On the maximum disk heating attributable to fuzzy dark matter

Chris Hamilton

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 16 references

On the maximum disk heating attributable to fuzzy dark matter

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fuzzy dark matter granulations would heat and migrate disk stars equally, so the Milky Way's observed migration-to-heating ratio of about 10:1 caps the FDM heating fraction near 10% and pushes the particle mass bound up to about…

desk verdict A compact, correct calculation that caps FDM heating via the measured H/M ratio; the headline factor-of-three mass-bound revision is real only if the unmeasured spiral hotness g is near 0.1, and that is the load-bearing uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13275 v1 pith:YBSGJ54H submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Chris Hamilton This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO

keywords fuzzydarkmatterGalacticdiskheatingradialmigrationactionspacespiralarmsmassboundMilkyWaykinematics

topics Dark Matter

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 argues that the Milky Way's measured ratio of radial heating to radial migration—about 0.1—sharply limits how much of the disk's heating can be blamed on fuzzy dark matter (FDM). FDM granulations deliver random impulsive kicks that heat and migrate stars in roughly equal measure, whereas the observed disk migrates an order of magnitude more efficiently than it heats. Combining the observed migration-to-heating ratio with two transport scaling laws gives a maximum fraction of heating attributable to FDM, and for realistic spiral properties that fraction is only about 10%. Consequently, the dynamical lower bound on the FDM particle mass rises from $0.4\times10^{-22}$ eV to roughly $1.3\times10^{-22}$ eV, a factor of about three.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is equation (5), a quadratic solution for the largest fraction of radial heating that FDM can provide. It is obtained by writing the total migration and heating as sums of FDM and resonant-spiral contributions and eliminating the resonant variables between two scaling laws: $H_\mathrm{FDM}=f M_\mathrm{FDM}^2/J_\varphi$ (random impulsive kicks) and $H_\mathrm{res}=g M_\mathrm{res}$ (Jacobi-integral conservation in resonant scattering). The dimensionless 'hotness' $g$ is the pivotal unknown: as $g$ approaches the observed $H/M\approx0.1$, the allowed FDM fraction shrinks to about 0.1, while in the cold-spiral limit $g\to0$ the fraction approaches 1 and the bound disappears.

What would settle it

Measure $g$ directly by comparing, for stars that have recently interacted with a spiral arm, the change in guiding radius (migration) and the change in radial action (heating); if a dataset or simulation of the Milky Way's actual spiral population yields $g\lesssim0.02$ while preserving $H/M\approx0.1$, then Figure 1 shows the maximum FDM heating fraction approaches 1 and the paper's upward mass revision is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that FDM-driven orbital transport cannot supply more than a small fraction of the observed radial heating of the Galactic disk once the observed migration-to-heating ratio is enforced. FDM scattering is a series of uncorrelated impulsive kicks whose heating scales quadratically with its migration, while resonant spiral transport heats in linear proportion to migration; equation (5) combines these scalings with the observed totals to give the maximum allowed $H_\mathrm{FDM}/H$. With the fiducial spiral hotness $g\approx0.095$, that maximum is about 10%, and converting through the $m^{-2}$ heating calibration raises the dynamical lower mass bound from $0.4\times10^{-22}$ eV to about $1.3\times10^{-22}$ eV.

Load-bearing premise

The upward revision of the mass bound assumes that the resonant spiral transport actually shaping the Milky Way disk has a hotness $g$ close to the observed $H/M\approx0.1$; if the real spirals are much colder ($g\ll0.1$), FDM would still be allowed to supply essentially all the observed heating and the revised bound would vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The dynamical lower bound on the FDM particle mass should be revised upward by roughly a factor of three, to $m\gtrsim 1.3\times10^{-22}$ eV, if the fiducial parameters hold.
If future measurements lower the observed radial migration $M$ by about 25%, the maximum FDM heating fraction rises to roughly 0.45, substantially weakening the bound.
Adding any additional transport mechanisms beyond FDM and resonant spirals, such as molecular clouds or satellites, leaves even less room for FDM heating and strengthens the bound.
Applying the same heating-versus-migration argument to vertical heating, or to other disk galaxies where migration and heating can be measured, could sharpen the mass constraint further.
The bound is independent of Lyman-alpha forest and dwarf-galaxy constraints, providing a purely dynamical cross-check on the FDM particle mass.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct empirical measurement of $g$—for instance, from the joint distribution of changes in guiding radius and radial action for stars scattered by individual spiral episodes in Gaia data—would resolve the main uncertainty; the paper leaves this as future work.
The same cap on impulsive-heating fractions should apply to any dark matter candidate whose scattering is isotropic and impulsive, not only FDM, so the argument generalizes beyond fuzzy dark matter.
The bound's fragility to the poorly measured migration $M$ suggests that a younger, action-space-selected stellar sample could test the result more cleanly than the current mixed-age sample.
If the vertical direction obeys a similar heating-migration relation, the vertical heating data used by previous bounds could be re-analyzed to yield a stronger or weaker mass floor depending on the measured vertical migration.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The useful new thing here is equation (5): an explicit upper bound on the fraction of radial heating that FDM can supply, derived from combining HMT's two scaling relations with Frankel et al.'s measured H/M. The algebra checks, and the paper correctly notes that this goes beyond Chiang et al. and Yang et al., who simply assumed 100% FDM heating. It is a compact application of existing machinery, not a new framework, but it is a genuine and clearly-stated new inequality.

The paper is transparent about its main weaknesses. It says outright that g is not known a priori and that the bound depends strongly on it. The stress-test concern is accurate: at g=0.05 the allowed FDM heating fraction rises to about 0.6 and the revised mass bound drops to roughly 0.5e-22 eV, only modestly above the original 0.4e-22 eV bound. So the headline factor-of-three revision is conditional on g being close to 0.1. That said, even the pessimistic g=0.05 case leaves the qualitative conclusion intact: a measured H/M well below unity caps FDM heating and pushes kinematic mass bounds upward. The only reason to believe g is not much smaller than 0.1 is the author's own unpublished HMT preprint, which is a real external-support gap. The sensitivity to M is also large, as the red curves show, and there is no propagated error budget. These are honest limitations flagged in the text, not hidden ones.

The conversion from heating fraction to particle mass adds two more approximations: radial and vertical heating rates are assumed proportional, and the mass-heating exponent is taken as alpha=2 rather than 3. Both are stated and defended briefly, and neither is unreasonable. The citation pattern is legitimate: HMT is the source of the central scalings, and the paper leans on it heavily, but it does not misrepresent the work as published or independently verified.

This is a paper for FDM and Galactic-dynamics readers. It deserves a serious referee: the argument is simple, the central equation is derivable, and the limitation is an input parameter rather than a logical flaw. I would send it to review with a request that the referee scrutinize the HMT dependence and ask for an external handle on g, plus at least a rough error estimate. It is not a desk reject, and it is not a definitive bound either.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that fuzzy dark matter (FDM) granulations, which drive both radial heating and radial migration of disk stars, would produce a heating-to-migration ratio H_FDM/M_FDM that is much larger than observed. Using the measured Galactic values H ≈ 63 kpc km/s and M ≈ 619 kpc km/s (Frankel et al. 2020), together with scalings from a companion preprint (HMT) for impulsive FDM kicks and resonant spiral transport, the author derives an upper limit on the fraction of radial heating that can be attributed to FDM. For the fiducial choice g ≈ 0.095 of the 'hotness' of resonant spirals, this fraction is H_FDM/H ≈ 0.1, which converts to a revised lower bound on the FDM particle mass m ≳ 1.3 × 10^-22 eV, roughly three times stronger than the earlier bound of ~0.4 × 10^-22 eV. The paper is transparent about the algebra and about sensitivities to M and f, but the headline number depends critically on the unmeasured parameter g.

Significance. If the assumptions hold, the argument provides a novel, independent kinematic constraint on FDM mass, using existing Gaia/APOGEE data. The analytic result in Eq. (5) is derived cleanly and is easy to evaluate for arbitrary input parameters. The paper also clearly identifies the two dominant uncertainties (M and g) and shows how the result degrades under plausible variations. However, the key quantitative conclusion is conditional on an unpublished preprint for both the scaling relation Eq. (1) and the estimate g ≈ 0.1, so the paper is best viewed as a framework indicating that the mass bound may be stronger, rather than a definitive measurement. The sensitivity to g is substantial: at g = 0.05 the allowed FDM heating fraction rises to ~0.5 and the mass bound drops to ~0.54 × 10^-22 eV, within ~35% of the original bound.

major comments (3)

[§3, Eq. (6)] The headline bound m ≳ 1.3 × 10^-22 eV is directly tied to the assumption g ≈ 0.095. The paper admits 'we do not know g a priori' and the claim that g ≪ 0.1 requires 'very contrived spirals' rests entirely on the unpublished HMT preprint (arXiv:2411.08944). If g = 0.05, the allowed FDM heating fraction becomes ~0.5 (Fig. 1) and the bound drops to m ≳ 0.54 × 10^-22 eV, which is far less dramatic. Since g is not independently measured or derived here, the quantitative result is not robust and the abstract should present the 1.3 × 10^-22 eV value as a specific example rather than the main conclusion.
[§2, Fig. 1 and §3] The sensitivity to the observed migration M is also large and is not reflected in the quoted uncertainty. The red curves show that a 25% reduction in M (from 619 to 460 kpc km/s) raises the maximum FDM heating fraction from ~0.1 to ~0.45 at fixed g, which would reduce the mass bound by roughly a factor of two. Frankel et al. (2020) presumably provide error bars, but they are not quoted here. The paper should either propagate the uncertainty in M (and in f) into a range for m, or explicitly state that the bound is conditional on the fiducial M.
[§2, Eq. (1)] The scaling H_FDM = f Jφ / M_FDM^2 is the foundation of the quadratic Eq. (5), yet it is only asserted by citation to the unpublished HMT preprint. No derivation or independent numerical check is provided in this manuscript. Even a brief heuristic argument, along the lines of the Binney and Lacey (1988) reference, would help the reader assess whether the scaling is reliable. Without such support, the formal derivation of Eq. (5) is correct but its applicability to FDM remains unverified.

minor comments (4)

[§2, text after Eq. (2)] Typo: 'roughlylinear' should be 'roughly linear'.
[Abstract and §3] The abstract states the bound as 'm ≳ 1.3 × 10^-22 eV' without mentioning the fiducial g and M values. A reader could mistake this for a robust lower limit. Add a qualifier such as 'for g ≈ 0.1' or 'assuming the resonant spiral hotness inferred from HMT'.
[Fig. 1 caption] The vertical lines are said to correspond to g = H/M, but the caption does not identify which line belongs to which curve (black vs red). Label the vertical lines or clarify that they are all at the same value of H/M.
[§2, Frankel et al. (2020)] The paper quotes H = 63 kpc km/s and M = 619 kpc km/s without error bars. Including the observational uncertainties would make the sensitivity analysis more informative.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Self-cited HMT g≈0.1 is load-bearing for the revised m bound; otherwise the algebra is independent.

self citation load bearing [§2 (Eq. 2) and §3; HMT = Hamilton et al., arXiv:2411.08944]
"HMT also showed that resonant scattering by a particular class of transient spirals could drive heating that scaled roughly linearly with migration: Hres = g Mres ... HMT found that a subset of reasonable spirals were indeed able to reproduce g ≈ 0.1, although g ≪ 0.1 was near-impossible achieve to except with very contrived spirals. ... While we do not know g a priori, the simulations of HMT show that only very contrived spirals are capable of producing g ≪ 0.1."

The headline numerical result, m ≳ 1.3 × 10−22 eV, is obtained by choosing g ≈ 0.095 in Figure 1 and Eq. (5). The paper explicitly concedes that g is not known a priori, and the only evidence offered against the alternative g ≪ 0.1 is the author's own companion preprint HMT (arXiv:2411.08944), which is not independently reproduced, machine-checked, or externally validated in this paper. If that self-cited claim were absent, the observed H/M ratio alone would not force g ≈ 0.1, and the revised bound would not follow. Thus a load-bearing premise of the central 'upward revision' claim is supplied by self-citation rather than by independent evidence. This is not an algebraic circularity—Eq. (5) follows from Eqs.

full rationale

The algebraic chain from Eqs. (1)–(4) to Eq. (5) is straightforward and self-contained given its inputs, and the observed H/M ratio is an external datum from Frankel et al. (2020). The prior mass bound m ≳ 0.4 × 10−22 eV is also external, so Eq. (6) is not a renamed version of the paper's own fit. Circularity enters only through the numerical premise that g is close to 0.1: the paper states 'we do not know g a priori,' and the only support for excluding g ≪ 0.1 is the author's own HMT preprint, which is not independently reproduced. Because the headline factor-of-three upward revision depends directly on that self-cited value—g = 0.095 gives H_FDM/H ≈ 0.1, while g = 0.05 would roughly halve the bound—the central numerical claim is partially load-bearing on self-citation, although the conditional logic is independent. This warrants score 4 rather than a higher score, since no quantity is defined in terms of the target result and the observed data are external.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation introduces no new entities. It depends on two dimensionless numbers (f and g) calibrated to the author's own simulations or chosen by hand, one scaling exponent adopted from prior simulations, and several domain assumptions about which perturbers act. The observed quantities H, M, and J_phi come from Frankel et al. 2020 and are treated as data inputs, not free parameters.

free parameters (3)

f = 7 +/- 1 (fiducial), varied 2-12
Dimensionless coefficient in the FDM heating-migration relation, Equation (1). It is calibrated to simplified white-noise Gaussian random field simulations in HMT, not derived from first principles in this paper.
g = ~0.095 (fiducial), not measured
Hotness of resonant spiral transport in Equation (2). The numerical mass bound requires g near H/M ~ 0.102; the paper justifies this via HMT simulations, but g is unconstrained by direct observation.
alpha (mass-heating exponent) = 2 (adopted; simple theory gives 3)
Heating rate scales as m^{-alpha}; used to convert the heating fraction into a mass bound in Equation (6). The paper adopts alpha = 2 from simulations cited in Chiang et al. 2023 and Yang et al. 2024.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Orbital transport in the disk is the sum of only two mechanisms: FDM granulation kicks and resonant spiral scattering, so M = M_FDM + M_res and H = H_FDM + H_res.
Equations (3) and (4) ignore ISM clouds, satellites, and other perturbers. The paper argues this is conservative for FDM because extra mechanisms would reduce the FDM share.
domain assumption FDM-driven scattering is well described as uncorrelated, isotropic impulsive kicks, giving H_FDM = f M_FDM^2 / J_phi with f ~ 7.
Equation (1), taken from HMT and Bar-Or et al. 2019. The quadratic scaling follows from J_R being quadratic in velocity while J_phi is linear in velocity.
domain assumption Resonant spiral scattering conserves the Jacobi integral, giving the linear scaling H_res = g M_res.
Equation (2), following Sellwood and Binney 2002. It applies to a particular class of transient spirals, not to all possible perturbations.
ad hoc to paper The hotness g of resonant scattering is not much smaller than 0.1; only very contrived spirals give g << 0.1.
Section 3. This assumption turns the general formula (5) into the numerical headlined bound. It rests on HMT simulations rather than direct measurement.
domain assumption Radial and vertical FDM heating rates are proportional, so the vertical-heating-derived mass bound scales the same way as the radial fraction.
Section 3, justified by isotropy of impulsive scattering and by observed radial-to-vertical velocity dispersion ratios from Lacey and Ostriker 1985, Mackereth et al. 2019, and Ludlow et al. 2021.
domain assumption FDM vertical heating rate scales as m^{-2} with alpha = 2, as found in simulations, rather than m^{-3} from simple theory.
Section 3, adopted from Chiang et al. 2023 and Yang et al. 2024 to convert the heating fraction into the mass bound in Equation (6).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the maximum disk heating attributable to fuzzy dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YBSGJ54H

@misc{pith2026241213275,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the maximum disk heating attributable to fuzzy dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YBSGJ54H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13275}
}

abstract

Fuzzy dark matter (FDM) granulations would drive orbital transport of stars in galactic disks, and in particular would produce roughly equal amounts of radial heating and radial migration. However, observations suggest that heating has been much less efficient than migration in our Galaxy. We argue that this decreases the amount of radial heating, $\mathcal{H}_\mathrm{FDM}$, that can safely be attributed to FDM. Consequently, lower bounds on the FDM particle mass $m$ derived through Galactic disk kinematics should be revised upwards; a rough estimate is $m \gtrsim 1.3\times 10^{-22} \mathrm{eV} \times [(\mathcal{H}_\mathrm{FDM}/\mathcal{H})/0.1]^{-1/2}$, where $\mathcal{H}$ is the total observed radial heating.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13275 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** — Plot of the maximum fraction of radial heating attributable to FDM, HFDM/H (see equation (5)), as a function of the ‘hotness’ of resonant spiral transport g (equation (2)). The black solid curve is for the fiducial values Jφ = 1760 kpc km s−1 , M = 619 kpc km s−1 , H = 63 kpc km s−1 and f = 7. The red curves assume a reduced observed radial migration, M = 460 kpc km s−1 , and the dashed (dotted) curves assume f =… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Hui , author J

author author L. Hui , author J. P. \ Ostriker , author S. Tremaine , \ and\ author E. Witten ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review D \ volume 95 ,\ pages 043541 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

work page 2017
[2]

Bar-Or , author J.-B

author author B. Bar-Or , author J.-B. \ Fouvry , \ and\ author S. Tremaine ,\ @noop journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 871 ,\ pages 28 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

work page 2019
[3]

author author B. T. \ Chiang , author J. P. \ Ostriker , \ and\ author H.-Y. \ Schive ,\ @noop journal journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society \ volume 518 ,\ pages 4045 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

work page 2023
[4]

\ Yang , author B

author author H.-Y. \ Yang , author B. T. \ Chiang , author G.-M. \ Su , author H.-Y. \ Schive , author T. Chiueh , \ and\ author J. P. \ Ostriker ,\ @noop journal journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society \ volume 530 ,\ pages 129 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

work page 2024
[5]

Frankel , author J

author author N. Frankel , author J. Sanders , author Y.-S. \ Ting , \ and\ author H.-W. \ Rix ,\ @noop journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 896 ,\ pages 15 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

work page 2020
[6]

Hamilton , author S

author author C. Hamilton , author S. Modak , \ and\ author S. Tremaine ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08944 \ ( year 2024 ) NoStop

arXiv 2024
[7]

Zupancic \ and\ author L

author author B. Zupancic \ and\ author L. M. \ Widrow ,\ @noop journal journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society \ volume 527 ,\ pages 6189 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

work page 2024
[8]

Binney \ and\ author C

author author J. Binney \ and\ author C. Lacey ,\ @noop journal journal \ volume 230 ,\ pages 597 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

work page 1988

Show all 16 references

[9]

author author J. A. \ Sellwood \ and\ author J. J. \ Binney ,\ @noop journal journal \ volume 336 ,\ pages 785 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

2002
[10]

author author C. G. \ Lacey \ and\ author J. P. \ Ostriker ,\ @noop journal journal Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 299, Dec. 15, 1985, p. 633-652. \ volume 299 ,\ pages 633 ( year 1985 ) NoStop

1985
[11]

author author J. T. \ Mackereth , author J. Bovy , author H. W. \ Leung , author R. P. \ Schiavon , author W. H. \ Trick , author W. J. \ Chaplin , author K. Cunha , author D. K. \ Feuillet , author S. R. \ Majewski , author M. Martig , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Monthly ...

2019
[12]

author author A. D. \ Ludlow , author S. M. \ Fall , author J. Schaye , \ and\ author D. Obreschkow ,\ @noop journal journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society \ volume 508 ,\ pages 5114 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

2021
[13]

author author K. K. \ Rogers \ and\ author H. V. \ Peiris ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 126 ,\ pages 071302 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

2021
[14]

Dalal \ and\ author A

author author N. Dalal \ and\ author A. Kravtsov ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review D \ volume 106 ,\ pages 063517 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

2022
[15]

Lian , author G

author author J. Lian , author G. Zasowski , author S. Hasselquist , author J. A. \ Holtzman , author N. Boardman , author K. Cunha , author J. G. \ Fern \'a ndez-Trincado , author P. M. \ Frinchaboy , author D. Garcia-Hernandez , author C. Nitschelm , et al. ,\ @noop journal ...

2022
[16]

Magrini , author L

author author L. Magrini , author L. Coccato , author L. Stanghellini , author V. Casasola , \ and\ author D. Galli ,\ @noop journal journal Astronomy & Astrophysics \ volume 588 ,\ pages A91 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Hui , author J

author author L. Hui , author J. P. \ Ostriker , author S. Tremaine , \ and\ author E. Witten ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review D \ volume 95 ,\ pages 043541 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Bar-Or , author J.-B

author author B. Bar-Or , author J.-B. \ Fouvry , \ and\ author S. Tremaine ,\ @noop journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 871 ,\ pages 28 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

work page 2019

[3] [3]

author author B. T. \ Chiang , author J. P. \ Ostriker , \ and\ author H.-Y. \ Schive ,\ @noop journal journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society \ volume 518 ,\ pages 4045 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

work page 2023

[4] [4]

\ Yang , author B

author author H.-Y. \ Yang , author B. T. \ Chiang , author G.-M. \ Su , author H.-Y. \ Schive , author T. Chiueh , \ and\ author J. P. \ Ostriker ,\ @noop journal journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society \ volume 530 ,\ pages 129 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Frankel , author J

author author N. Frankel , author J. Sanders , author Y.-S. \ Ting , \ and\ author H.-W. \ Rix ,\ @noop journal journal The Astrophysical Journal \ volume 896 ,\ pages 15 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Hamilton , author S

author author C. Hamilton , author S. Modak , \ and\ author S. Tremaine ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08944 \ ( year 2024 ) NoStop

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Zupancic \ and\ author L

author author B. Zupancic \ and\ author L. M. \ Widrow ,\ @noop journal journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society \ volume 527 ,\ pages 6189 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Binney \ and\ author C

author author J. Binney \ and\ author C. Lacey ,\ @noop journal journal \ volume 230 ,\ pages 597 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

work page 1988