vink , J. S., Sander , A. A. C., et al. 2025, , 696, A200

    2025

  63. [71]

    N., Vink , J

    Sabhahit , G. N., Vink , J. S., Sander , A. A. C., & Higgins , E. R. 2023, , 524, 1529

    2023

  64. [72]

    R., & Todt , H

    Sander , A., Hamann , W. R., & Todt , H. 2012, , 540, A144

    2012

  65. [73]

    Sander , A., Todt , H., Hainich , R., & Hamann , W. R. 2014, , 563, A89

    2014

  66. [74]

    Sander , A. A. C. 2024, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 361, Massive Stars Near and Far, ed. J. Mackey , J. S. Vink , & N. St-Louis , 473--478

    2024

  67. [75]

    Sander , A. A. C. & Vink , J. S. 2020, , 499, 873

    2020

  68. [76]

    2002, , 382, 28

    Schaerer , D. 2002, , 382, 28

    2002

  69. [77]

    Schaerer , D., Fragos , T., & Izotov , Y. I. 2019, , 622, L10

    2019

  70. [78]

    2025, , 693, A271

    Schaerer , D., Guibert , J., Marques-Chaves , R., & Martins , F. 2025, , 693, A271

    2025

  71. [79]

    2024, , 687, L11

    Schaerer , D., Marques-Chaves , R., Xiao , M., & Korber , D. 2024, , 687, L11

    2024

  72. [80]

    N., Moffat , A

    Schnurr , O., Casoli , J., Chen \'e , A. N., Moffat , A. F. J., & St-Louis , N. 2008, , 389, L38

    2008

  73. [81]

    Seaton , M. J. 1978, , 185, 5P

    1978

  74. [82]

    Seeyave , L. T. C., Wilkins , S. M., Kuusisto , J. K., et al. 2023, , 525, 2422

    2023

  75. [83]

    P., et al

    Senchyna , P., Plat , A., Stark , D. P., et al. 2024, , 966, 92

    2024

  76. [84]

    P., Charlot , S., et al

    Senchyna , P., Stark , D. P., Charlot , S., et al. 2021, , 503, 6112

    2021

  77. [85]

    A., et al

    Shenar , T., Sana , H., Crowther , P. A., et al. 2023, , 679, A36

    2023

  78. [86]

    J., Crowther , P

    Smith , L. J., Crowther , P. A., Calzetti , D., & Sidoli , F. 2016, , 823, 38

    2016

  79. [87]

    J., Oey , M

    Smith , L. J., Oey , M. S., Hernandez , S., et al. 2023, , 958, 194

    2023

  80. [88]

    2015, , 576, A83

    Stasi \'n ska , G., Izotov , Y., Morisset , C., & Guseva , N. 2015, , 576, A83

    2015

  81. [89]

    2006, , 132, 253

    Stolte , A., Brandner , W., Brandl , B., & Zinnecker , H. 2006, , 132, 253

    2006

  82. [90]

    2024, , 686, A185

    Upadhyaya , A., Marques-Chaves , R., Schaerer , D., et al. 2024, , 686, A185

    2024

  83. [91]

    2023, , 678, A173

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

    2023

  84. [92]

    Villar-Mart \' n , M., Cervi \ n o , M., & Gonz \'a lez Delgado , R. M. 2004, , 355, 1132

    2004

  85. [93]

    Vink , J. S., ed. 2015, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 412, Very Massive Stars in the Local Universe , ed. J. S. Vink

    2015

  86. [94]

    Vink , J. S. 2023, , 679, L9

    2023

  87. [95]

    S., de Koter , A., & Lamers , H

    Vink , J. S., de Koter , A., & Lamers , H. J. G. L. M. 2001, , 369, 574

    2001

  88. [96]

    Vink , J. S. & Gr \"a fener , G. 2012, , 751, L34

    2012

  89. [97]

    S., Muijres , L

    Vink , J. S., Muijres , L. E., Anthonisse , B., et al. 2011, , 531, A132

    2011

  90. [98]

    2014, , 781, 122

    Wofford , A., Leitherer , C., Chandar , R., & Bouret , J.-C. 2014, , 781, 122

    2014

  91. [99]

    2023, , 523, 3949

    Wofford , A., Sixtos , A., Charlot , S., et al. 2023, , 523, 3949

    2023

  92. [100]

    2021, , 500, 2908

    Wofford , A., Vidal-Garc \' a , A., Feltre , A., et al. 2021, , 500, 2908

    2021

  93. [101]

    L., & Arnould , M

    Xu , Y., Goriely , S., Jorissen , A., Chen , G. L., & Arnould , M. 2013, , 549, A106

    2013

  94. [102]

    2013, , 433, 1114

    Yusof , N., Hirschi , R., Meynet , G., et al. 2013, , 433, 1114

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.