pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03375 · v1 · pith:I2VGSKP6new · submitted 2026-06-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

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

Mat\'ias Liempi , Muhammad A. Latif , Dominik R.G. Schleicher This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 09:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords Little Red Dotshigh-redshift galaxiesblack hole formationcosmological simulationsAGN precursorsstar formation efficiencycompact galaxiesgalaxy evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

High-resolution simulations show that compact high-redshift starbursts rapidly accumulate central mass sufficient to form million-solar-mass black holes.

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

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

Core claim

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

What carries the argument

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

If this is right

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

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

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

Load-bearing premise

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

What would settle it

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

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03375 by Dominik R.G. Schleicher, Mat\'ias Liempi, Muhammad A. Latif.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Density projections showing the average density along the line of sight for all four runs for the central 10 kpc region. White dots represent the Pop II star particles. rather similar enclosed gas mass of ∼ 106 M⊙ around 20 pc. The gas mass scales approximately as the ra￾dius, thus approximately corresponding to an isother￾mal sphere. A summary of the enclosed gas and stel￾lar masses of the different simul… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same as figure 1, showing the gas and stars distribution on 1 kpc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Radial profiles of the enclosed stellar mass (top panel) and enclosed gas mass (bottom panel). The curves compare four simulated configurations: A model with a SFE of 30%, no feedback, and 0.1 Z/Z⊙ (red); a model with supernova feedback, SFE of 30%, and 0.1 Z/Z⊙ (blue); a low-metallicity model with 0.01 Z/Z⊙, and no feedback (or￾ange); and an extreme SFE model of 100%, no feedback, and metallicity 0.1 Z/Z⊙… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial profiles of DM density, gas density and stellar density for the different Simulations. Top left: SFE of 30%, no feedback, metallicity 0.1 Z/Z⊙. Bottom left: SFE of 30%, no feedback, metallicity 0.01 Z/Z⊙. Top right: SFE of 30%, supernova feedback, metallicity 0.1 Z/Z⊙. Bottom right: SFE of 100%, no feedback, metallicity 0.1 Z/Z⊙. components, that is t −1 df,tot = t −1 df,stars + t −1 df,gas. (3) We … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial profiles of the gas mass inflow rate (M˙ in). The solid curves illustrate the accretion behavior across the four simulation models: SFE 30% (red), SFE 30% with feed￾back (blue), SFE 30% with low metallicity (orange), and SFE 100% (green). For comparison with other dynamical timescales, we introduce the crossing time (tcross), defined as the time required for a star to traverse the characteristic rad… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Density projections showing the average gas den￾sity along the line of sight for all four runs for the central 500 pc region. Top left: SFE of 30%; top right: SFE of 30% and feedback; bottom left: SFE of 30% and Z= 0.01 Z⊙ and bottom right: SFE of 100% with no feedback. This timescale presents a lower limit for the migra￾tion of bodies with mass Mb to the center as a result of gravitational torques. In cas… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial profiles of the transport rates (equation 10, top panel) and stellar mass transport rates (equation 8, bottom panel). The curves compare the transport efficiencies across the varied simulation setups: the SFE 30%, no feed￾back and 0.1 Z/Z⊙ (red), the SFE 30% model with feedback and 0.1 Z/Z⊙ (blue), the SFE 30% model with no feedback and 0.01 Z/Z⊙(orange), and the SFE 100% no feedback and 0.1 Z/Z⊙ mo… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Rotational velocity (vrot) as a function of radius for the different ENZO simulations. Higher SFE leads to greater rotational velocities due to a deeper central potential, while stellar feedback severely disrupts coherent rotation in the inner 50 pc. REFERENCES Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Lambrides, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.10341, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10341 Anninos, P., Zhang, Y., Ab… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Gas metallicity (Z⊙) as a function of gas density (g cm−3 ) for the feedback run with SFE = 30%. The color bar denotes the total gas cell mass. The presence of highly metal-enriched gas at very low densities indicates the presence of feedback-driven outflows. Dekel, A., Sarkar, K. C., Birnboim, Y., Mandelker, N., & Li, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1557 Dekel, A., Dutta Chowdhury, D., … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

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

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

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

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

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

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

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

read point-by-point responses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

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

full rationale

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

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

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

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

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5853 in / 1392 out tokens · 27182 ms · 2026-06-28T09:26:13.906833+00:00 · methodology

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

95 extracted references · 95 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    B., Casey, C

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.10341 2024

  2. [2]

    Anninos, P., Zhang, Y., Abel, T., & Norman, M. L. 1997, New Astronomy, 2, 209, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00009-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s1384-1076(97)00009-2 1997

  3. [3]

    Arca-Sedda, M., Kamlah, A. W. H., Spurzem, R., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 5119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3952 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123,...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3952 2024

  4. [4]

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

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

  5. [5]

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

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

  6. [6]

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

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

  7. [7]

    C., & Silk, J

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad124 2023

  8. [8]

    S., Wechsler, R

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

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

  9. [9]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty208 2018

  10. [10]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/377529 2003

  11. [11]

    L., Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 2014

  12. [12]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/186620 1992

  13. [13]

    S., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu956 2014

  14. [14]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa863 2020

  15. [15]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf598 2025

  16. [16]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad57c1 2024

  17. [17]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1428

  18. [18]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab402

  19. [19]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2777 2017

  20. [20]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1557 2023

  21. [21]

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

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.07578 2025

  22. [22]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347783 2024

  23. [23]

    J., Johnson, B

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae1137 2025

  24. [24]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae3163 2026

  25. [25]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/507988 2006

  26. [26]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/523092 2007

  27. [27]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd93c 2021

  28. [28]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae200e 2025

  29. [29]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdc9d 2023

  30. [30]

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450770 2024

  31. [31]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/320631 2001

  32. [32]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/519445 2007

  33. [33]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5f 2024

  34. [34]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad7262 2024

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x 2011

  36. [36]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1315 2018

  37. [37]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18542.x 2011

  38. [38]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1870 2014

  39. [39]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabe27 2018

  40. [40]

    H., Alvarez, M

    Kim, J.-h., Wise, J. H., Alvarez, M. A., & Abel, T. 2011, ApJ, 738, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/54

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/54 2011

  41. [41]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0 2023

  42. [42]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  43. [43]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2276 2020

  44. [44]

    K., Croft, R

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.13957 2025

  45. [45]

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

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.155493 2026

  46. [46]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf8ac 2021

  47. [47]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1263 2023

  48. [48]

    A., & Khochfar, S

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2218 2020

  49. [49]

    A., & Schleicher, D

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525855 2015

  50. [50]

    A., & Schleicher, D

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527266 2016

  51. [51]

    A., & Schleicher, D

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace34f 2023

  52. [52]

    A., Schleicher, D

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbcc2 2023

  53. [53]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt834

  54. [54]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1786

  55. [55]

    How Overmassive Black Holes Formed at Cosmic Dawn

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.28682 2026

  56. [57]

    A., Whalen, D

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04813-y

  57. [58]

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451672 2025

  58. [59]

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.21002 2026

  59. [60]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1120 2014

  60. [61]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/157.1.1 1972

  61. [62]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345 2024

  62. [63]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad11cf 2024

  63. [64]

    H., Burkhart, B., Somerville, R

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add2f9 2025

  64. [65]

    M., Lacey, C

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07180.x 2004

  65. [66]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae32f3 2026

  66. [67]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1619 2025

  67. [68]

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

    Pacucci, F., & Narayan, R. 2024, ApJ, 976, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84f7 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 Portegies Zwart, S. F., Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2004, Nature, 428, 724, doi: 10.1038/nature02448

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad84f7 2024

  68. [69]

    J., & Iorio, G

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1519 2025

  69. [70]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1413 2024

  70. [71]

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

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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07917 2026

  71. [72]

    S., Schleicher, D., Glover, S

    Reinoso, B., Klessen, R. S., Schleicher, D., Glover, S. C. O., & Solar, P. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3553, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad790

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad790 2023

  72. [73]

    A., & Schleicher, D

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554762 2025

  73. [74]

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732224 2018

  74. [75]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad734 2023

  75. [76]

    P., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09900-4 2026

  76. [77]

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450409 2024

  77. [78]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz315 2019

  78. [79]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321949 2013

  79. [80]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad807 2023

  80. [81]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac926 2022

Showing first 80 references.