Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Discrepancies Between Limits and Measurements of Warm Dark Matter Properties

T0 review · 5 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 This paper argues that the tight published limit on warm dark matter's non-relativistic expansion parameter is invalid because it ignores regeneration, stripping, and baryons, and that with these included the measurement and limit no…

desk verdict The paper's qualitative challenge to the satellite-count WDM limit is worth taking seriously, but the revised 6e-7 number is a consistency estimate, not a demonstrated result. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21031 v1 pith:L4RCVFBK submitted 2025-04-26 astro-ph.GA

Bruce Hoeneisen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords warmdarkmatterfree-streamingcutoffnon-linearpowerspectrumregenerationstripped-downgalaxiesbaryonperturbationsMilkyWaysatelliteshalomassfunctiontransfer
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

This paper argues that the published limit $a_{\rm hNR} < 6\times 10^{-8}$ from the minimum halo mass hosting Milky Way satellites is not valid as stated, because it leaves out three phenomena: non-linear regeneration of the small-scale power spectrum, stripping of galaxy halos by neighbors, and baryons that act as cold dark matter after decoupling. Including these effects, the author estimates the limit weakens to $a_{\rm hNR} \lesssim 6\times 10^{-7}$, within a factor of roughly 2.3 of the dwarf-galaxy rotation-curve measurement $a_{\rm hNR} = (1.39 \pm 0.24)\times 10^{-6}$. The paper concludes that the measurement is not excluded beyond reasonable doubt and that all galaxy-based warm dark matter limits should incorporate the three effects. If right, the apparent contradiction between the satellite-count limit and rotation-curve measurements disappears.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the warm dark matter transfer function $\tau^2(k)$, the ratio of the warm to cold dark matter linear power spectra. The paper starts from the standard Gaussian cutoff $\tau^2(k) = \exp(-k^2/k_{\rm fs}^2)$ and then extends it with a power-law tail $\tau^2(k) = \exp(-k^n/k_{\rm fs}^n)$ for $k \geq k_{\rm fs}$, with $0.5 \lesssim n \lesssim 1.1$ measured and $n \approx 0.86$ obtained from the baryon calculation. This tail is the device that encodes non-linear regeneration, stripping, and the cold behavior of baryons. The dynamical argument runs through spherically symmetric hydrodynamical integrations starting from a Gaussian overdensity at $z_i = 65.9$; a galaxy forms when the combined warm dark matter and baryon density perturbation reaches 1.69 times the mean density, the standard collapse threshold. The resulting cored isothermal sphere has a core radius $r_c$ and an $r_{200}$ halo mass $M_h$ determined by the constancy of $\rho_h(r) r^2$, and these quantities give the halo masses compared with the observed satellite minimum.

What would settle it

A full three-dimensional cosmological hydrodynamic simulation of warm dark matter with $m_h = 0.15$ keV and $v_{\rm hrms}(1) = 493$ m/s, using the standard free-streaming cutoff without an added empirical tail, should produce a population of stripped-down Milky Way satellites with halo masses below $M_h = 5.4\times 10^8\,M_\odot$ and large cores at $z=0$. If instead the minimum surviving satellite halo mass in such a simulation stays above $5.4\times 10^8\,M_\odot$, the paper's reconciliation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the author's own terms, the central discovery is that the bound $a_{\rm hNR} < 6\times 10^{-8}$ is an artifact of a linear-theory extrapolation. The bound rests on the claim that small density perturbations at wavevectors $k > k_{\rm fs}$ are exponentially suppressed by free-streaming, so a galaxy halo as small as $M_h < 5.4\times 10^8\,M_\odot$ should not exist for warm dark matter with a small particle mass. The paper attempts to show that this is wrong in three ways: the linear spectrum acquires a regenerated non-linear tail; most small galaxies are stripped remnants of larger halos, with a mass distribution extending to zero; and baryons, which decouple cold, seed perturbations below $k_{\rm fs}$. Spherically symmetric hydrodynamical integrations with $m_h = 0.15$ keV and $v_{\rm hrms}(1) = 493$ m/s produce halos with $M_h = 3\times 10^8\,M_\odot$, matching the scale of the observed satellites, and a simulated stripped-down galaxy loses enough mass to drop from $M_h = 3\times 10^{10}\,M_\odot$ to $8\times 10^9\,M_\odot$. The conclusion is that the minimum halo mass quoted by the limit is not excluded.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spherically symmetric hydrodynamical integrations, each initialized with a single Gaussian overdensity at redshift $z_i = 65.9$, faithfully represent how real three-dimensional warm dark matter halos form, get stripped by neighbors, and survive to the present; if those idealized runs miss the relevant dynamics, the claim that baryons and stripping erase the discrepancy between the limit and the measurement does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Milky Way satellite bound weakens from $a_{\rm hNR} < 6\times 10^{-8}$ to $a_{\rm hNR} \lesssim 6\times 10^{-7}$, a factor of about ten, removing the stated discrepancy with the dwarf-galaxy rotation-curve measurement.
  • The measured value $a_{\rm hNR} = (1.39\pm0.24)\times 10^{-6}$ is not excluded; because the stripped-satellite mass distribution extends to zero mass, the observed minimum halo mass $M_h < 5.4\times10^8\,M_\odot$ does not constrain warm dark matter as tightly as claimed.
  • Future galaxy-based limits on warm dark matter must include non-linear regeneration, halo stripping, and baryon perturbations; Lyman-$\alpha$ limits must additionally model leftover neutral hydrogen clouds in the reionized universe.
  • Baryon perturbations alone generate a tail with $n \approx 0.86$ to 0.96, matching the measured range $0.5 \lesssim n \lesssim 1.1$, which the paper says is enough to bring predicted stellar mass and ultraviolet luminosity distributions into agreement with observations down to $M_{\rm PS} \approx 5\times10^8\,M_\odot$.
  • A future direct measurement of the linear power spectrum up to $k \approx 20$ Mpc$^{-1}$ by cosmic microwave background weak lensing can test whether the inferred tail is real or an artifact of galaxy-based proxies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This reconciliation implies that warm dark matter with $a_{\rm hNR}$ near $10^{-6}$ may be nearly indistinguishable from cold dark matter for galaxy formation above $M_{\rm PS} \approx 5\times 10^8\,M_\odot$; the discriminating power would then shift to smaller masses or to the internal structure of cores, such as the relation between core radius and circular velocity.
  • If the baryon-seeded tail is as strong as claimed, the free-streaming cutoff may not be the limiting scale for the first galaxies; instead the baryon perturbation spectrum below $k_{\rm fs}$ sets the earliest formation epoch, a prediction that could be checked in high-redshift galaxy ultraviolet luminosity functions.
  • The author's revised limit of $a_{\rm hNR} \lesssim 6\times 10^{-7}$ still sits a factor of about 2.3 below the rotation-curve measurement; this residual gap is not explained, and a quantitative stripped-satellite abundance model could either close it or reopen the discrepancy.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper re-examines the warm dark matter limit a_hNR < 6e-8 obtained from the minimum halo mass hosting Milky Way satellites (Eq. 4) and attempts to resolve its discrepancy with the measurement a_hNR = (1.39 +/- 0.24)e-6 from dwarf galaxy rotation curves (Eq. 5). The author argues that the limit neglects nonlinear regeneration of the power spectrum, stripping of halos by neighboring galaxies, and baryons that behave as cold dark matter. Using spherically symmetric hydrodynamic integrations (Section 4), an empirical tail in the transfer function (Eq. 27), and a galaxy-count matching procedure (Eq. 25), the paper obtains a revised estimate a_hNR about 6e-7 and concludes that there is no longer a significant discrepancy. Sections 5 and 6 develop the nonlinear regeneration and stripping arguments, Section 7 discusses baryons, and Section 8 draws the conclusions.

Significance. If the revised calculation were correct, it would matter: it would relax warm dark matter constraints from Milky Way satellites by about an order of magnitude and bring them closer to the dwarf rotation curve measurement, while highlighting nonlinear regeneration, stripping, and baryonic perturbations as previously neglected effects. The author is commendably explicit about the assumptions and limitations, including the spherical symmetry, the single Gaussian initial overdensity, and the omitted numerical integration, so the reader can see exactly where the argument needs support. However, the central quantitative estimate is not established: the galaxy-to-halo conversion in Eq. (25) has no error budget and no baryonic correction, the key tail exponent of Eq. (31) comes from an omitted calculation, and the stripping claim is not computed down to the relevant mass range. The paper is therefore a plausible programmatic argument rather than a completed derivation, and the abstract's central claim is not yet supported by the presented numbers.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5, Eq. (25)] The revised limit a_hNR ≈ 6e-7 is obtained by inserting a galaxy-count ratio n_data/n_LCDM ≈ 0.01 at M_PS = 1e9 M_sun, read from Figures 1, 2 and 4 of the author's ref. [26], into the warm dark matter halo suppression formula of Schneider et al. But n_data is a galaxy count, not a dark matter halo count, and no justification is given that star formation efficiency, feedback, and survey completeness cancel in the ratio. Without an error budget and a baryonic correction, the inferred M_fs, v_hrms(1), and a_hNR are unsupported, and this step is load-bearing for the entire reconciliation.
  2. [§5 and §8] Even taking the revised estimate at face value, the paper's own numbers do not support the claim that there is no longer a significant discrepancy. The revised value a_hNR ≈ 6e-7 is an upper limit, while the measurement (5) is (1.39 ± 0.24)e-6, which lies about 3.3 sigma above the revised limit. The abstract's central claim is therefore contradicted by the quantitative result unless an explicit uncertainty on the revised estimate is provided.
  3. [§7, Eq. (31)] The value n ≈ 0.86, which the paper uses to bring the baryonic tail into agreement with the measured range 0.5 ≲ n ≲ 1.1, is stated to come from a numerical integration that is explicitly omitted from the paper: 'the calculation is lengthy and will be omitted'. Because Eq. (31) is used as part of the argument that the tail reconciles predictions with observations, the calculation must be reported, tabulated, or made available in a supplement; otherwise the central reconciliation is not checkable.
  4. [§6, Figure 5] The claim that stripped-down galaxies extend all the way to zero mass is asserted rather than computed. The single spherically symmetric stripping simulation in Figure 5 reduces M_200 by a factor 0.29, from 3e10 to 8e9 M_sun, which is still more than an order of magnitude above the threshold M_h < 5.4e8 M_sun of Eq. (6). The figure therefore does not demonstrate that stripped satellites can populate the minimum-mass bin that drives the original limit (4).
  5. [§4, Figures 1–5] All hydrodynamic simulations are spherically symmetric and initialized with a single Gaussian overdensity at z_i = 65.9. No comparison with three-dimensional simulations is provided, so it remains untested whether these idealized initial conditions faithfully capture the formation, stripping, and survival of Milky Way satellite halos in warm dark matter. If they do not, the conclusion that baryons and stripping erase the discrepancy does not follow; a concrete test would be a comparison with an existing 3D warm dark matter simulation at comparable mass scales.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The text contains several typographical artifacts, including 'disa greement', 'under stand', and 'spe ctrum' in the Abstract and Introduction, which should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (25)] Equation (25) has a mismatched parenthesis: 'n_LCDM (MPS))' should be 'n_LCDM (MPS)'.
  3. [Table 1] The table header spells 'Observble' instead of 'Observable', and the symbol 'greaterorsimilar' appears as raw LaTeX rather than a typeset relation.
  4. [§6] The phrase 'galaxies that are stripped by their neighbors' is followed by the word 'coaless' in the text; this appears to be a misspelling of 'coalesce'.
  5. [Figures 1–5] The axis labels in the figures are difficult to read because of the embedded LaTeX text; the figures should be regenerated with clear typeset labels for the densities and velocities of dark matter and baryons.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The revised limit a_hNR ≲ 6×10^-7 is calibrated from a galaxy-count ratio read from the author's own previous paper and a tail exponent taken from the author's own measurement, making the central reconciliation partially circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, paragraph after Eq. (25)]
    "From the data in Figures 1, 2 and 4 of [26] (for z = 4, 5 or 6 that have sufficient data), we estimate the ratio of galaxy counts ndata(MPS)/nΛCDM(MPS) ≈ 0.01 at MPS = 10^9 M⊙ (corresponding to Figure 1). From (25) we obtain the estimate Mfs ≈ 9 × 10^10M⊙, corresponding to kfs ≈ 2 Mpc^−1, vhrms(1) ≈ 170 m/s, mh ≈ 0.4 keV, and ahNR ≈ 6 × 10^−7. This estimate of ahNR is a factor ≈ 10 above the limit (4) and a factor ≈ 2.3 below the measurement (5)."

    The revised limit is not derived from the hydrodynamical simulations in Section 4 or from the minimum-halo argument behind Eq. (4). Instead, a galaxy-count ratio ndata/nΛCDM read from the author's own prior paper [26] is inserted as the left side of Eq. (25), a WDM halo-mass-function suppression formula. This assumes the observed galaxy-count deficit is purely the WDM dark-matter halo suppression, with star-formation efficiency, feedback, and survey completeness cancelling in the ratio. Solving Eq. (25) for Mfs then fixes ahNR, so the 'estimate' is a calibration of ahNR to an adopted data ratio rather than an independent prediction, and no uncertainty is propagated from that ratio.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4, paragraph following Eq. (18)]
    "We are interested in the limit of very small dark matter particle mass and large velocity dispersion, so, for all examples in this article, we choose mh = 0.15 keV, and vhrms(1) = 493 m/s. This particular choice of parameters is justified in Table 4 of [4]. According to (8), (10) and (12) the comoving free-streaming cut-off wavevector is kfs ≈ 0.67 Mpc^−1 ... ahNR ≈ 1.7 × 10^−6. Note that this ahNR is in agreement with the measurement (5)"

    The simulations used to show that a galaxy with MPS = 10^9 M⊙ can form are initialized with dark-matter parameters taken from the author's own measurement paper [4], i.e. with the value (5) that the paper is defending. The demonstration is therefore not an independent test of Eq. (5): it assumes Eq. (5) in the initial conditions and then concludes that the limit (4) is not excluded. The qualitative conclusion may be sustainable, but the quantitative weight of this simulation rests on a self-citation to the very measurement being reconciled.

2 more flagged steps
  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 6, paragraph following Eq. (27)]
    "A simple empirical way to account for both non-linear regeneration and stripped-down galaxies is to take τ^2(k) = exp(−k^2/k^2_fs) if k < k_fs, or = exp(−k^n/k^n_fs) if k ≥ k_fs, where n is measured to be in the range 0.5 to 1.1 [25]. This 'tail' is sufficient to bring predictions in line with observations, see [26]."

    The tail exponent n is the ingredient that restores small-scale power and removes the discrepancy with observed galaxy counts. It is not derived in the present paper; it is adopted from the author's prior work [25], and the claimed agreement with observations is then cited to the author's [26], which itself uses that tail. Thus the central reconciliation is carried by a self-citation chain rather than by an independent calculation, and the ansatz is smuggled in through the author's own earlier publications.

  2. other [Section 7, Eq. (31) and footnote 1]
    "A numerical integration obtains n ≈ 0.86, in agreement with the measurement 0.5 ≲ n ≲ 1.1 [25]. ... The calculation is lengthy and will be omitted since replacing 0.3 by 0 only changes n from 0.96 to 1.03."

    The paper's own computed tail exponent, n ≈ 0.86 in Eq. (31), is asserted without the promised numerical integration. The only validation quoted is 'agreement' with the same quantity measured in the author's [25]. This is an explicit omitted proof in the load-bearing chain: the reconciliation through Eq. (27) depends on n, and the paper neither provides the integration nor an independent determination of n, falling back instead on a self-citation.

full rationale

The paper makes a legitimate qualitative point: the limit (4), derived from the minimum halo mass of Milky Way satellites, neglects non-linear power-spectrum regeneration, tidal stripping, and baryons acting as cold dark matter. That argument has independent physical content and is not circular merely because the author cites his own earlier work. However, the quantitative claim that the discrepancy is no longer significant rests on the revised estimate ahNR ≈ 6×10^-7, and that estimate is not produced by the spherical hydrodynamics in Section 4. It is obtained in Section 5 by taking a galaxy-count ratio ndata/nΛCDM ≈ 0.01 from the author's prior paper [26] and equating it to the WDM halo suppression factor in Eq. (25), with no error budget. The tail exponent n in Eq. (27) that makes the model agree with data is taken from the author's [25], and the agreement is asserted by citing the author's [26]; the promised calculation of n from baryonic perturbations is explicitly omitted in Section 7. The measurement being defended, Eq. (5), also comes from the author's own [3] and [4]. Thus the central reconciliation is achieved through a chain of self-citations and a fitted input, rather than through an independent, externally benchmarked derivation. I do not score higher because Eq. (25) itself is an external fitting formula from Schneider et al. [27], and the qualitative effects invoked are real and independently supported in the literature; the circularity is partial, concentrated in the quantitative limit revision.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative message rests on four fitted or hand-chosen parameters (n, the adopted WDM mass, Mfs from count matching, and the Press-Schechter f factor) and on several modeling approximations: spherical symmetry, the empirical tail form, and an approximate baryon growth law. The paper introduces no new particle or entity. The self-referential chain (measurement [3][4], tail fit [25], galaxy counts [26]) means the revised limit inherits assumptions from the author's prior work.

free parameters (4)
  • tail exponent n = 0.5 to 1.1 (measured, [25])
    Eq. (27) introduces the exponent n for the regenerated power spectrum tail; the paper uses the measured range from [25] and a computed value n ≈ 0.86, which depends on the baryon perturbation model.
  • warm dark matter particle parameters = m_h = 0.15 keV, vhrms(1) = 493 m/s
    Adopted for all simulations in Section 4 and justified by Table 4 of the author's ref [4]; the paper's target measurement a_hNR = 1.39e-6 corresponds to this choice.
  • Mfs from galaxy count ratio = 9e10 M_sun
    Obtained by requiring ndata/n_LCDM ≈ 0.01 at MPS = 1e9 from ref [26] using Eq. (25); this directly sets the revised limit a_hNR ≈ 6e-7.
  • Press-Schechter calibration f = 1/0.79
    Section 3; the correction for accelerated expansion is taken from [14] and affects the variance σ^2 and hence all Press-Schechter predictions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The spherically symmetric hydrodynamic equations from ref [15] describe the formation and evolution of warm dark matter halos and baryons.
    Section 4; all simulations in Figures 1 to 5 assume spherical symmetry and elastic or collisionless dark matter, which is an idealization for realistic structure formation.
  • ad hoc to paper The regenerated power spectrum can be represented by the empirical tail τ^2(k) = exp(-k^n/k_fs^n) for k ≥ k_fs.
    Section 6, Eq. (27); this form is asserted as an empirical way to account for regeneration, stripping, and baryons, and its exponent is fitted rather than derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Baryon perturbations with δρ_h = 0 grow as (a/a_dec)^0.3 after decoupling in Eq. (29).
    Section 7; the paper states the calculation is lengthy and omitted, and replacing the 0.3 exponent by 0 only changes n from 0.96 to 1.03, indicating a rough approximation.
  • standard math Press-Schechter and Sheth-Tormen mass functions connect linear mass scale MPS to halo abundances.
    Section 3; used to map MPS to observed galaxy counts, though warm dark matter is known to deviate from these mass functions in the cutoff regime.
  • standard math The ΛCDM background and its six parameters from PDG [1] are correct.
    Section 2; all calculations are relative to the standard ΛCDM cosmology with σ8 = 0.811.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discrepancies Between Limits and Measurements of Warm Dark Matter Properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4RCVFBK

@misc{pith2026250421031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discrepancies Between Limits and Measurements of Warm Dark Matter Properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4RCVFBK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21031}
}
read the original abstract

A limit on the expansion parameter a_hNR at which dark matter becomes non-relativistic has been obtained from the observed minimum halo mass hosting Milky Way satellites. This limit is in disagreement with measurements. In the present study, we attempt to understand this disagreement. We find that the limit does not include the following phenomena: non-linear regeneration of the power spectrum of density perturbations, the stripping of galaxy halos by neighboring galaxies, and baryons that act as cold dark matter. Considering these phenomena, we find that there is no longer a significant discrepancy between the limit and the measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The dark matter and baryon densities and radial velocities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The dark matter and baryon densities and radial velocities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The dark matter and baryon densities and radial velocities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The dark matter and baryon densities and radial velocities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The dark matter and baryon densities and radial velocities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    (2024) Are James Webb Space Telescope Observ ations Consistent with Warm Dark Matter? International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 45-60

    Hoeneisen, B. (2024) Are James Webb Space Telescope Observ ations Consistent with Warm Dark Matter? International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 45-60

    work page 2024

  2. [25]

    (2022) Measurement of the Dark Matter Velocit y Dis- persion with Galaxy Stellar Masses, UV Luminosities, and Reionization

    Hoeneisen, B. (2022) Measurement of the Dark Matter Velocit y Dis- persion with Galaxy Stellar Masses, UV Luminosities, and Reionization. International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics , 12, 258-272

    2022

  3. [1]

    Navas et

    S. Navas et. al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [2]

    Cosmology of Single Species Hidden Dark Matter

    Lin, W., Chen, X., Ganjoo, H., Hou, L., Mack, K.J. (2023) Cosmology of Single Species Hidden Dark Matter. arXiv:2305.08943

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [3]

    (2022) Measurement of the Dark Matter Velocity Disper- sion with Dwarf Galaxy Rotation Curves

    Hoeneisen, B. (2022) Measurement of the Dark Matter Velocity Disper- sion with Dwarf Galaxy Rotation Curves. International Journal of As- tronomy and Astrophysics , 12, 363-381

    work page 2022

  6. [4]

    (2024) Measurements of the Dark Matter Mass, Tempera- ture and Spin

    Hoeneisen, B. (2024) Measurements of the Dark Matter Mass, Tempera- ture and Spin. International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics , 14, 184-202

    2024

  7. [5]

    Ultra faint dwarf galaxies: an arena for testing dark matter versus modified gravity

    Lin, W., and Ishak, M. (2016) Ultra faint dwarf galaxies: an arena for testing dark matter versus modified gravity, JCAP 10 (2016) 0 25. arXiv:1604.00950

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  8. [6]

    (2019) Constraints on Dark Matter Microphysics from the Milky Way Satellite Population, ApJ 878 (2019) L32 [1904.10000]

    Nadler, E.O., Gluscevic, V., Boddy, K.K., and Wechsler R.H. (2019) Constraints on Dark Matter Microphysics from the Milky Way Satellite Population, ApJ 878 (2019) L32 [1904.10000]. arXiv:1904.10000

    arXiv 2019

Show all 36 references
  1. [7]

    arXiv:1601.0262 4

    Ludlow, A.D., Bose, S., Angulo, R.E., Wang, L., Hellwing, W.A., Navarro, J.F., et al., The mass-concentration-redshift relation of cold and warm dark matter haloes, MNRAS 460 (2016) 1214. arXiv:1601.0262 4

    2016

  2. [8]

    , Dark matter halo merger histories beyond cold dark matter 17 - I

    Benson, A.J., Farahi, A., Cole, S., Moustakas, L.A., Jenkins, A., Lov ell, M., et al. , Dark matter halo merger histories beyond cold dark matter 17 - I. Methods and application to warm dark matter, MNRAS 428 (2013 ) 1774 [1209.3018]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [9]

    and Firmani, C

    Avila-Reese, V., Colin, P., Valenzuela, O., D’Onghia, E. and Firmani, C. Formation and structure of halos in a warm dark matter cosmology, The Astrophysical Journal 559, (2001) 516

    2001

  4. [10]

    arXiv:1202.2858

    Macci` o, A.V., Ruchayskiy, O., Boyarsky A., and Mu˜ noz-Cuartas, J.C., The inner structure of haloes in cold+warm dark matter models, MNR AS 428 (2013) 882. arXiv:1202.2858

    2013 arXiv

  5. [11]

    and Benson , A

    Gilman, D., Birrer, S., Nierenberg, A., Treu, T., Du, A. and Benson , A. Warm dark matter chills out: constraints on the halo mass functio n and the free-streaming length of dark matter with eight quadruple -image strong gravitational lenses, MNRAS 491 (2020) 6077 [1908.06983]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [12]

    and Wechsler, R.H

    Nadler, E.O., Mao, Y.Y., Green, G.M. and Wechsler, R.H. Modeling the connection between subhalos and satellites in milky way–like syste ms, The Astrophysical Journal 873 (2019) 34

    2019

  7. [13]

    and Belokurov, V

    Jethwa, P., Erkal, D. and Belokurov, V. The upper bound on the lowest mass halo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 473 (2018) 2060. arXiv:1612.07834

    2018 arXiv

  8. [14]

    (2008) Cosmology, Oxford University Press, Oxf ord OX2 6DP

    Weinberg, S. (2008) Cosmology, Oxford University Press, Oxf ord OX2 6DP

    2008

  9. [15]

    (2023) Understanding the Formation of Galaxies with Warm Dark Matter

    Hoeneisen, B. (2023) Understanding the Formation of Galaxies with Warm Dark Matter. Journal of Modern Physics , 14, 1741-1754

    2023

  10. [16]

    (2025) Why Do Galaxies Have Extended Flat Rotat ion Curves? International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics , 15, 1-10

    Hoeneisen, B. (2025) Why Do Galaxies Have Extended Flat Rotat ion Curves? International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics , 15, 1-10

    2025

  11. [17]

    G., Matarrese, S., Riotto , A

    Viel, M., Lesgourgues, J., Haehnelt, M. G., Matarrese, S., Riotto , A. (2005), Constraining Warm Dark Matter candidates including sterile neu- trinos and light gravitinos with WMAP and the Lyman- α forest, Phys. Rev. D , 71, 063534

    2005

  12. [18]

    (2008) The dark m at- ter transfer function: free streaming, particle statistics and me mory of gravitational clustering

    Boyanovsky, D., de Vega, H.J., Sanchez, N.G. (2008) The dark m at- ter transfer function: free streaming, particle statistics and me mory of gravitational clustering. Physical Review D , 78, Article ID: 063546

    2008

  13. [19]

    (2013) Evolution of the phase-space density and the Jeans scale f or dark matter derived from the Vlasov-Einstein equation

    Piattella, O.F., Rodrigues, D.C., Fabris, J.C., de Freitas Pacheco, J .A. (2013) Evolution of the phase-space density and the Jeans scale f or dark matter derived from the Vlasov-Einstein equation. arXiv:1306.3578 18

    2013 arXiv

  14. [20]

    (2024) Ind ef- initely Flat Circular Velocities and the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation from Weak Lensing

    Mistele, T., McGaugh, S., Lelli, F., Schombert, J., Li, P. (2024) Ind ef- initely Flat Circular Velocities and the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation from Weak Lensing. arXiv:2406.09685

    2024 arXiv

  15. [21]

    and Sligh, S

    Munshi, F., Brooks, A.M., Applebaum, E., Christensen, C.R., Quinn, T. and Sligh, S. ApJ 923, 35 (2021). arXiv:2101.05822

    2021 arXiv

  16. [22]

    and Schechter, P

    Press, W.H. and Schechter, P. (1974) Formation of Galaxies an d Clusters of Galaxies by Self-Similar Gravitational Condensation. The Astrophysi- cal Journal , 187, 425-438

    1974

  17. [23]

    Sheth, R.K., Tormen G., (1999) Large-scale bias and the peak ba ck- ground split, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 308, 119-126

    1999

  18. [24]

    (2001) Ellipsoidal collapse and an improved model for the number and spatial distribution of dark mat ter haloes, Mon

    Sheth, R.K., Mo, H.J., Tormen, G. (2001) Ellipsoidal collapse and an improved model for the number and spatial distribution of dark mat ter haloes, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 323, 1-12

    2001

  19. [27]

    (2012) Non - linear evolution of cosmological structures in Warm Dark Matter mod els

    Schneider, A., Smith, R.E., Macci‘o, A.V., and Moore, B. (2012) Non - linear evolution of cosmological structures in Warm Dark Matter mod els. arXiv:1112.0330

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    (2024) CMB-HD as a Probe of Dark M atter on Sub-Galactic Scales

    MacInnis, A., and Sehgal, N. (2024) CMB-HD as a Probe of Dark M atter on Sub-Galactic Scales. arXiv:2405.12220

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    and Vogelsberger, M

    Despali, G., Moscardini, L., Nelson, D., Annalisa Pillepich, A., Springel, V. and Vogelsberger, M. (2025) Introducing the AIDA-TNG proje ct: galaxy formation in alternative dark matter models. arXiv:2501.1243 9

    2025

  22. [30]

    (2015) Structure form a- tion in warm dark matter cosmologies Top-Bottom Upside-Down

    Paduroiu, S., Revaz, Y., Pfenniger, D. (2015) Structure form a- tion in warm dark matter cosmologies Top-Bottom Upside-Down. arXiv:1506.03789

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    (2022) Mixed dark matter: matter power spectrum and halo mass function

    Parimbelli, G., Scelfo, G., Giri, S.K., Schneider, A., Archidiacono, M.,Camera, S., and Viel, M. (2022) Mixed dark matter: matter power spectrum and halo mass function. arXiv:2106.04588 19

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    (2024) New galaxy UV luminosity constraints on warm dark matter from JWST

    Liu, B., Shan, H., and Zhang, J. (2024) New galaxy UV luminosity constraints on warm dark matter from JWST. arXiv:2404.13596

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    (2023) Implication of the Stellar Mass Density of High-z Massive Galaxies from JWST on Warm Dark Matter

    Lin, H., Gong, Y., Yue, B., and Chen, X. (2023) Implication of the Stellar Mass Density of High-z Massive Galaxies from JWST on Warm Dark Matter. arXiv:2306.05648

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    (2022) Astroparticle Constraints from Cosmic Reionization and Primordial Galaxy Formation

    Lapi, A., , Ronconi, T., Boco, L., Shankar, F., Krachmalnicoff, N., B ac- cigalupi, C., and Danese, L. (2022) Astroparticle Constraints from Cosmic Reionization and Primordial Galaxy Formation. arXiv:2205.09474

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    (2019) Simulations and Measurements of Warm Da rk Matter Free-Streaming and Mass

    Hoeneisen, B. (2019) Simulations and Measurements of Warm Da rk Matter Free-Streaming and Mass. International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 9, 368-392

    2019

  28. [36]

    (2018) Spatial Flu ctu- ations of the Intergalactic Temperature-Density Relation After H ydrogen Reionization

    Keating, L.C., Puchwein, E., and Haehnelt, M.G. (2018) Spatial Flu ctu- ations of the Intergalactic Temperature-Density Relation After H ydrogen Reionization. arXiv:1709.05351 20

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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