Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Semianalytic model for decaying dark matter halos

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Semianalytic model reproduces decaying-dark-matter halo simulations

desk verdict A useful, honest semianalytic DDM model with real code and real validation, but the headline claim of accurate parameter-space exploration rests on an uncalibrated gamma and an acknowledged shell-crossing artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12636 v2 pith:UQNQFJYB submitted 2025-01-22 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Ethan O. Nadler , Andrew J. Benson This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords decayingdarkmattersubhalomassfunctionsemianalyticmodeladiabaticheatinghalodensityprofilesRmax-VmaxrelationGalacticusN-bodysimulations
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 claims that the effects of two-body decaying dark matter on halo structure can be captured by a semianalytic model that combines two physical ingredients: velocity kicks, which heat the dark matter, and mass loss, which reduces the mass of decay products. The model is implemented in the authors' open-source structure-formation code and predicts that decays flatten and lower the inner density profiles of halos, and that the resulting fragile subhalos are more easily tidally disrupted, suppressing the subhalo mass function relative to cold dark matter. The authors show that these predictions match results from both isolated and cosmological DDM N-body simulations without tuning the new heating-efficiency parameter. Because the calculation runs at a tiny fraction of the cost of simulations, it opens up parameter-space exploration for DDM, which matters for upcoming small-scale structure observations such as Milky Way satellite counts.

What carries the argument

The model generalizes an adiabatic heating scheme originally developed for tidal heating: a halo is decomposed into spherical shells, and conservation of energy relates each shell's final radius to the energy injected by decays. The injected specific energy has two parts: a velocity-kick term computed by averaging over a truncated Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution, keeping only daughter particles that remain bound, and a mass-loss term proportional to $GM(<r)/r$ with an efficiency parameter $\gamma$. Shell crossing is handled by finding the radius $r_c$ where $dr_f/dr_i = 0$ and freezing the heating energy ratio at $r_c$ for all smaller radii; this is what produces the sharp feature in the predicted density profiles. This machinery is what converts the two microphysical DDM parameters (lifetime and kick velocity) into density profiles and, through merger trees and a tidal evolution model, into subhalo populations.

What would settle it

A high-resolution cosmological DDM zoom-in simulation with $\tau = 10$ Gyr and $v_k = 40$ km/s for a $10^{10}\,M_\odot$ halo would settle the matter: if its density profile interior to $r/R_{\rm vir} \approx 0.2$ does not flatten, or if its subhalo population shows a different mass-dependent survival ratio than predicted, the shell-crossing and heating model is falsified. A cheaper check is to measure whether the sharp feature at the shell-crossing radius $r_c$ appears in N-body profiles at all; the paper itself notes that it does not.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

DDM halos are not just lighter copies of CDM halos. The paper establishes that, in a two-body DDM model with a lifetime comparable to the age of the Universe, the velocity kick from each decay heats the halo and causes daughter particles to escape; combining this heating with the mass lost to the daughter particles flattens and suppresses the inner density profile. The strength of the effect is set by the ratio of the kick velocity to the halo's internal velocity: halos with $V_{\rm max}$ above roughly $v_{\rm kick}$ are affected mainly by kick heating, while lower-mass halos with $V_{\rm max}$ below $v_{\rm kick}$ are dominated by mass-loss-induced heating and can even be completely unbound. Because the heated, lower-density DDM subhalos are more easily stripped and tidally disrupted than cuspy CDM subhalos, the subhalo mass function is suppressed in a mass-dependent way. The central quantitative claim is that this semianalytic treatment reproduces the density, circular velocity, and velocity dispersion profiles of DDM N-body simulations, as well as the subhalo mass functions and radial distributions from cosmological zoom-in simulations, with one efficiency parameter (set to 0.5) left effectively uncalibrated.

Load-bearing premise

The shell-crossing prescription—finding the radius where $dr_f/dr_i = 0$ and then holding the heating energy fixed at that radius for all smaller radii—is what produces the predicted inner flattening and the subhalo disruption rates; if that treatment is wrong, the model's central profile and subhalo mass function predictions lose their support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Decaying dark matter suppresses the subhalo mass function relative to CDM in a mass-dependent way, with the strongest suppression at low masses; for a $10^{12}\,M_\odot$ host the surviving fraction ranges from roughly a third for $\tau=10$ Gyr, $v_k=20$ km/s to most subhalos surviving for $\tau=80$ Gyr, $v_k=40$ km/s.
  • The $R_{\rm max}$–$V_{\rm max}$ relation bends away from CDM for low-mass DDM halos, providing a signature that can be distinguished from self-interacting dark matter, whose core-collapsing branch shifts in the opposite direction.
  • Halo evolution splits into two regimes: halos with $V_{\rm max} \gtrsim v_k$ are heated mainly by velocity kicks, while halos with $V_{\rm max} \lesssim v_k$ are dominated by mass-loss heating and can unbind, making DDM effects on dwarf-scale structure strongly mass-dependent.
  • The semianalytic model can generate DDM predictions at any lifetime and kick combination, not just the discrete values covered by existing N-body runs, enabling constraints from Milky Way satellite observations to be evaluated continuously in parameter space.
  • The model's computational cost is a small fraction of N-body simulation cost, so it can be used to derive constraints from upcoming small-scale structure surveys over a wide range of DDM parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the model is right, existing constraints from Milky Way satellite counts at $v_k = 20$ and $40$ km/s can be extended into a continuous exclusion curve in the lifetime–kick plane, and the same pipeline can forecast sensitivity for upcoming surveys.
  • The shell-crossing feature the authors identify—present in their profiles but absent from N-body simulations—suggests that the fixed-heating-energy prescription inside $r_c$ may overstate the sharpness of the transition; if so, the precise disruption rates of subhalos near that radius could shift, though the overall SHMF suppression is validated by comparison.
  • The $\gamma$ parameter measuring mass-loss heating efficiency is degenerate with lifetime and kick velocity for low-mass density profiles; subhalo statistics are the stated way to break this degeneracy, so a calibration run against higher-resolution DDM simulations would sharpen all parameter constraints.
  • The same energy-injection machinery could be adapted to other beyond-CDM scenarios, such as self-interacting or annihilating dark matter, as long as the deposited energy as a function of radius and time can be written down.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a semianalytic model for two-body decaying dark matter (DDM) implemented in the Galacticus framework. The model combines adiabatic heating from daughter-particle velocity kicks with mass-loss heating and direct mass reduction, parametrized by decay lifetime τ and kick velocity vk plus one efficiency parameter γ for mass-loss heating. The authors apply the model to isolated halos and subhalo populations, predicting suppressed and flattened inner density profiles, a bend in the Rmax–Vmax relation for halos with Vmax ≲ vk, and a mass-dependent suppression of the subhalo mass function. They compare the subhalo predictions to cosmological zoom-in N-body results from Mau et al. (2022) and claim general consistency with isolated and cosmological DDM simulations, arguing that the model enables efficient exploration of DDM parameter space.

Significance. If the model's accuracy claims hold, this is a valuable tool for DDM phenomenology: it is open-source, modular, computationally cheap relative to N-body simulations, and it makes falsifiable predictions (e.g., the Rmax–Vmax bend and the subhalo mass function suppression). The manuscript is commendable for separating velocity-kick heating, mass-loss heating, and direct mass loss, and for testing against external N-body benchmarks without fitting the benchmark data. However, the validation evidence is currently thinner than the central claims: the mass-loss efficiency γ is uncalibrated, the density-profile consistency with Ref. [34] is asserted but not shown, and the shell-crossing prescription produces a feature absent from N-body profiles. These gaps affect the advertised ability to accurately explore parameter space, but they are addressable in revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A; Eq. (15)] The mass-loss heating efficiency γ is effectively uncalibrated. For halos with Vmax <~ vk, mass-loss heating dominates the profile evolution (Sec. III D and Fig. 4), so γ controls the inner density flattening and hence the subhalo disruption that drives the SHMF suppression in Sec. IV. Appendix A shows that γ is partially degenerate with τ and vk (Fig. 7), and the paper states that calibrating γ is beyond its scope. The SHMF agreement in Fig. 5 is based on a single N-body host with large Poisson uncertainties and does not tightly constrain γ. Consequently, the Abstract and Sec. V claim that the model enables 'efficient and accurate exploration' of DDM parameter space is not yet supported; the authors should either calibrate γ against simulations, marginalize over it in predictions, or soften the accuracy claim.
  2. [Eq. (7); Secs. III B and V] The shell-crossing prescription is load-bearing. Equation (7) determines where the heating energy ratio is frozen, and the paper itself notes that the resulting sharp feature in predicted density profiles is not visible in N-body simulations (Sec. V). This feature also creates an apparent bifurcation in the Rmax–Vmax relation (Sec. III C). Because the frozen heating ratio below rc sets the inner profile response, the absence of this feature in N-body profiles raises a correctness risk for the predicted inner flattening and the resulting subhalo disruption rates. A direct comparison with Ref. [34] profiles, or a revised shell-crossing treatment that does not produce the artifact, is needed before this part of the model can be regarded as validated.
  3. [Sec. III B] The consistency of the predicted density and velocity dispersion profiles with Ref. [34] is asserted but not demonstrated: the text says 'we have checked' but provides no comparison plot or quantitative metric. Since this comparison is part of the central claim that the model matches isolated N-body simulations, the evidence should be shown explicitly, or the claim should be qualified.
  4. [Sec. IV B; Fig. 5] The SHMF validation rests on a single N-body host, and the quoted Poisson uncertainties are large. The agreement within these uncertainties is encouraging, but it does not by itself validate the model across the parameter space advertised in the Abstract. The authors should either present additional simulation comparisons where available or explicitly restrict the validation claim to the tested parameter range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (8)] The velocity distribution is written as p(v, θ|r, s) although the text states it is independent of θ after assuming isotropy; consider using p(v|r,s) and defining θ only in the kick calculation.
  2. [Fig. 2] The caption of the lower-right circular-velocity panel appears to repeat 'M = 10^9 M⊙' instead of giving the 10^10 M⊙ case; please check and correct.
  3. [Sec. IV A] The statement that setting the second-order energy perturbation coefficient to zero is justified because this term is 'most relevant for cuspy halos' would benefit from a brief quantitative justification or a reference to a comparison.
  4. [Sec. V] The explanation that the shell-crossing feature is absent from N-body profiles 'may be due to anisotropic accretion in a cosmological environment' is speculative; consider framing it as an open question or supporting it with a test.
  5. [Fig. 5] The label 'Mau + 2022' in the figure should be 'Mau et al. (2022)' to match the text and reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DDM heating model is derived from decay kinematics and validated against external N-body simulations; the mass-loss heating efficiency is fixed by a virial heuristic, not fitted.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The DDM energy injection (Sec. II D) follows from decay kinematics: the retained fraction and mean retained kinetic energy are computed from a truncated Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution (Eqs. 8-14), and the mass-loss heating term (Eq. 15) is a prescribed model ingredient. The fiducial value gamma = 0.5 is set by a virial-equilibrium argument before comparison with simulations, and Appendix A explicitly defers calibration to future work; therefore, the agreement with isolated and cosmological N-body density profiles, velocity dispersion profiles, and subhalo mass functions (Figs. 2, 5, 6) is a genuine external check rather than a fit renamed as a prediction. The shell-crossing treatment (Eq. 7) is adapted from prior work by the same authors' group (Du et al. 2024), but it is a methodological prescription, not a cited 'uniqueness theorem' or a fitted result, and the paper openly acknowledges that it produces a feature absent from N-body profiles. The noted degeneracy between gamma and (tau, vkick) is an admitted modeling uncertainty affecting the robustness of parameter-space extrapolation, which is a correctness risk, not a circular construction. No load-bearing claim reduces by definition, by fitted input, or by self-citation to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model depends on a small set of physical assumptions, mostly standard for semianalytic halo modeling (isotropic Maxwell-Boltzmann velocities, Jeans equation, adiabatic heating). The paper-specific choices are the shell-crossing criterion (Eq. 7), the heuristic mass-loss heating parameter gamma=0.5 (Eq. 15), and the assumed independence of tidal and DDM heating. No new particles or forces are introduced; the two-body DDM particle model is taken from prior literature.

free parameters (1)
  • gamma (mass-loss heating efficiency) = 0.5
    Set to 0.5 by a virial equilibrium argument in Sec. II.D, not derived from first principles or fit to data. Appendix A shows results vary with gamma and that gamma is degenerate with tau and vk.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Parent dark matter particle is sufficiently massive to behave as CDM
    Sec. II.A removes parent mass as a free parameter by assuming mchi ~ GeV.
  • domain assumption Isotropic, truncated Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution (Eq. 8)
    Sec. II.C uses this distribution to compute retained fractions and energy injection.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic heating with shell-by-shell energy conservation (Eq. 4)
    Sec. II.B generalizes the tidal heating model of Ref. [46] to DDM.
  • ad hoc to paper Shell-crossing treatment uses drf/dri=0 and freezes the heating energy ratio below rc (Eq. 7)
    Sec. II.B introduces this prescription, which the paper acknowledges creates a density feature not seen in N-body simulations (Sec. V).
  • domain assumption Tidal and DDM heating are independent
    Sec. V states this assumption and notes it could be tested with high-resolution DDM subhalo simulations.
  • domain assumption Subhalo orbital evolution uses Chandrasekhar dynamical friction without core stalling
    Sec. IV.A notes that core stalling is not captured by this model.
  • ad hoc to paper Second-order tidal heating coefficient is set to zero for DDM subhalos
    Sec. IV.A justifies this by stating the term is most relevant for cuspy halos, without direct validation for DDM.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semianalytic model for decaying dark matter halos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQNQFJYB

@misc{pith2026250112636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semianalytic model for decaying dark matter halos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQNQFJYB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12636}
}
abstract

Decaying dark matter (DDM) affects the evolution of cosmic structure relative to standard cold, collisionless, stable dark matter (CDM). We introduce a new semianalytic model for the effects of two-body DDM on halo structure and subhalo populations. In this scenario, cold parent dark matter particles decay into less massive daughter particles plus dark radiation with a lifetime comparable to the age of the Universe. Our DDM model is implemented in the open-source software $\texttt{Galacticus}$ and accounts for heating (due to the velocity kicks imparted on daughter particles) and mass loss (due to the parent-daughter mass splitting). We show that decays flatten and reduce the amplitude of halos' inner density profiles. These effects make DDM subhalos susceptible to tidal disruption, which we show yields a mass-dependent suppression of the subhalo mass function relative to CDM. Our predictions for DDM density profiles, velocity dispersion profiles, and subhalo populations are consistent with results from isolated and cosmological DDM N-body simulations. Thus, our model enables efficient and accurate exploration of DDM parameter space and will be useful for deriving constraints from upcoming small-scale structure observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12636 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Fraction of decayed particles (solid) and mean specific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Density (top) and circular velocity (bottom) profiles for a population of 100 isolated halos with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ratio of DDM to CDM density profiles for a DDM model with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Cumulative subhalo mass functions (top) and DDM-to-CDM subhalo mass function ratios (bottom) for CDM (black) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows cumulative subhalo radial distributions (SHRFs) subject to the same Vmax and Vpeak cuts as above; we additionally apply a Mvir > 108 M⊙ h −1 cut for direct comparison with the mass range shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

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. Decaying Dark Matter Halo Abundance from a Revised Spherical Collapse Model

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A mass-dependent collapse threshold from a revised spherical collapse model predicts the decaying-dark-matter halo mass function, matching N-body simulations at z≈1 and for mild kicks at z=0.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [34]

    A. H. G. Peter, C. E. Moody, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 81, 103501 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [1]

    Hambye, PoS IDM2010, 098 (2011)

    T. Hambye, PoS IDM2010, 098 (2011)

    2011

  3. [2]

    F. J. Sanchez-Salcedo, Astrophys. J. Lett. 591, L107 (2003)

    work page 2003

  4. [3]

    L. E. Strigari, M. Kaplinghat, and J. S. Bullock, Phys. Rev. D 75, 061303 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [4]

    A. H. G. Peter, Phys. Rev. D 81, 083511 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [5]

    Pagels and J

    H. Pagels and J. R. Primack, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 223 (1982)

    work page 1982

  7. [6]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1303 (1982)

    work page 1982

  8. [7]

    Berezinsky, A

    V. Berezinsky, A. Masiero, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B 266, 382 (1991)

    work page 1991

Show all 81 references
  1. [8]

    L. Covi, J. E. Kim, and L. Roszkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4180 (1999)

    1999

  2. [9]

    J. L. Feng, A. Rajaraman, and F. Takayama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 011302 (2003)

    2003

  3. [10]

    Kaplinghat, Phys

    M. Kaplinghat, Phys. Rev. D 72, 063510 (2005)

    2005

  4. [11]

    Allahverdi, B

    R. Allahverdi, B. Dutta, F. S. Queiroz, L. E. Strigari, and M.-Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 91, 055033 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    Abazajian, G

    K. Abazajian, G. M. Fuller, and M. Patel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 061301 (2003)

    2003

  6. [13]

    Gonzalo, M

    E. Gonzalo, M. Montero, G. Obied, and C. Vafa, JHEP 11, 109 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    J. A. P. Law-Smith, G. Obied, A. Prabhu, and C. Vafa, JHEP 06, 047 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    Obied, C

    G. Obied, C. Dvorkin, E. Gonzalo, and C. Vafa, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063540 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    McKeen, J

    D. McKeen, J. N. Ng, and M. Shamma, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083507 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    Chen and M

    X.-L. Chen and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043502 (2004)

    2004

  11. [18]

    J. M. Gaskins, Contemp. Phys. 57, 496 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    Poulin, P

    V. Poulin, P. D. Serpico, and J. Lesgourgues, JCAP 08, 036 (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    K. N. Abazajian, Phys. Rept. 711-712, 1 (2017)

    2017

  14. [21]

    Chen et al

    A. Chen et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D 103, 123528 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    Nygaard, T

    A. Nygaard, T. Tram, and S. Hannestad, JCAP 05, 017 (2021)

    2021

  16. [23]

    Nygaard, E

    A. Nygaard, E. B. Holm, T. Tram, and S. Hannestad, The Hubble Constant Tension, Springer Series in Astro- physics and Cosmology (2024), 10.1007/978-981-99-0177- 7 25

    2024 doi

  17. [24]

    Bucko, S

    J. Bucko, S. K. Giri, and A. Schneider, Astron. Astro- phys. 672, A157 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    Simon, G

    T. Simon, G. Franco Abell´ an, P. Du, V. Poulin, and Y. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023516 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    M. R. Lovell, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 529, 4050 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    S. J. Clark, K. Vattis, and S. M. Koushiappas, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043014 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    Franco Abell´ an, R

    G. Franco Abell´ an, R. Murgia, and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123533 (2021)

    2021

  22. [29]

    Bucko, S

    J. Bucko, S. K. Giri, F. H. Peters, and A. Schneider, Astron. Astrophys. 683, A152 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    Vattis, S

    K. Vattis, S. M. Koushiappas, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D 99, 121302 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Abdalla et al., JHEAp 34, 49 (2022)

    E. Abdalla et al., JHEAp 34, 49 (2022)

    2022

  25. [32]

    Tanimura, M

    H. Tanimura, M. Douspis, N. Aghanim, and J. Ku- ruvilla, Astron. Astrophys. 674, A222 (2023)

    2023

  26. [33]

    L. Fuß, M. Garny, and A. Ibarra, JCAP 01, 055 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    M.-Y. Wang, A. H. G. Peter, L. E. Strigari, A. R. Zent- ner, B. Arant, S. Garrison-Kimmel, and M. Rocha, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 445, 614 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    M.-Y. Wang, R. A. C. Croft, A. H. G. Peter, A. R. Zent- ner, and C. W. Purcell, Phys. Rev. D 88, 123515 (2013). 12

    2013

  29. [37]

    Fuß and M

    L. Fuß and M. Garny, JCAP 10, 020 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Wang and A

    M.-Y. Wang and A. R. Zentner, Phys. Rev. D 82, 123507 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Wang and A

    M.-Y. Wang and A. R. Zentner, Phys. Rev. D 85, 043514 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    A. H. G. Peter, C. E. Moody, A. J. Benson, and M. Kamionkowski, PoS IDM2010, 084 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    A. H. G. Peter and A. J. Benson, Phys. Rev. D82, 123521 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Mau et al

    S. Mau et al. (DES), Astrophys. J. 932, 128 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Drlica-Wagner et al

    A. Drlica-Wagner et al. (DES), Astrophys. J. 893, 1 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Bechtol et al., in Snowmass 2021 (2022)

    K. Bechtol et al., in Snowmass 2021 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    A. J. Benson, New Astron. 17, 175 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    A. R. Pullen, A. J. Benson, and L. A. Moustakas, As- trophys. J. 792, 24 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    S. Yang, X. Du, A. J. Benson, A. R. Pullen, and A. H. G. Peter, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498, 3902 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    A. J. Benson and X. Du, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 1398 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Du et al., Phys

    X. Du et al., Phys. Rev. D 110, 023019 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Errani and J

    R. Errani and J. Pe˜ narrubia, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 491, 4591 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Errani, J

    R. Errani, J. F. Navarro, J. Pe˜ narrubia, B. Famaey, and R. Ibata, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 519, 384 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    J. Han, S. Cole, C. S. Frenk, A. Benitez-Llambay, and J. Helly, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 474, 604 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    F. C. van den Bosch, G. Ogiya, O. Hahn, and A. Burkert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 474, 3043 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    F. C. van den Bosch and G. Ogiya, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 475, 4066 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    S. B. Green, F. C. van den Bosch, and F. Jiang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 503, 4075 (2021), [Erratum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 508, 2944–2945 (2021)]

    2021

  48. [56]

    Mansfield, E

    P. Mansfield, E. Darragh-Ford, Y. Wang, E. O. Nadler, B. Diemer, and R. H. Wechsler, Astrophys. J. 970, 178 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    F. He, J. Han, and Z. Li, Astrophys. J. 981, 108 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    G. L. Bryan and M. L. Norman, Astrophys. J. 495, 80 (1998)

    1998

  51. [59]

    X. Du, A. Benson, Z. C. Zeng, T. Treu, A. H. G. Peter, C. Mace, F. Jiang, S. Yang, C. Gannon, D. Gilman, A. M. Nierenberg, and E. O. Nadler, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023019 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 55, 343 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    E. O. Nadler et al. (DES), Astrophys. J. 893, 48 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Parkinson, S

    H. Parkinson, S. Cole, and J. Helly, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 383, 557 (2008)

    2008

  55. [63]

    A. J. Benson, A. Farahi, S. Cole, L. A. Moustakas, A. Jenkins, M. Lovell, R. Kennedy, J. Helly, and C. Frenk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 428, 1774 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    A. D. Ludlow, S. Bose, R. E. Angulo, L. Wang, W. A. Hellwing, J. F. Navarro, S. Cole, and C. S. Frenk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 460, 1214 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    A. J. Benson, A. Ludlow, and S. Cole, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 485, 5010 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    Diemer and M

    B. Diemer and M. Joyce, Astrophys. J. 871, 168 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    Diemer, S

    B. Diemer, S. More, and A. Kravtsov, Astrophys. J. 766, 25 (2013)

    2013

  60. [68]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J. 490, 493 (1997)

    1997

  61. [69]

    D. Yang, E. O. Nadler, and H.-B. Yu, Astrophys. J. 949, 67 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    S. Ando, S. Horigome, E. O. Nadler, D. Yang, and H.-B. Yu, JCAP 02, 053 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    E. O. Nadler et al., Astrophys. J. 945, 159 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    J. I. Read, T. Goerdt, B. Moore, A. P. Pontzen, J. Stadel, and G. Lake, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 373, 1451 (2006)

    2006

  65. [73]

    Banik and F

    U. Banik and F. C. v. d. Bosch, Astrophys. J. 926, 215 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    Chandrasekhar, ApJ 97, 255 (1943)

    S. Chandrasekhar, ApJ 97, 255 (1943)

    1943

  67. [75]

    E. O. Nadler, A. Benson, T. Driskell, X. Du, and V. Gluscevic, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 521, 3201 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Driskell, E

    T. Driskell, E. O. Nadler, A. Benson, and V. Gluscevic, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.11680 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Weerasooriya, M

    S. Weerasooriya, M. S. Bovill, M. A. Taylor, A. J. Ben- son, and C. Leahy, Astrophys. J. 968, 78 (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    Ahvazi, A

    N. Ahvazi, A. Benson, L. V. Sales, E. O. Nadler, S. Weerasooriya, X. Du, and M. S. Bovill, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 529, 3387 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    Menker and A

    P. Menker and A. Benson, (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    R. E. Keeley et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 535, 1652 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    galacticus,

    Benson, Andrew and Nadler, Ethan, “galacticus,” github.com/galacticusorg/galacticus/commit/ 88bf30e22a86e87c8ce0d8138f80dad1e2a7b0c5 (2024). Appendix A: V arying Mass Loss Heating Efficiency Our fiducial results assume a mass loss efficiency pa- rameter of γ = 0.5. In Fig. 4, ...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.