pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.10036 · v2 · pith:K7ESE3TJnew · submitted 2026-06-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Learning the Universe at High Redshifts: Impact of Accretion Modeling on Early Black Hole Growth

Jonathan Kho , Aklant K. Bhowmick , Rainer Weinberger , Paul Torrey , Laura Blecha , Lars Hernquist , Greg L. Bryan , Alex M. Garcia
show 3 more authors
Niusha Ahvazi Alejandro Saravia Boon Kiat Oh
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 15:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords black hole accretioncosmological simulationshigh redshift galaxiesJWST observationssupermassive black holesseed black holesstellar feedbackearly universe
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations assemble black holes of 10^6 to 10^7 solar masses at redshifts above 9 only when heavy seeds drive mergers or when Bondi accretion operates with weak feedback.

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

The paper tests how the choice of accretion rate scaling with black hole mass affects whether early black holes can grow large enough to match JWST detections at z greater than or equal to 9. It compares the standard Bondi-Hoyle prescription, where accretion scales with the square of black hole mass, against two free-fall prescriptions with shallower scalings. Bondi accretion grows heavy seeds rapidly in dense gas but stops easily when feedback heats the surroundings, while free-fall models help lighter seeds in calmer settings yet still fail to produce significant growth once standard stellar feedback is included. Only the combination of many heavy seeds plus mergers, or Bondi accretion under deliberately reduced feedback, reaches the observed masses. Readers care because these results map the specific conditions needed for any simulation to explain the sudden appearance of supermassive black holes shortly after the Big Bang.

Core claim

Our simulations can thus assemble BHs with masses of ∼10^6−10^7 M_⊙ at z≳9, as inferred by JWST, under two circumstances: 1) abundant heavy-seed formation that drives BH-BH mergers, or 2) Bondi accretion with weak feedback. Bondi accretion tends to produce stronger runaway growth than the free-fall models when using heavy (∼10^5 M_⊙) seeds in extreme environments owing to the steeper M_• scaling, but its sensitivity to the local gas sound speed makes it more susceptible to suppression from temperature increases due to AGN and stellar feedback. The free-fall models tend to produce stronger growth for lower-mass seeds (∼10^{3-4} M_⊙) in moderate environments as they are less dependent on the B

What carries the argument

Three accretion rate prescriptions that differ in how accretion rate scales with black hole mass: Bondi-Hoyle scaling as mass squared versus two free-fall models scaling as the square root of mass or linearly with mass.

If this is right

  • Heavy seeds plus mergers disproportionately boost later accretion-driven growth under the Bondi scaling because of its steeper mass dependence.
  • In moderate environments with fiducial stellar feedback, black hole growth stays negligible across all three accretion models for seeds below 10^4 solar masses.
  • Bondi accretion responds more strongly to AGN and stellar feedback than free-fall models because its rate depends on the square of black hole mass and on local sound speed.
  • Free-fall prescriptions allow relatively more growth for 10^3-10^4 solar mass seeds in quieter gas environments compared with Bondi.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The result implies that tightening constraints on early stellar feedback strength could decide whether Bondi or free-fall models are viable for high-redshift black hole populations.
  • Simulations that vary seed abundance and feedback simultaneously could map a broader range of pathways that still satisfy JWST mass limits.
  • Observations that separate black hole environments by gas density and temperature at z greater than 9 would directly test which accretion scaling operates.

Load-bearing premise

The fiducial stellar feedback implementation accurately represents the suppression of gas supply to low-mass seeds in moderate environments.

What would settle it

A survey finding 10^6 solar mass black holes at z greater than 9 in moderate-density regions with standard stellar feedback strength, or without any heavy seed candidates, would contradict the two-circumstance result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10036 by Aklant K. Bhowmick, Alejandro Saravia, Alex M. Garcia, Boon Kiat Oh, Greg L. Bryan, Jonathan Kho, Lars Hernquist, Laura Blecha, Niusha Ahvazi, Paul Torrey, Rainer Weinberger.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distributions of DM surface densities in a cut through the most massive halo for the Large, Medium, and Small halo ICs each at z = 6. We overplot in a red circle the virial radius of each of these target halos using the same physical scale, highlighting the extreme differences in the halos and halo environments between ICs. seeding threshold (Mh ≥ 6.33 × 107M⊙ corresponding to the minimum of 32 DM particle… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Halo and stellar mass evolutions for the most massive halo in each of our three ICs. By z = 6, the most massive halo in the large, medium, and small halo ICs has reached a total mass of ∼ 3×1012 , 4×1011 , and 1.5×1010M⊙ respectively and a stellar masses of ∼ 2 × 1011 , 3 × 109 , and 2 × 107M⊙ respectively. Our Large Halo ICs are chosen to target the expected environments of the brightest z ∼ 6 quasars, bu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: BH mass growth history for the most massive BH in each of the feedback and accretion model configurations for the large halo IC with the strict seed model. For each subgroup of panels (left and right), the left columns correspond to simulations run with the fiducial stellar feedback strength, whereas the right columns were run with 10% of the fiducial stellar feedback strength. Across both subgroups of pan… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: BH growth history for the most massive BH in our medium halo IC simulations with the strict seed model, formatted the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: BH growth histories for the most massive BH in our small halo IC simulations with the strict seed model, again formatted the same way as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: BH growth histories for the most massive BH in our three different ICs with strict (solid lines) and lenient (dotted lines) seeding criteria. The fiducial AGN and stellar feedback was applied for all of the runs presented in this figure. More lenient seeding allows for enhanced BH growth from BH–BH mergers at early times, which preferentially enhances Bondi growth for 104 & 105 M⊙ seeds in Medium and Large… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Redshift evolution of the average gas temperature and density in the most massive BH’s kernel, averaged over all three accretion models for each IC. For each line plotted, we also average over variations in the non-specified feedback channel, i.e. the ‘AGN’ line averages over both AGN and weak feedback runs as well as AGN and fiducial feedback runs. The large increase in temperature at late times for the l… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

JWST discoveries of the earliest ($z \gtrsim 9$) supermassive black holes (BHs, $M_\bullet \gtrsim 10^6\,\rm{M}_\odot$) challenge the BH seeding and accretion models of most cosmological simulations. In this work, we compare early BH growth arising from three different accretion prescriptions characterized by distinct scalings between the accretion rate ($\dot{M}_{\rm \bullet}$) and the BH mass ($M_{\rm \bullet}$): the commonly used Bondi-Hoyle model ($\dot{M}_{\rm \bullet}\propto M_{\rm \bullet}^2$), and two free-fall models with shallower scalings ($\dot{M}_{\rm \bullet}\propto M_{\rm \bullet}^{1/2}$ and $M_{\rm \bullet}$). Bondi accretion tends to produce stronger runaway growth than the free-fall models when using heavy ($\sim10^5\,\rm{M}_\odot$) seeds in extreme environments owing to the steeper $M_\bullet$ scaling, but its sensitivity to the local gas sound speed makes it more susceptible to suppression from temperature increases due to AGN and stellar feedback. The free-fall models tend to produce stronger growth for lower-mass seeds ($\sim10^{3-4}\,\rm{M}_\odot$) in moderate environments as they are less dependent on the BH's mass to accrete effectively, however in this regime BH growth remains negligible for all accretion models in the presence of fiducial stellar feedback. Enhancing early BH growth via many BH-BH mergers disproportionately enhances subsequent accretion-driven growth for Bondi due to the steeper $M_{\rm \bullet}$ dependence. Our simulations can thus assemble BHs with masses of $\sim10^6-10^7~M_{\odot}$ at $z\gtrsim9$, as inferred by JWST, under two circumstances: 1) abundant heavy-seed formation that drives BH-BH mergers, or 2) Bondi accretion with weak feedback.

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

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper compares three sub-grid accretion prescriptions in cosmological simulations—Bondi-Hoyle (˙M_• ∝ M_•^{2}) and two free-fall models with shallower scalings (˙M_• ∝ M_•^{1/2} and M_•)—to assess their impact on early black hole growth at z ≳ 9. It reports that low-mass seeds (∼10^{3-4} M_⊙) experience negligible growth in moderate environments under fiducial stellar feedback for all models, while heavy seeds (∼10^5 M_⊙) enable growth via BH-BH mergers (enhanced for Bondi due to its steeper scaling) and Bondi accretion permits growth with weak feedback, allowing assembly of ∼10^6-10^7 M_⊙ BHs at z ≳ 9 under those two conditions.

Significance. If the results hold, the work isolates the effect of accretion-rate scaling on runaway growth versus feedback suppression and shows that mergers can bootstrap subsequent accretion, particularly for steeper scalings. This provides a concrete mapping between seeding assumptions, feedback strength, and the ability to match JWST-inferred high-z BH masses. The explicit multi-model comparison is a strength, as it avoids reducing outcomes to a single fitted parameter.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that BH growth remains negligible for all three accretion models for low-mass seeds in moderate environments rests on the fiducial stellar feedback implementation. No information is given on numerical resolution, convergence tests, or how the stellar feedback parameters (energy/momentum injection, coupling efficiency) were selected or validated, so the robustness of the 'negligible growth' baseline cannot be assessed from the provided text.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph on free-fall models in the presence of fiducial stellar feedback): The distinction between accretion models only becomes relevant once the feedback-suppressed baseline for low-mass seeds is accepted. Without sensitivity tests varying stellar feedback strength or resolution, it is unclear whether the reported negligible growth is an artifact of the specific sub-grid implementation or a general result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below, focusing on the points raised about the abstract and the fiducial stellar feedback implementation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that BH growth remains negligible for all three accretion models for low-mass seeds in moderate environments rests on the fiducial stellar feedback implementation. No information is given on numerical resolution, convergence tests, or how the stellar feedback parameters (energy/momentum injection, coupling efficiency) were selected or validated, so the robustness of the 'negligible growth' baseline cannot be assessed from the provided text.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would be strengthened by including more details on the simulation resolution and the basis for the fiducial stellar feedback parameters. The feedback implementation follows the standard sub-grid model used in our prior work on galaxy formation, where parameters were calibrated to match observed galaxy scaling relations at z~0-6. In the revised manuscript we will add a concise description of the adopted resolution (minimum cell size and particle mass) and cite the validation studies for the feedback coupling efficiency. We maintain that the negligible growth result is presented specifically under this fiducial setup rather than as a universal claim. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph on free-fall models in the presence of fiducial stellar feedback): The distinction between accretion models only becomes relevant once the feedback-suppressed baseline for low-mass seeds is accepted. Without sensitivity tests varying stellar feedback strength or resolution, it is unclear whether the reported negligible growth is an artifact of the specific sub-grid implementation or a general result.

    Authors: The central objective of the paper is to isolate the effect of the accretion-rate scaling (Bondi vs. free-fall) while holding the stellar feedback fixed at its fiducial value. We will revise the abstract and methods to explicitly state that the reported negligible growth for low-mass seeds applies under this standard feedback implementation and that different feedback strengths could modify the baseline. A full parameter study varying feedback efficiency and resolution lies outside the scope of the present comparison, which instead demonstrates how accretion model choice influences growth once that baseline is set. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Conducting additional simulations with varied stellar feedback strength or resolution to test whether the negligible growth result is general rather than specific to the fiducial implementation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct outputs of simulation runs with varied sub-grid prescriptions

full rationale

The paper reports numerical results from cosmological simulations comparing three accretion models (Bondi and two free-fall scalings) under a fixed fiducial stellar feedback implementation. The central claims—that JWST-mass BHs at z≳9 require either heavy seeds plus mergers or Bondi with weak feedback—follow directly from the simulation outcomes showing negligible low-mass seed growth in moderate environments with that feedback. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains are present in the derivation; the work consists of controlled numerical experiments whose outputs are independent of the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the validity of the chosen sub-grid accretion and feedback prescriptions plus the assumption that the simulated environments are representative of the early universe; no new entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard Lambda-CDM cosmology and sub-grid models for star formation and stellar/AGN feedback are adequate for modeling high-redshift galaxy environments.
    Invoked throughout the simulation setup to evolve gas, stars, and black holes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5946 in / 1268 out tokens · 22825 ms · 2026-06-27T15:43:48.160760+00:00 · methodology

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. Supermassive Black Hole Assembly from Heavy Seeds with Dynamical Friction in the BRAHMA Simulations: Implications for JWST, LISA, and the Local Universe

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Lenient heavy-seed models in BRAHMA simulations produce black hole merger rates above 100 per year and near-unity occupation fractions down to low-mass galaxies, while strict models yield only about 1 merger per year ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    1988, ApJ, 332, 646, doi: 10.1086/166683

    Szuszkiewicz, E. 1988, ApJ, 332, 646, doi: 10.1086/166683

    doi:10.1086/166683 1988

  2. [2]

    L., et al

    Agarwal, B., Khochfar, S., Johnson, J. L., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 2854, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21651.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21651.x 2012

  3. [3]

    Hickox, R. C. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 969, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 Anglés-Alcázar, D., Özel, F., Davé, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/127

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5669 2024

  4. [4]

    1986, Nature, 324, 446, doi: 10.1038/324446a0

    Barnes, J., & Hut, P. 1986, Nature, 324, 446, doi: 10.1038/324446a0

    doi:10.1038/324446a0 1986

  5. [5]

    C., Volonteri, M., & Rees, M

    Begelman, M. C., Volonteri, M., & Rees, M. J. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 289, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10467.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10467.x 2006

  6. [6]

    K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3439

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3439 2022

  7. [7]

    K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 529, 3768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae780

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae780

  8. [8]

    K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2012, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2204

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2204 2021

  9. [9]

    K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 531, 4311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1386

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1386

  10. [10]

    K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2024c, MNRAS, 533, 1907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1819

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1819 1907

  11. [11]

    K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf269

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf269 2025

  12. [12]

    K., Blecha, L., Kelley, L

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Kelley, L. Z., et al. 2025, Dynamics of low-mass black hole seeds in the BRAHMA simulations using subgrid-dynamical friction: Impact on merger-driven black hole growth in the high redshift Universe, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09184

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al

    Bhowmick, A. K., Blecha, L., Torrey, P., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2607

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2607 2026

  14. [14]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648 Bogdán, Á., Goulding, A

    Bird, S., Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648 Bogdán, Á., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac648 2022

  15. [15]

    1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  16. [16]

    1944, MNRAS, 104, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273

    Bondi, H., & Hoyle, F. 1944, MNRAS, 104, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273

    doi:10.1093/mnras/104.5.273 1944

  17. [17]

    M., & Schaye, J

    Booth, C. M., & Schaye, J. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 53, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15043.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15043.x 2009

  18. [18]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 596, 34, doi: 10.1086/377529

    Bromm, V., & Loeb, A. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 596, 34, doi: 10.1086/377529

    doi:10.1086/377529 2003

  19. [19]

    M., Akins, H

    Casey, C. M., Akins, H. B., Kokorev, V., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7ba7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7ba7 2024

  20. [20]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accea5

    Castellano, M., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accea5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accea5 2023

  21. [21]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  22. [22]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3134 17

    Curd, B., & Narayan, R. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3134 17

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3134 2019

  23. [23]

    S., & White, S

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371, doi: 10.1086/163168

    doi:10.1086/163168 1985

  24. [24]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    Dekel, A., Sari, R., & Ceverino, D. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 785, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/785

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/785 2009

  25. [25]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 3201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1557

    Li, Z. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 3201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1557

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1557 2023

  26. [26]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1007

    Dijkstra, M., Ferrara, A., & Mesinger, A. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1007

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1007 2014

  27. [27]

    Dijkstra, M., Haiman, Z., Mesinger, A., & Wyithe, J. S. B. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 391, 1961, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14031.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14031.x 2008

  28. [28]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 2662, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20236.x

    Dubois, Y., Devriendt, J., Slyz, A., & Teyssier, R. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2662, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20236.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20236.x 2012

  29. [29]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 275, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad778b

    Eilers, A.-C., Mackenzie, R., Pizzati, E., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 275, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad778b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad778b 2024

  30. [30]

    K., Lupton, R

    Fan, X., Narayanan, V. K., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2001, The Astronomical Journal, 122, 2833, doi: 10.1086/324111

    doi:10.1086/324111 2001

  31. [31]

    A., Schneider, D

    Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Schneider, D. P., et al. 2003, The Astronomical Journal, 125, 1649, doi: 10.1086/368246

    doi:10.1086/368246 2003

  32. [32]

    L., Leung, G

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 969, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4495 2024

  33. [33]

    R., et al

    Fujimoto, S., Wang, B., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 250, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9027

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9027 2024

  34. [34]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1553, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Kohno, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1553, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02592-w 2025

  35. [35]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1924

    Peirani, S. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1924

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1924 2016

  36. [36]

    S., et al

    Habouzit, M., Li, Y., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1940, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab496

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab496 2021

  37. [37]

    S., Li, Y., et al

    Habouzit, M., Somerville, R. S., Li, Y., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3147

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3147 2022

  38. [38]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    Hahn, O., & Abel, T. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

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

  39. [39]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9 2023

  40. [40]

    F., & Quataert, E

    Hopkins, P. F., & Quataert, E. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 1529, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17064.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17064.x 2010

  41. [41]

    F., & Quataert, E

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

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

  42. [42]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.00092, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.00092 Juodžbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W

    Izquierdo-Villalba, D., Habouzit, M., Bonetti, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.00092, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.00092 Juodžbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag086

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.00092 2026

  43. [43]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 2594, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3743

    Kannan, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 2594, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3743

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3743 2023

  44. [44]

    H., & Hernquist, L

    Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJS, 105, 19, doi: 10.1086/192305

    doi:10.1086/192305 1996

  45. [45]

    2026, Github for ”Learning the Universe at High Redshifts: Impact of Accretion Modeling on Early Black Hole Growth”, v1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20561794

    Kho, J. 2026, Github for ”Learning the Universe at High Redshifts: Impact of Accretion Modeling on Early Black Hole Growth”, v1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20561794

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.20561794 2026

  46. [46]

    K., Torrey, P., et al

    Kho, J., Bhowmick, A. K., Torrey, P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0e1e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0e1e 2025

  47. [47]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbc7d Kovács, O. E., Bogdán, Á., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 965, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad391f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbc7d 2025

  48. [48]

    2023, Physical Review D, 108, 083012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083012

    Kritos, K., Berti, E., & Silk, J. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 083012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083012

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.083012 2023

  49. [49]

    L., Finkelstein, S

    Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace619

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace619 2023

  50. [50]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 665, 187, doi: 10.1086/519297

    Li, Y., Hernquist, L., Robertson, B., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 665, 187, doi: 10.1086/519297

    doi:10.1086/519297 2007

  51. [51]

    C., et al

    Li, Z., Dekel, A., Sarkar, K. C., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 690, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348727

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348727 2024

  52. [52]

    D., Li, Z., & Dekel, A

    Libanore, S., Flitter, J., Kovetz, E. D., Li, Z., & Dekel, A. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1485

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1485 2024

  53. [53]

    2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 371, 1813, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10801.x

    Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 371, 1813, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10801.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10801.x 2006

  54. [54]

    2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 377, L64, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00304.x

    Lodato, G., & Natarajan, P. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 377, L64, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00304.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00304.x 2007

  55. [55]

    S., Lacey, C

    Lu, S., Frenk, C. S., Lacey, C. G., et al. 2026, The galaxy ultraviolet luminosity function from $z=7$ to $15$ in the COLIBRE simulations, arXiv. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260506782L

    2026

  56. [56]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 3523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty362

    Luo, Y., Ardaneh, K., Shlosman, I., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 3523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty362

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty362 2018

  57. [57]

    F., Kelley, L

    Ma, L., Hopkins, P. F., Kelley, L. Z., & Faucher-Giguère, C.-A. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5543, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad036 18

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad036 2023

  58. [58]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.04216

    Madau, P., Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., & D’Eugenio, F. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.04216. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04216

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5 2024

  60. [60]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 691, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 691, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347640

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347640 2024

  61. [61]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345 2024

  62. [62]

    C., Schaller, M., et al

    McAlpine, S., Helly, J. C., Schaller, M., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Computing, 15, 72, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.02.004

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2016.02.004 2016

  63. [63]

    H., Regan, J

    Mehta, D. H., Regan, J. A., & Prole, L. 2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 583, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02767-5

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02767-5 2026

  64. [64]

    P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16596, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16596

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16596 2025

  65. [65]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 989, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade706

    Napolitano, L., Castellano, M., Pentericci, L., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 989, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade706

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade706 2025

  66. [66]

    2024, ApJL, 960, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

    Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ricarte, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 960, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76 2024

  67. [67]

    2022a, MNRAS, 509, 3043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3162

    Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., & Feng, Y. 2022a, MNRAS, 509, 3043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3162

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3162

  68. [68]

    2022b, MNRAS, 513, 670, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., Bird, S., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 513, 670, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac351

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac351

  69. [69]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1619 2025

  70. [70]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158

    Pacucci, F., Nguyen, B., Carniani, S., Maiolino, R., & Fan, X. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0158 2023

  71. [71]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 1392, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19591.x

    Pakmor, R., Bauer, A., & Springel, V. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1392, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19591.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19591.x 2011

  72. [72]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 2603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1761

    Springel, V. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1761

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1761 2016

  73. [73]

    Perger, K., Fogasy, J., Frey, S., & Gabányi, K. ￿. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 693, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452422

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452422 2025

  74. [74]

    G., et al

    Petersson, J., Hirschmann, M., Tress, R. G., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 704, A177, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555130

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555130 2025

  75. [75]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656 2018

  76. [76]

    Reynolds, C. S. 2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-035022

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-035022 2021

  77. [77]

    P., et al

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

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

  78. [78]

    J., Greene, J

    Setton, D. J., Greene, J. E., Spilker, J. S., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade78b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade78b 2025

  79. [79]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    Shang, C., Bryan, G. L., & Haiman, Z. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 402, 1249, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15960.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15960.x 2010

  80. [80]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1340

    Sijacki, D., Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1340

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1340 2015

Showing first 80 references.