Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

N-body simulations of dark matter-baryon interactions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new Monte Carlo scheme embeds dark matter-baryon scattering into SPH and MFM simulations and reproduces analytic heat and momentum transfer, including a 1:1000 physical mass ratio.

desk verdict A genuinely new and useful method for simulating DM-baryon scattering in N-body/hydro codes, but the headline r=1000 test seems to violate the scheme's own mass-ratio bookkeeping, so that capability claim needs to be revisited. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12393 v2 pith:FL3RCRKG submitted 2025-04-16 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAhep-ph

Moritz S. Fischer , Klaus Dolag , Mathias Garny , Vera Gluscevic , Frederick Groth , Ethan O. Nadler This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-ph
keywords scatteringbaryonicdarkn-bodyparticleschemesimulationshydrodynamics
topics Dark Matter
open problems 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 is transparent about limitations. Energy conservation is only approximate when gas internal energy is modified, with the meshless finite mass method losing up to a few percent of total energy. Very high velocity scatterings may be rejected to avoid negative gas internal energies, which can underestimate interaction effects if rejections are not rare. The scheme also relies on artificial viscosity and heat conduction to suppress spurious small-scale turbulence. This is a first step toward full cosmological galaxy formation simulations, not yet a complete model.
Extended reading notes

Core claim

The abstract states: 'We have developed the first scheme allowing for the simulation of these interacting dark matter (IDM) models, accurately accounting for their angular and velocity dependence, as well as the mass ratio between the DM and baryonic scattering partners.' If correct, this means DM-baryon scattering can be modeled in situ in standard astrophysical N-body and hydrodynamics simulations, validated here against analytic solutions for heat conduction, momentum transfer, and unequal-mass scattering with r = 1000.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes that after each DM-baryon scattering the exchanged momentum and energy are instantly redistributed within the numerical baryonic particle, which remains describable by a single Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution (Sect. 2.1, 'The final step of the interaction is to destroy the virtual particle... the thermalisation timescale must be small enough relative to the numerical time step'). If the physical gas thermalisation timescale is not short compared with the scattering rate and time step, the modeled heat and momentum exchange to the gas is inaccurate. The paper acknowledges this limits applicability to gases with sufficient viscosity and heat conduction (Sect. 2.3).

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a numerical scheme for simulating dark matter-baryon (DM-baryon) scattering in N-body and hydrodynamics codes. The method creates a 'virtual' particle from each baryonic numerical particle, draws its velocity from the baryon's Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, and scatters it with a DM particle using an SIDM scattering routine; after scattering, the virtual particle is destroyed and its momentum and energy changes are folded back into the baryonic particle. The authors validate the scheme against analytic solutions for heat conduction in both directions, momentum transfer, unequal-mass scattering with r=1000, isotropic scattering, and a comoving test, and then apply it to the collapse of an overdensity to study halo formation. They report good agreement for the SPH implementation, discuss the role of viscosity and heat conduction, and identify the negative-internal-energy problem and energy non-conservation in MFM as key limitations.

Significance. The manuscript presents a conceptually new Monte Carlo coupling of DM-baryon scattering to SPH/MFM codes via a virtual-particle construction, with a physically motivated probability and drag-force formulation. The heat-conduction tests (Figs. 2-4) and the equal-mass small-angle tests are checked against standard analytic solutions (Dvorkin et al. 2014; Muñoz et al. 2015) and reproduce them well, especially with SPH. The paper is commendably transparent about the thermalisation assumption, the role of viscosity and heat conduction, the negative-internal-energy problem, and the energy non-conservation of the MFM implementation. The halo-formation application, while idealized, demonstrates a concrete use case and yields interesting non-monotonic baryon-density behavior with cross-section. If the mass-ratio capability can be established in a valid parameter regime, the scheme would be a valuable tool for astrophysical DM probes. However, the current r=1000 validation does not respect the scheme's own constraints, so the headline claim of accurate mass-ratio handling is not yet supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (11)-(12)] The r=1000 test configuration violates the scheme's own mass-ratio constraint. With mbary/mDM about 2.14 and mvirt = 1000 mDM about 467 mbary, the right-hand side of Eq. (11) is imaginary, so no virtual-particle velocity satisfies the stated positive-internal-energy condition; the derivation of Eq. (11) assumes mbary > mvirt, and for mvirt > mbary the 'remaining baryonic particle' in Eq. (10) has negative mass, making the energy bookkeeping unphysical. The statement that Eq. (12) applies only to large-angle scattering does not address this, because Eq. (11) is derived from the creation step, which is angle-independent. The test therefore relies on the rejection scheme and artificial heat conduction described in Section 2.2 and Section 3.3, which preferentially remove the highest-velocity scatterings. Consequently, the agreement in Fig. 11 does not demonstrate that the unequal-mass scattering kernel is accurately modeled, and the central claim of accurately accounting for the mass ratio is not supported. Please either run the test in a parameter regime satisfying Eq. (12) (or a stated small-angle analog), or quantify the rejected fraction and demonstrate that the result is insensitive to the rejection and heat-conduction corrections.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (25)] The analytic reference for the momentum-transfer test is an interpolation between two asymptotic regimes using a logistic weighting with hand-chosen parameters a=3.0 and b=0.1. The function f(X) = 1/(1 - exp(a(1-bX))) can take negative values for X < 1/b (for example, X=2 gives f about -0.1), which is unphysical because it reverses the sign of the drag contribution. Since the relative velocity in the simulation decreases toward about 1 km/s, corresponding to X about 2, the agreement in Fig. 7 is only as reliable as this interpolation. Please replace the reference with a full numerical solution or an exact solution, or justify the interpolation and demonstrate that the negative-f region has negligible effect on the comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6] The claim that the scheme 'accurately accounts for' the mass ratio is stronger than what the current r=1000 test supports; please soften this claim or provide a valid unequal-mass test.
  2. [Section 3.3] The word 'asymptomatically' should be 'asymptotically'.
  3. [Section 2.4.1, Eq. (14)] The typeset expression for xi' appears garbled in the text; please ensure the cube root is written unambiguously as xi' = (1/(2h)) * (Nidm/nmax)^(1/3).
  4. [Figures 2 and 3] The legend labels 'Heat: DM Gas' and 'Heat: Gas DM' are ambiguous; please use arrows (e.g., 'Heat: DM -> Gas') to indicate the direction of heat flow.
  5. [Section 2.1] The requirement that the thermalisation timescale of the baryons be small compared with the numerical time step is stated but never quantified; please provide an explicit criterion or discuss how to check it in practice.
Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumptions about the baryonic velocity distribution and rapid thermalisation, plus the standard SIDM-style kernel overlap approximation. The hand-set parameters zeta, Nidm, and the interpolation weights are numerical choices that affect accuracy but are not fitted to final physics output. The virtual particle is an algorithmic construction rather than a new physical entity.

free parameters (3)
  • zeta (Maxwell-Boltzmann cutoff) = 5
    High-velocity cutoff for the virtual-particle velocity draw. Chosen so that the energy error is about 1e-5 (v^2 weighted) or 3e-4 (v^5 weighted). Not fitted to data, but a hand-set numerical parameter affecting the interaction distribution.
  • Nidm (target interaction number) = 384
    Controls the rescaled kernel size and hence the number of interaction partners per particle per step. Chosen 'motivated by typical choices for SIDM'; convergence tested in Appendix C.
  • a, b (analytic interpolation weights) = a=3.0, b=0.1
    Logistic weighting parameters in Eq. (25) used to interpolate between the drag and dispersion regimes of the analytic momentum-transfer estimate. Chosen by hand for the comparison; not fitted to the simulation data but they affect the apparent agreement.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The baryonic velocity distribution is Maxwell-Boltzmann, parameterized by the internal energy per mass ubary (Eq. 2).
    Used to draw the virtual-particle velocity. May fail for multi-species gas or non-thermally equilibrated gas; the paper notes only the single-species case.
  • domain assumption After each scattering, the virtual particle's energy and momentum changes are instantaneously thermalised over the baryonic particle, which remains Maxwell-Boltzmann (Sect. 2.1).
    Load-bearing for assigning heat and momentum to the gas. Requires the thermalisation timescale to be much smaller than the time step and scattering rate, which is not guaranteed for all astrophysical gases (Sect. 2.3).
  • domain assumption The numerical mass ratio must equal the physical mass ratio r, with mvirt = r mDM (Eq. 3).
    Needed for correct energy equipartition. This conflicts with common cosmological mass resolution where baryonic particles are lighter than DM particles, and leads to the constraint in Eq. (12).
  • standard math At most one scattering per numerical pair per time step; the double-scattering probability P^2 is negligible (Sect. 2.1).
    Standard Monte Carlo assumption. Requires sufficiently small time steps to keep P^2 small.
  • standard math The kernel overlap integral Lambda_ij (Eq. 4) gives the local interaction rate, as in SIDM simulations.
    Standard SPH kernel-density approximation; inherits smoothing and neighbour count errors.
invented entities (1)
  • Virtual particle
    purpose: A temporary computational particle representing a single physical baryonic scattering partner, used to compute a pairwise DM-baryon scattering event, then destroyed and its changes folded back into the baryonic particle.
    A numerical device, not a physical particle, so it has no falsifiable observational handle. It enables energy- and momentum-conserving pairwise scattering with an arbitrary mass ratio r.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of N-body simulations of dark matter-baryon interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FL3RCRKG

@misc{pith2026250412393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: N-body simulations of dark matter-baryon interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FL3RCRKG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12393}
}
read the original abstract

Dark matter (DM) particles can interact with particles of the standard model. Although there are a number of constraints derived from direct and indirect detection experiments, the evolution of astrophysical objects could offer a promising probe. Obtaining predictions is challenging and primarily limited by our ability to simulate scattering between DM and baryonic particles within N-body and hydrodynamics simulations. We have developed the first scheme allowing for the simulation of these interacting dark matter (IDM) models, accurately accounting for their angular and velocity dependence, as well as the mass ratio between the DM and baryonic scattering partners. To describe DM-baryon interactions, we used an N-body code together with its implementation of smoothed-particle hydrodynamics and meshless finite mass. The interaction is realised in a pairwise fashion by creating a virtual scattering partner from the baryonic particle and allowing it to interact with a DM particle using a scattering routine initially developed for self-interacting dark matter (SIDM). After the interaction, the virtual particle is rejoined with the baryonic particle, fulfilling the requirements of energy and momentum conservation. Through several test problems, we demonstrated that we are able to reproduce the analytic solutions with our IDM scheme. This includes a test for scattering with a physical mass ratio of 1:1000, which is beyond the limits of SIDM simulations. We comment on various numerical aspects and challenges, and we describe the limitations of our numerical scheme. Furthermore, we study the impact of IDM on halo formation with a collapsing over-density. We find that it is possible to accurately model IDM within N-body and hydrodynamics simulations commonly used in astrophysics. Finally, our scheme allows for novel predictions to be made and new constraints on DM-baryon scattering to be set.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12393 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the numerical scheme for the DM-baryon inter￾actions. The numerical particles are shown together with the physical particles they represent. The velocities of the physical particles are in￾dicated by small arrows. The different stages in treating the interaction between baryons and DM for a single pair of numerical particles are illustrated from the left to the right. As shown here, the case of an in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Heat conduction problem where energy flows from the dark mat￾ter to the baryons. Different types and components of the energy are shown as a function of time. The total energy of the system is illustrated in black. For DM the energy is shown in violet, it corresponds to the kinetic energy of the particles as other contributions are zero. In orange, we illustrate the energy of the baryons. It consists of the internal… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Kinetic energy of the baryonic particles in units of the total en￾ergy is shown as a function of time. Labels, colours, and line types are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Kinetic energy of the DM particle as a function of time for the momentum transfer problem. The dotted lines give the results us￾ing SPH and the dashed ones are for MFM. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 time [Gyr] 0.965 0.970 0.975 0.980 0.985 0.990 0.995 1.000 1.005 e n e r g y / |i…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Energy conservation for the momentum transfer problem as a function of time. The total energy divided by the initial energy is given for SPH (dotted line) and MFM (dashed line). tering partner, i.e. r = 1000. Further we choose, fbary = 1 and each mass component makes u…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Kinetic energy of the DM particles as a function of time. The simulated (black) time evolution for the heat conduction problem with a mass ratio of r = 1000 is compared to the exact solution (red) from Eqs. (19) and (20). The upper panel gives the absolute values and …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Time evolution of the kinetic energy of the DM. The simulation results (black) for the heat conduction problem with isotropic scattering are compared to the exact solution (red) from Eqs. (19) and (20). The upper panel gives the absolute values, and the lower panel di…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Density profile for a collapsing overdensity in the case of col￾lisionless DM. The density is shown as a function of radius at several redshifts for DM (solid) and baryons (dashed). The density is not dis￾played for small radii where the particle number is too low to …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Density, velocity dispersion, and entropy profile of DM and baryons for CDM and IDM. We show the density as a function of ra￾dius (upper panel) at a redshift of z = 0. The velocity dispersion, in￾cluding kinetic and internal energy but excluding radial bulk motion, is…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: We note, that the shown specific energy and densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.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. Forecasting 21-cm power spectrum sensitivity to dark Matter-baryon scattering

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    HERA 21-cm power spectrum forecasts could constrain dark matter-baryon scattering cross-sections 5 to 10 times better than global 21-cm forecasts and far better than current CMB and satellite bounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K., et al

    Adhikari, S., Banerjee, A., Boddy, K. K., et al. 2022, Astrophysical Tests of Dark Matter Self-Interactions Article number, page 17 of 22 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa54983-25

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    2020, A&A, 641, A1 Ali-Haïmoud, Y ., Gandhi, S

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., Arroja, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A1 Ali-Haïmoud, Y ., Gandhi, S. S., & Smith, T. L. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 083523

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    O., Benson, A., & Gluscevic, V

    An, R., Nadler, E. O., Benson, A., & Gluscevic, V . 2025, ApJ, 986, 128

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    S., & Garny, M

    Arido, C., Fischer, M. S., & Garny, M. 2025, A&A, 694, A297

    2025

  5. [5]

    M., Murante, G., Arth, A., et al

    Beck, A. M., Murante, G., Arth, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2110

    2016

  6. [6]

    2024, Phys

    Blanco, C., Harris, I., Kahn, Y ., & Prabhu, A. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 035006

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Boddy, K. K. & Gluscevic, V . 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    K., Gluscevic, V ., Poulin, V ., et al

    Boddy, K. K., Gluscevic, V ., Poulin, V ., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98

    work page 2018

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    A., Essig, R., McKeen, D., & Zhong, Y .-M

    Buen-Abad, M. A., Essig, R., McKeen, D., & Zhong, Y .-M. 2022, Physics Re- ports, 961, 1–35

    2022

  2. [10]

    2000, ApJ, 534, L143

    Burkert, A. 2000, ApJ, 534, L143

    2000

  3. [11]

    M., Press, W

    Carroll, S. M., Press, W. H., & Turner, E. L. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 499

    1992

  4. [12]

    2024, Dark Matter

    Cirelli, M., Strumia, A., & Zupan, J. 2024, Dark Matter

    2024

  5. [13]

    A., Schaller, M., Schaye, J., et al

    Correa, C. A., Schaller, M., Schaye, J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 3338

    2025

  6. [14]

    O., An, R., & Gluscevic, V

    Crumrine, W., Nadler, E. O., An, R., & Gluscevic, V . 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111

    2025

  7. [15]

    & Aly, H

    Dehnen, W. & Aly, H. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 1068

    2012

  8. [16]

    2025, A&A, 697, A213

    Despali, G., Moscardini, L., Nelson, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A213

    2025

  9. [17]

    M., et al

    Dolag, K., Remus, R.-S., Valenzuela, L. M., et al. 2025, Encyclopedia Mag- neticum: Scaling Relations from Cosmic Dawn to Present Day

    2025

  10. [18]

    J., & Xu, H

    Du, P., Essig, R., Rauscher, B. J., & Xu, H. 2024, Constraints on Strongly- Interacting Dark Matter from the James Webb Space Telescope

    2024

  11. [19]

    2014, Phys

    Dvorkin, C., Blum, K., & Kamionkowski, M. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89

    2014

  12. [20]

    Emken, T., Essig, R., Kouvaris, C., & Sholapurkar, M. 2019, J. Cosmology As- tropart. Phys., 2019, 070–070

    2019

  13. [21]

    S., Brüggen, M., Schmidt-Hoberg, K., et al

    Fischer, M. S., Brüggen, M., Schmidt-Hoberg, K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1923

    2022

  14. [22]

    S., Durke, N.-H., Hollingshausen, K., et al

    Fischer, M. S., Durke, N.-H., Hollingshausen, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5915

    2023

  15. [23]

    B., Governato, F., Pontzen, A., et al

    Fry, A. B., Governato, F., Pontzen, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1468–1479

    2015

  16. [24]

    & Nitadori, K

    Gaburov, E. & Nitadori, K. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 129–154

    2011

  17. [25]

    & Boddy, K

    Gluscevic, V . & Boddy, K. K. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 081301

    2018

  18. [26]

    P., Valentini, M., & Dolag, K

    Groth, F., Steinwandel, U. P., Valentini, M., & Dolag, K. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 616

    2023

  19. [27]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 1171–1191

    Hahn, O., Abel, T., & Kaehler, R. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1171–1191

    2013

  20. [28]

    & Angulo, R

    Hahn, O. & Angulo, R. E. 2015, MNRAS, 455, 1115–1133

    2015

  21. [29]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  22. [30]

    M., An, R., Driskell, T., & Gluscevic, V

    He, A., Ivanov, M. M., An, R., Driskell, T., & Gluscevic, V . 2025, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2025, 087

    2025

  23. [31]

    M., An, R., & Gluscevic, V

    He, A., Ivanov, M. M., An, R., & Gluscevic, V . 2023, ApJ, 954, L8

    2023

  24. [32]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  25. [33]

    T., & Sarkar, S

    Kahlhoefer, F., Schmidt-Hoberg, K., Frandsen, M. T., & Sarkar, S. 2014, MN- RAS, 437, 2865

    2014

  26. [34]

    & Shapiro, P

    Koda, J. & Shapiro, P. R. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1125

    2011

  27. [35]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 354

    Kummer, J., Brüggen, M., Dolag, K., Kahlhoefer, F., & Schmidt-Hoberg, K. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 354

    2019

  28. [36]

    J., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M

    Lu, Y ., Mo, H. J., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1931–1940

    2006

  29. [37]

    A., Bernal, A., Barranco, J., & Aceña, A

    Lucero, G. A., Bernal, A., Barranco, J., & Aceña, A. 2024, Constrains on dark matter cross section with standard model particles from the orbital period decay of binary pulsars

    2024

  30. [38]

    D., Fall, S

    Ludlow, A. D., Fall, S. M., Wilkinson, M. J., Schaye, J., & Obreschkow, D. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5614

    2023

  31. [39]

    D., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., & Richings, J

    Ludlow, A. D., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., & Richings, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, L123–L128

    2019

  32. [40]

    K., Nadler, E

    Maamari, K., Gluscevic, V ., Boddy, K. K., Nadler, E. O., & Wechsler, R. H. 2021, ApJ, 907, L46

    2021

  33. [41]

    & Aarseth, S

    Makino, J. & Aarseth, S. J. 1992, PASJ, 44, 141

    1992

  34. [42]

    Monaghan, J. J. & Lattanzio, J. C. 1985, A&A, 149, 135 Muñoz, J. B., Kovetz, E. D., & Ali-Haïmoud, Y . 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92

    1985

  35. [43]

    O., Gluscevic, V ., Boddy, K

    Nadler, E. O., Gluscevic, V ., Boddy, K. K., & Wechsler, R. H. 2019, ApJ, 878, L32

    2019

  36. [44]

    O., Oh, S

    Nadler, E. O., Oh, S. P., & Ji, S. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 500–511

    2017

  37. [45]

    V ., Sarnaaik, D., Boddy, K

    Nguyen, D. V ., Sarnaaik, D., Boddy, K. K., Nadler, E. O., & Gluscevic, V . 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104

    2021

  38. [46]

    K., & Hillebrandt, W

    Pakmor, R., Edelmann, P., Röpke, F. K., & Hillebrandt, W. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2222

    2012

  39. [47]

    & Blanco, C

    Prabhu, A. & Blanco, C. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108

    2023

  40. [48]

    Price, D. J. 2012, MNRAS, 420, L33–L37

    2012

  41. [49]

    J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T

    Price, D. J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T. S., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronom- ical Society of Australia, 35

    2018

  42. [50]

    2024, A&A, 687, A270

    Ragagnin, A., Meneghetti, M., Calura, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A270

    2024

  43. [51]

    Ragagnin, A., Tchipev, N., Bader, M., Dolag, K., & Hammer, N. J. 2016, in Advances in Parallel Computing, 411–420

    2016

  44. [52]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 3646–3662

    Robertson, A., Harvey, D., Massey, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3646–3662

    2019

  45. [53]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 569

    Robertson, A., Massey, R., & Eke, V . 2017, MNRAS, 465, 569

    2017

  46. [54]

    Rocha, M., Peter, A. H. G., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 81

    2013

  47. [55]

    C., Ford, W

    Rubin, V . C., Ford, W. K., J., & Thonnard, N. 1980, ApJ, 238, 471

    1980

  48. [56]

    M., Brüggen, M., Schmidt-Hoberg, K., Fischer, M

    Sabarish, V . M., Brüggen, M., Schmidt-Hoberg, K., Fischer, M. S., & Kahlhoe- fer, F. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2032–2046

    2024

  49. [57]

    Saitoh, T. R. & Makino, J. 2009, ApJ, 697, L99

    2009

  50. [58]

    Shoji, Y ., Kuflik, E., Birnboim, Y ., & Stone, N. C. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4082

    2024

  51. [59]

    R., & Kamionkowski, M

    Sigurdson, K., Doran, M., Kurylov, A., Caldwell, R. R., & Kamionkowski, M. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 083501, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 73, 089903 (2006)]

    2006

  52. [60]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    2005

  53. [61]

    & Pardo, K

    Stuart, E. & Pardo, K. 2024, Constraints on the dark matter-baryon interaction cross section from galaxy cluster thermodynamics

    2024

  54. [62]

    & Hirata, C

    Tseliakhovich, D. & Hirata, C. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 82

    2010

  55. [63]

    & Yu, H.-B

    Tulin, S. & Yu, H.-B. 2018, Phys. Rep., 730, 1

    2018

  56. [64]

    2024, A&A, 684, A102 V ogelsberger, M., Zavala, J., Simpson, C., & Jenkins, A

    Valdarnini, R. 2024, A&A, 684, A102 V ogelsberger, M., Zavala, J., Simpson, C., & Jenkins, A. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3684

    2024

  57. [65]

    H., Bullock, J

    Wechsler, R. H., Bullock, J. S., Primack, J. R., Kravtsov, A. V ., & Dekel, A. 2002, ApJ, 568, 52–70

    2002

  58. [66]

    & Yu, H.-B

    Yang, D. & Yu, H.-B. 2022, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2022, 077

    2022

  59. [67]

    C., et al

    Yang, S., Du, X., Zeng, Z. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 47

    2023

  60. [68]

    A., & Hu, X

    Zhang, C., Zhu, Y .-j., Wu, D., Adams, N. A., & Hu, X. 2022, Journal of Hydro- dynamics, 34, 767–805

    2022

  61. [69]

    S., & Fan, Y .-Z

    Zhang, C., Zu, L., Chen, H.-Z., Tsai, Y .-L. S., & Fan, Y .-Z. 2024, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2024, 003 Article number, page 18 of 22 M. S. Fischer et al.: N-body simulations of dark matter-baryon interactions Appendix A: Derivation of interaction probability and drag fo...

    2021

  62. [70]

    But Nbary = fbary mbary/(r mχ) is only the number of baryonic particles that could scatter

    Here, NDM denotes the number of physical particles represented by the numerical particles. But Nbary = fbary mbary/(r mχ) is only the number of baryonic particles that could scatter. As each scat- tering event involves one physical DM particle and one baryonic particle, NDM = ...

    2014

  63. [71]

    scheme analytic Fig

    SPH, Gas DM, imp. scheme analytic Fig. B.2. Energy conservation for the heat conduction problem with the default and improved implementation. From the same simulations as used for Fig. B.1, we show the energy conservation as a function of time for the default (blue) and improv...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.