Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Darkness Visible: N-Body Simulations of Dark Matter Spikes in Hernquist Haloes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dark matter spikes formed by adiabatic black hole growth follow a new empirical profile, with radius and halo depletion set by a single mass ratio.

desk verdict First fully numerical attempt at DM spikes, but the fitted spike parameters lie far below the convergence radius, so the empirical profile is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12007 v3 pith:SZ6GJJ2Y submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.CO

Jasper Leonora P. D. Kamermans , A. Renske A. C. Wierda This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 95.35.+d
keywords darkmatterspikesN-bodysimulationsHernquisthaloadiabaticblackholegrowthempiricaldensityprofiledepletiongravitationalwavedephasingintermediate-massholes
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

The paper reports the first fully numerical N-body simulations of dark matter spike formation by adiabatic growth of a central black hole in Hernquist haloes. It proposes that the final density profile is an empirical formula depending only on the black-hole-to-halo mass ratio μ, with a spike radius that scales differently from the analytical Gondolo-Silk and Merritt predictions and an outer-halo depletion that becomes significant for μ ≳ 0.1. If correct, this changes the expected dark matter densities near intermediate-mass black holes and, consequently, the predicted gravitational-wave dephasing of inspiraling compact objects and the prospects for indirect dark matter detection.

What carries the argument

The central object is the empirical spike profile of Eq. (12), a multiplicative factor on the Hernquist density that combines a depletion term β and a broken power-law spike (r/r_sp)^{1-γ_sp}; the scaling relations of Eqs. (14)-(15) reduce the profile to a function of a single parameter, the mass ratio μ = M_BH/M_tot. The numerical scheme is a modified version of the SWIFT N-body code with a growing point-mass 'DAB' black hole, Hernquist initial conditions drawn from the Eddington distribution function, and the Power et al. (2003) softening with convergence radius r_conv = 2.5ε that defines the resolved fitting range. The gravitational-wave dephasing is computed with the HaloFeedback code of Kavanagh et al. (2020).

What would settle it

A simulation with enough particles to resolve radii below the predicted spike radius (≈0.002 kpc for the $10^{4}$ M_sun halo) would settle whether the fitted r_sp and γ_sp are physical: if the density in that region does not follow the power-law spike of Eq. (12) with the same fitted parameters, the proposed scalings are numerical artifacts of the limited resolution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the modified SWIFT code with a growing point-mass black hole ('DAB'), the authors simulate seven Hernquist haloes with masses between 3×$10^{3}$ and $10^{5}$ M_sun and black holes grown adiabatically to $10^{3}$–5×$10^{3}$ M_sun, recording 235 snapshots. They fit the final density as ρ(r) = ρ_Hernq(r)[β + (r/r_sp)^{1-γ_sp}] and find that the best-fit depletion and spike radius depend only on μ: β = 1 − 0.998 $μ^{{0.858}}$ and r_sp/a = 0.801 $μ^{{2.29}}$/($μ^{{1.78}}$ + 9.1×$10^{{-4}}$). The spike slope γ_sp is consistent with 7/3 for μ ≳ 0.06 but is not well constrained below; the depletion reaches β ≈ 0.8 at the highest μ. Compared with the 'Modified G&S' spike, the new profile changes the gravitational-wave dephasing of a $10^{3}$ M_sun primary with a solar-mass secondary by up to a factor of two at γ_sp = 7/3, and nearly eliminates the dephasing if the slope is shallower (γ_sp = 2).

Load-bearing premise

The fitted spike parameters r_sp and γ_sp are treated as physical even though the spike radius lies far below the convergence radius, so the spike's shape and scalings are inferred by extrapolation rather than directly resolved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the profile is correct, the dark matter density around intermediate-mass black holes is lower in the outer spike region than the standard G&S spike for the same μ, and the outer halo is depleted by up to ~20% at μ ~ 0.25.
  • The spike radius scaling r_sp ~ 0.8 a √μ at high μ and a steeper power at low μ replaces the often-used r_sp = r_h/5, so analyses that assume the Merritt radius will misestimate the spike's normalization and extent.
  • Gravitational-wave dephasing forecasts for LISA (extreme and intermediate mass-ratio inspirals) should be re-evaluated: the new profile can double the dephasing for a 10^4 M_sun halo at γ_sp = 7/3, or make it nearly vanish if the low-μ slope is actually 2.
  • The claim that results transfer to NFW haloes at fixed μ (due to the identical inner cusp) means the empirical profile, if confirmed, would apply to cosmologically motivated haloes without modification.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorially: the steep low-μ scaling r_sp ∝ μ^2.29, if real, implies a much stronger dependence of spike size on black hole mass than adiabatic theory's μ^0.5; a simulation with higher resolution at low μ would test whether this is a physical effect or a fitting artifact.
  • Editorially: the depletion of the outer halo might be observable in the rotation curves or stellar kinematics of dwarf galaxies hosting IMBHs, since β < 1 changes the enclosed mass at radii of order a; a targeted observational search could constrain the profile independently of the simulations.
  • Editorially: the authors' own convergence analysis shows that γ_sp is the least constrained parameter; a next step would be to run a single simulation with much higher particle number (they estimate ~5×10^10 particles for the 10^4 M_sun halo) to pin down the slope, rather than adding more μ values at fixed resolution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents seven N-body simulations of Hernquist dark matter haloes (N ≈ 1300 particles) with a central black hole grown adiabatically in a modified version of the SWIFT code. From 235 recorded snapshots spanning mass ratios μ = M_BH/M_tot, the authors propose an empirical post-growth density profile (Eq. 12) consisting of the original Hernquist profile multiplied by a depletion factor β plus a power-law spike with slope γ_sp and radius r_sp. They fit β(μ), r_sp(μ), and γ_sp(μ), report scalings in Eqs. (14) and (15), and use the HaloFeedback code to estimate gravitational-wave dephasing for the new profile. The paper claims to be the first fully numerical demonstration of dark matter spike formation.

Significance. If the central claims were supported, this would be a significant contribution: it would offer the first N-body check of adiabatic spike formation in Hernquist haloes, a simple one-parameter empirical profile, and updated predictions for gravitational-wave dephasing. The authors deserve credit for releasing their code, for presenting detailed appendices on the convergence radius and on fitting validation, and for candidly acknowledging some resolution limitations. However, the main claims about the spike radius and slope are extracted from scales far below the stated convergence radius, and the validation appendix does not test the actual fitting configuration. The headline profile and mass-ratio scalings are therefore not established by the presented simulations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Table 1, Eq. (15)] The fitted spike parameters lie far below the resolution limit. For the 1e4-1e3 run, ε = 6 r_vir/√N ≈ 0.075 kpc and, with the adopted δ = 2.5, r_conv = 2.5ε ≈ 0.19 kpc. Equation (15) with μ = 0.074 gives r_sp ≈ 0.0037 kpc, about 50 times smaller than r_conv; even for the highest-μ run (1e4-5e3, μ = 0.333), r_sp ≈ 0.0086 kpc, still about 22 times below r_conv. Since the fitting lower boundary is r_conv, the spike term in Eq. (13) contributes only (r_conv/r_sp)^{1-γ_sp} ≈ 0.5% for γ_sp = 7/3 and about 2% for γ_sp = 2 at the first fitted radius, and it decreases outward. The binned density above r_conv is therefore essentially β times the original Hernquist profile and contains no direct information about r_sp or γ_sp. The two-orders-of-magnitude smaller RMSE reported in Table 2 is an artifact of fitting an extrapolated, unresolved parameter and does not establish a new scaling. This undermines the central claim of the abstract and of Section 4.1.
  2. [Appendix C2, Sec. 4.1] The validation in Appendix C2 does not mimic the actual fitting configuration. The 'zoomed' fit in Tables C1-C4 covers 10^{-3} ≤ r ≤ 10^0 in units of a and brackets the injected artificial spike radii r_sp = 0.05 and 0.25. In the real N-body fits, the lower boundary is r_conv ≈ 10a for the 10^4 M_sun haloes (0.19 kpc versus a = 0.019 kpc), so the actual fitting interval starts at roughly 50 r_sp. The artificial-data tests therefore only demonstrate parameter recovery when the fitted range contains the spike; they do not address the situation in which the spike lies far below the first fitted radius. The paper's own admissions in Section 4.1 that low-μ spikes 'manifest below r_conv' and that the low-μ γ_sp values may be resolution artifacts apply equally to r_sp, so the scaling in Eq. (15) is not supported by the validation presented.
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Eqs. (14)-(15)] The reported bin counts and fit quality are internally inconsistent. Section 3.3 states that more than 10^4 particles are present in the least populated radial bins, but each run has only N = 1303 DM particles; with logarithmic radial binning, the innermost resolved bins can contain at most a few tens to a few hundred particles, not 10^4. The quoted χ²_red values of order 10^{-5} for the secondary fits in Eqs. (14) and (15) and the small 1σ errors therefore cannot follow from the stated Poisson error model applied to single snapshots. Either the error model is mis-described, or the 235 snapshots are being treated as independent even though they are strongly correlated within each of the seven runs. In either case, the formal significance assigned to the empirical scalings is not trustworthy.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Table 3] The gravitational-wave dephasing estimates inherit the resolution problem. Table 3 compares inspirals in the proposed profile with γ_sp = 7/3 and γ_sp = 2, but both cases use an r_sp that is unconstrained by the simulations, and the γ_sp = 2 case uses a slope that the authors themselves attribute to limited fitting range. The qualitative statement that dephasing can be smaller for shallower spikes is reasonable, but the numerical values in Table 3 and the associated conclusions in Section 5 should not be presented as predictions of the simulated profile until the spike parameters are resolved.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 vs Appendix B] Section 3.1 states r_conv = 2ε, while Appendix B concludes that δ = 2.5 should be used; please reconcile this inconsistency.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption for panel (c) says the lower sub-panel shows 'values of β divided by the best fit'; it should refer to r_sp.
  3. [Eqs. (12)-(13)] The notation \(\tilde{r}_{\rm sp}\) in Eq. (12) is not defined until Eq. (13); please state explicitly that \(\tilde{r}_{\rm sp} = r_{\rm sp}/a\).
  4. [Abstract and conclusions] The phrase 'fully numerically simulated cold dark matter spikes' in the abstract is stronger than what the resolution analysis in Section 4.1 and Appendix C2 supports; please qualify it.
  5. [Data availability] Making the reduced density profiles and the fit catalog publicly available, rather than only upon reasonable request, would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the proposed profile is an empirical fit to independent N-body data, and the resolution concerns flagged in the paper are correctness risks, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central result, the empirical profile of Eq. (12) with the fits of Eqs. (14) and (15), is obtained by least-squares fitting to density histograms of N-body simulations, not by assuming the conclusion. The comparison against Gondolo & Silk (1999), the Modified G&S profile, and the HaloFeedback inspiral code are external benchmarks, and the quoted RMSE improvement is an independent comparison. The only self-citation in the load-bearing vicinity is the Numerical G&S implementation 'based on code developed for Bertone et al. (2024)', where one of the present authors is a co-author; however, this implementation is used only for the comparison curve and the RMSE table, and the central fit does not reduce to that code. The paper itself explicitly flags that low-mass-ratio spikes 'manifest below r_conv' and that low-μ values of γ_sp are 'likely due to limited fitting range as discussed in Appendix C2'; Appendix C2 also concedes that 'the resolution of these simulations is too low to determine γ_sp with the same level of accuracy'. These are genuine resolution and validation limitations, but they are not circular: the fitted parameters are not defined in terms of the claimed scalings, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. Accordingly, the circularity score is low, reflecting only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation and the need to interpret the unresolved-spike fitting range as a correctness caveat rather than a circularity defect.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a large set of fitted parameters (six α coefficients plus per-snapshot β, r_sp, γ_sp) and several domain assumptions (NFW equivalence, negligible baryons, scaling with mass ratio). The invented-entity list is empty because the DAB black hole model is a numerical machinery modification, not a new physical entity. The most consequential assumption is that the spike is resolved, which the paper's own resolution numbers contradict.

free parameters (10)
  • α1 = 0.998 ± 0.008
    Power-law normalization for halo depletion β in Eq. (14), fitted to simulation snapshots.
  • α2 = 0.858 ± 0.004
    Power-law index for β(μ) in Eq. (14).
  • α3 = 0.801 ± 0.004
    Amplitude for r_sp(μ) fit in Eq. (15).
  • α4 = 2.29 ± 0.07
    Numerator power in r_sp(μ) fit, Eq. (15).
  • α5 = 1.78 ± 0.07
    Denominator power in r_sp(μ) fit, Eq. (15).
  • α6 = (9.1 ± 2.4) × 10^-4
    Offset in denominator of r_sp(μ) fit, Eq. (15).
  • β, r_sp, γ_sp (per snapshot) = varies
    The three profile parameters of Eq. (12) are fitted to each radial density distribution and then recast as functions of μ.
  • softening constant α in ε = α r_vir/√N = 6
    Empirical constant chosen to be stable; values of 2 and 4 from the literature were unstable in their runs.
  • time-step parameter η = 0.005
    Chosen for force accuracy in Eq. (10).
  • δ = r_conv/ε = 2.5
    Convergence radius boundary selected after consistency checks in Appendix B; sets the lower fitting radius in all fits.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Adiabatic invariance of actions during slow BH growth (Binney & Tremaine 2008)
    Used to argue the final spike profile is independent of the specific growth rate; validated by growth-rate comparison for rates ≤2000 M_sun/Gyr.
  • domain assumption The Hernquist inner cusp (ρ ∝ r^{-1}) is representative of NFW, so the results carry over to NFW haloes
    Section 2 and Conclusions; only Hernquist haloes are simulated, the equivalence to NFW is assumed based on the identical inner slope.
  • domain assumption Baryonic mass is negligible for the spike calculation
    Section 2; adopted from G&S; no baryonic component is included in the simulations.
  • domain assumption Newtonian point-mass treatment of the BH is sufficient at resolved radii
    Section 2; relativistic effects are confined to ~10 Schwarzschild radii, below the resolution of the simulations.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial numerical shock wave does not significantly affect the fitted results
    Appendix C3; the shock is masked in the fitting and argued to be quickly overshadowed by the growing BH, but it affects the determination of β at early times.
  • ad hoc to paper The functional form of the empirical profile (Eq. 12), Hernquist density times [β + power-law], is a valid ansatz
    Introduced in Section 4.1 and tested only against the same simulation data used for the fit; no independent validation.
  • standard math Poisson √N_bin errors in radial bins and bin independence
    Section 3.3; used for fitting uncertainties, but the resulting χ²_red values are far below 1, indicating the error model is not realistic.
  • domain assumption The mass ratio μ alone determines the profile, independent of halo mass or absolute size
    Section 3.3; based on scaling arguments for r << a, but not tested across a range of halo masses at fixed μ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Darkness Visible: N-Body Simulations of Dark Matter Spikes in Hernquist Haloes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SZ6GJJ2Y

@misc{pith2026241112007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Darkness Visible: N-Body Simulations of Dark Matter Spikes in Hernquist Haloes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SZ6GJJ2Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12007}
}
read the original abstract

Dark matter is theorised to form massive haloes, which could be further condensed into so-called spikes when a black hole grows at the centre of such a halo. The existence of these spikes is instrumental for several dark matter detection schemes such as indirect detection and imprints on gravitational wave inspirals, but all previous work on their formation has been (semi-)analytical. We present fully numerically simulated cold dark matter spikes using the SWIFT code. Based on these results, we propose a simple empirical density profile - dependent on only a single mass-ratio parameter between the black hole and total mass - for dark matter spikes grown in Hernquist profiles. We find that the radius of the spike scales differently compared to theoretical predictions, and show a depletion of the outer halo that is significant for high mass-ratio systems. We critically assess approximations of the spike as used in the field, show that our profile significantly deviates, and contextualise the potential influence for future dark matter detections by simulating binary black hole inspirals embedded in our profile.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12007 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of mass ratio 𝜇 in the present simulations, with 𝜇 = 𝑀BH/𝑀tot. Only systems where a spike is measured are included, for a total of 235 datapoints. As all BHs are grown from near-zero mass, lower values of 𝜇 are overrepresented. We deem that these systems will yield results that can also be applied to larger haloes, as long as the mass ratio stays the same. For 𝑟 ≪ 𝑎, the density slope is equal, and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The fitted values of every parameter of the spike profile 𝜌 = 𝜌Hernq [𝛽 + (𝑟/𝑟sp ) 1−𝛾sp ], shown with 2𝜎 error. The fitted systems are found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Tidal Love numbers and quasi-normal modes of the Schwarzschild-Hernquist black hole

    gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For a Schwarzschild black hole in a relativistic Hernquist dark matter halo, quasinormal-mode frequency shifts scale as (MDM/rs)^(3/2) rather than linearly, while tidal Love numbers are small and sensitive to the choi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aghanim N., et al., 2020, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , 641, A6 @eprint arXiv 1807.06209

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    F., Vecchi M., 2024, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/005 , 09, 005 @eprint arXiv 2401.14072

    Aschersleben J., Bertone G., Horns D., Moulin E., Peletier R. F., Vecchi M., 2024, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/005 , 09, 005 @eprint arXiv 2401.14072

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Dejonghe, H

    Baes, M. Dejonghe, H. Buyle, P. 2005, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041907 , 432, 411 @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0411202

    arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Bandara K., Crampton D., Simard L., 2009, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1135 , 704, 1135 @eprint arXiv 0909.0269

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    R., Silk J., 2005, @doi [Phys

    Bertone G., Zentner A. R., Silk J., 2005, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.103517 , 72, 103517 @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0509565

    arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Bertone G., Wierda A. R. A. C., Gaggero D., Kavanagh B. J., Volonteri M., Yoshida N., 2024 @eprint arXiv 2404.08731

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Princeton University Press

    Binney J., Tremaine S., 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition. Princeton University Press

    2008

  8. [8]

    M., Schaye J., 2010, @doi [MNRAS.] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00832.x , 405, L1 @eprint arXiv 0911.0935

    Booth C. M., Schaye J., 2010, @doi [MNRAS.] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00832.x , 405, L1 @eprint arXiv 0911.0935

    arXiv 2010

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Brun R., et al., 2020, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.3895860

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2017, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 , 55, 343 @eprint arXiv 1707.04256

    Bullock J. S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2017, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 , 55, 343 @eprint arXiv 1707.04256

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S., Bertone G., Coogan A., Gaggero D., Karydas T., Kavanagh B

    Cole P. S., Bertone G., Coogan A., Gaggero D., Karydas T., Kavanagh B. J., Spieksma T. F. M., Tomaselli G. M., 2023, @doi [Nature Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-023-01990-2 , 7, 943 @eprint arXiv 2211.01362

    2023

  4. [12]

    Colpi M., et al., 2024 @eprint arXiv 2402.07571

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J., Nichols D

    Coogan A., Bertone G., Gaggero D., Kavanagh B. J., Nichols D. A., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.043009 , 105, 043009 @eprint arXiv 2108.04154

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A., Wyithe J

    Correa C. A., Wyithe J. S. B., Schaye J., Duffy A. R., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1363 , 452, 1217 @eprint arXiv 1502.00391

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Eda K., Itoh Y., Kuroyanagi S., Silk J., 2013, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.221101 , 110, 221101 @eprint arXiv 1301.5971

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Eda K., Itoh Y., Kuroyanagi S., Silk J., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.044045 , 91, 044045 @eprint arXiv 1408.3534

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Farrell S., Webb N., Barret D., Godet O., Rodrigues J., 2009, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature08083 , 460, 73 @eprint arXiv 1001.0567

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gondolo P., Silk J., 1999, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1719 , 83, 1719 @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9906391

    1999 arXiv

  11. [19]

    M., Kavanagh B

    Green A. M., Kavanagh B. J., 2021, @doi [J. Phys. G] 10.1088/1361-6471/abc534 , 48, 043001 @eprint arXiv 2007.10722

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    H \"a berle M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07511-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.631..285H 631, 285 @eprint arXiv 2405.06015

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hernquist L., 1990, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/168845 , 356, 359

    1990 doi

  14. [22]

    James F., Roos M., 1975, @doi [Comput. Phys. Com.] https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4655(75)90039-9 , 10, 343

    1975 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Nichols D

    Kavanagh B. J., Nichols D. A., Bertone G., Gaggero D., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083006 , 102, 083006 @eprint arXiv 2002.12811

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J., Karydas T

    Kavanagh B. J., Karydas T. K., Bertone G., Di Cintio P., Pasquato M., 2024 @eprint arXiv 2402.13762

    2024

  17. [25]

    Li P., Lelli F., McGaugh S., Schombert J., 2020, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab700e , 247, 31 @eprint arXiv 2001.10538

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Merritt D., 2003, in Carnegie Observatories Centennial Symposium. 1. Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies . @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0301257

    2003 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Merritt D., 2004, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.201304 , 92, 201304 @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0311594

    2004 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M., Ogiya G., Trac H., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae1989 , 533, 2335 @eprint arXiv 2312.02275

    Mukherjee D., Holgado A. M., Ogiya G., Trac H., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae1989 , 533, 2335 @eprint arXiv 2312.02275

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/177173 , 462, 563 @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9508025

    1996 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Navas S., et al., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001 , 110, 030001

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Pandey B., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw1788 , 462, 1630 @eprint arXiv 1512.03562

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    R., Strohmayer T

    Pasham D. R., Strohmayer T. E., Mushotzky R. F., 2014, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature13710 , 513, 74 @eprint arXiv 1501.03180

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    F., Jenkins A., Frenk C

    Power C., Navarro J. F., Jenkins A., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., Springel V., Stadel J., Quinn T., 2003, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.05925.x , 338, 14 @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0201544

    2003

  26. [34]

    D., Hernquist L., Sigurdsson S., 1995, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/175295 , 440, 554 @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9407005

    Quinlan G. D., Hernquist L., Sigurdsson S., 1995, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/175295 , 440, 554 @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9407005

    1995 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Rashkov V., Madau P., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/187 , 780, 187 @eprint arXiv 1303.3929

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M., 2013, @doi [Phys

    Sadeghian L., Ferrer F., Will C. M., 2013, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.063522 , 88, 063522 @eprint arXiv 1305.2619

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Schaller M., et al., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae922 , 530, 2378 @eprint arXiv 2305.13380

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    K., Tormen G., 2002, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04950.x , 329, 61 @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0105113

    Sheth R. K., Tormen G., 2002, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04950.x , 329, 61 @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0105113

    2002

  31. [39]

    Ullio P., Zhao H., Kamionkowski M., 2001, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.043504 , 64, 043504 @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0101481

    2001 arXiv

  32. [40]

    in Comput

    Wendland H., 1995, @doi [Adv. in Comput. Math.] 10.1007/BF02123482 , 4, 389

    1995 doi

  33. [41]

    Yue X.-J., Han W.-B., Chen X., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06f6 , 874, 34 @eprint arXiv 1802.03739

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Zhang T., Liao S., Li M., Gao L., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz1370 , 487, 1227 @eprint arXiv 1810.07055

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zhao H.-S., Silk J., 2005, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.011301 , 95, 011301 @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0501625

    2005 arXiv

  36. [44]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.