Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

New insights on low-mass dark matter subhalo tidal tracks via numerical simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Low-mass dark matter subhaloes follow a tidal track set by how much mass they lose, and their velocity concentration can rise by two orders of magnitude over infall values — about ten times more than for field haloes.

desk verdict Careful numerical study that delivers genuinely new pericentre and prompt-cusp tidal tracks, but its headline steeper slopes and concentration boost rest on a regime the authors themselves flag as unreliable; needs a convergence test before those numbers are adopted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01152 v2 pith:ZORXOQ52 submitted 2025-06-01 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Alejandra Aguirre-Santaella , Miguel A. Sánchez-Conde , Go Ogiya This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords darkmattersubhaloestidalstrippingtrackvelocityconcentrationNFWprofilepromptcuspsN-bodysimulationsMilkyWayhalo
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

Low-mass dark matter subhaloes that lose most of their mass to tides still survive, and their internal structure follows what the paper calls a tidal track: the evolution of the maximum circular velocity $V_{\max}$ and its radius $r_{\max}$ is set mainly by how much mass has been stripped, not by the subhalo's initial conditions. The paper simulates a single million-solar-mass cuspy subhalo orbiting a Milky Way-like host whose baryonic disc and bulge grow with time, varying initial concentration, orbital parameters, accretion redshift, and inner density slope. It finds that $r_{\max}$ shrinks faster than $V_{\max}$, so the velocity concentration $c_{\rm V}$ rises continuously and ends up about two orders of magnitude above its infall value, roughly ten times the rise for undisturbed field haloes. The paper also constructs, for the first time, tidal tracks measured at orbit pericentres as well as apocentres, and shows that pericentre tracks are distinct, with higher $V_{\max}$ at the same structural size for moderate stripping. This matters because searches for dark matter substructure through gravitational lensing, stellar streams, and annihilation signals depend on how concentrated present-day subhaloes are.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a suite of very high-resolution $N$-body simulations of a single low-mass subhalo (initial mass $10^6\,M_\odot$, up to $2^{25}$ particles) orbiting an analytic, time-evolving Milky Way potential that includes a baryonic disc and bulge. From each snapshot the circular velocity profile yields the maximum circular velocity $V_{\max}$ and its radius $r_{\max}$, and the velocity concentration $c_{\rm V} = 2\,[V_{\max}/(H(z)\,r_{\max})]^2$, a profile-independent measure of how concentrated the subhalo is. The tidal track is characterised by fitting two standard functions: $g(x)=2\mu x^{\nu}/(1+x)^{\mu}$ for $V_{\max}$ (or $r_{\max}$) versus the bound mass fraction $f_{\rm b}$, and $V_{\max}/V_{\max,i} = 2^{\alpha}\,(r_{\max}/r_{\max,i})^{\beta}\,[1+(r_{\max}/r_{\max,i})^2]^{-\alpha}$ for the joint evolution of the two structural parameters. The fits are performed separately for apocentre and pericentre snapshots, and the resulting power-law index $\beta \simeq 0.7$ for NFW subhaloes (standard cuspy haloes with inner density slope $-1$), steeper than the $\simeq 0.5$ predicted by adiabatic isotropic tidal stripping, carries the paper's central quantitative claim about how rapidly stripped subhaloes concentrate.

What would settle it

Re-run the same stripped-subhalo orbits with several times more particles and smaller force softening, or with a different integration scheme, and check whether the fitted slope $\beta$ of the $V_{\max}$-$r_{\max}$ tidal track drops from roughly $0.7$ toward the $0.5$ predicted by adiabatic models, and whether the two-order-of-magnitude rise in velocity concentration shrinks; if it does, the steep power law is a numerical artifact rather than a physical property of tidally stripped cusps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the tidal evolution of a cuspy dark matter subhalo follows a nearly universal tidal track: the maximum circular velocity $V_{\max}$ and its radius $r_{\max}$, normalised to their infall values, are essentially determined by the bound mass fraction $f_{\rm b}$ rather than by the subhalo's initial concentration, orbital parameters, or accretion redshift. Because $r_{\max}$ shrinks more than $V_{\max}$, the velocity concentration $c_{\rm V} = 2\,[V_{\max}/(H(z)\,r_{\max})]^2$ increases steadily with each orbit, reaching values above two orders of magnitude higher than at infall, about an order of magnitude more than the increase for isolated field haloes over the same cosmic time. The paper is the first to trace tidal tracks at pericentres as well as apocentres: at a given bound mass fraction, pericentre values show a higher $V_{\max}$ for the same $r_{\max}$ before strong disruption, converging to the apocentre track after heavy stripping. Subhaloes with an inner prompt cusp (density slope $-1.5$) lose $V_{\max}$ more slowly than subhaloes with the standard cusp of slope $-1$, so they remain more resilient. The paper also derives a tidal track for the velocity concentration itself, identifying accretion redshift as the main source of scatter.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulations remain numerically converged in the heavily stripped regime where the new claims are made; the paper itself places its reliability limit at $\log_{10}(r_{\max}/r_{\max,i}) = -1.5$ and notes that discrepancies with an adiabatic stripping model already appear near $\log_{10}(r_{\max}/r_{\max,i}) \simeq -0.75$, so the steeper power-law slope could in principle be an artifact of two-body relaxation or of truncating the density profile at $x=10^{-3}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Present-day subhalo velocity concentrations can exceed their infall values by about two orders of magnitude, so searches for dark subhaloes through gravitational lensing, stellar streams, and gamma-ray annihilation signals should use concentration values far above the field-halo expectation.
  • Subhaloes measured near pericentre are systematically more concentrated than apocentre tidal tracks imply, so the population near the Galactic centre and in the solar vicinity should be more concentrated and therefore more detectable.
  • Prompt-cusp subhaloes lose $V_{\max}$ more slowly than NFW subhaloes at the same mass-loss fraction, retaining about 40% of their initial $V_{\max}$ where NFW subhaloes retain about 20%, so the smallest and earliest-forming subhaloes are the most resilient.
  • The tidal track is largely independent of initial subhalo parameters, with scatter driven mainly by accretion redshift, circularity, and initial concentration, which simplifies predictions for the surviving subhalo population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the steeper slope $\beta \simeq 0.7$ survives convergence tests, semi-analytic models that predict a universal $\beta = 0.5$ for heavily stripped cusps would need to incorporate the non-adiabatic, time-varying tidal field of realistic pericentre passages.
  • A testable observational extension would be to measure structural parameters of ultra-faint dwarf satellites and compare them with the pericentre versus apocentre tidal tracks; a systematic pericentre offset would corroborate the two-track picture.
  • The same setup could be run for more massive subhaloes where dynamical friction is non-negligible; the paper's claim of mass independence holds only in the low-mass limit, so the tidal track may bend for subhaloes above $10^6\,M_\odot$.
  • If the concentration boost is real, annihilation-luminosity estimates for the subhalo population based on apocentre tracks alone would be systematically low; pericentre tracks offer a way to recalibrate those estimates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses high-resolution N-body simulations of a single 10^6 Msun dark matter subhalo orbiting a Milky Way-like host that includes a baryonic disc and bulge and a time-evolving potential. The authors systematically vary concentration, accretion redshift, orbital circularity/energy/inclination, and inner density slope (NFW and prompt cusp), and compute tidal tracks for Vmax, rmax and the velocity concentration cV, for both apocentre and pericentre snapshots. They fit empirical relations (Eqs. 4-6) and compare them with earlier results (P10, D24, EN21, Stücker et al.). The main claims are that tidal tracks depend essentially on bound mass fraction, that pericentre tracks differ from apocentre ones, that the Vmax-rmax power-law index is steeper (~0.7) than the adiabatic expectation (~0.5) for NFW subhaloes, and that the velocity concentration grows by about two orders of magnitude, roughly one order from tidal stripping in addition to the Hubble factor.

Significance. If the quantitative results are correct, the paper would provide a useful, high-resolution calibration of subhalo structural evolution in realistic MW-like hosts, including the previously unexplored pericentre behaviour. The simulations are large (up to 2^25 particles), the parameter space is broad, and the authors are transparent about resolution limits and make the data publicly available. The comparison to multiple independent models (P10, D24, EN21, Stücker et al.) is a strength. However, the most novel quantitative claims—the steeper slope beta~0.7 and the large concentration enhancement—rest on data in a regime that the authors themselves flag as potentially compromised by two-body relaxation and profile truncation. Because these claims are centrally load-bearing, the paper cannot be accepted in its present form without a direct test of convergence or a re-analysis restricted to the clearly converged regime.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. 5, Fig. 6, Table 2] The fitted power-law slope beta~0.72–0.74 for NFW subhaloes is presented as a new result that differs from the asymptotic slope ~0.5 predicted by Stücker et al. (2023) and Amorisco (2021). The authors note that discrepancies with Stücker et al. already appear at log10(rmax/rmax,i) ~ -0.75, while their stated reliability limit is -1.5 (Appendix A). The fits in Fig. 6 appear to include data down to the -1.5 limit, so a large portion of the fitted range lies in the regime where the authors themselves entertain two-body relaxation or x=10^-3 truncation biases. Please provide a convergence test (e.g., reruns with 2^22 and 2^23 particles) or refit the tracks using only data with log10(rmax/rmax,i) > -0.75 and report the resulting beta. Without this, the steep-slope claim is not yet supported.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. 6, Fig. 10, Table 4] The claim that cV increases by two orders of magnitude, with about one order from tidal stripping alone, is derived from Vmax and rmax in the same questionable regime. Since cV is proportional to (Vmax/rmax)^2, systematic errors in either quantity propagate directly into the concentration enhancement. The paper states in Section 3.2 that further checks were performed with inconclusive results, which is not sufficient to establish the quantitative concentration track. Please show that the fit parameters a0 and a1 are stable when the fit is restricted to log10(rmax/rmax,i) > -0.75, or quantify the systematic uncertainty in the cV enhancement from resolution and truncation effects.
  3. [Appendix A and Section 3.2] The reliability threshold in the paper is phrased in terms of fb (=-3.5 for NFW, -2.5 for prompt cusps), but the tidal tracks are fitted and plotted in terms of rmax/rmax,i and Vmax/Vmax,i. The relationship between these thresholds and the actual number of particles inside rmax for the runs used in the fits is not documented. Please state, for the fitting range used, the minimum number of particles within rmax and the corresponding value of log10(rmax/rmax,i), so that readers can apply the EN21 criterion and judge whether the fits extend into the potentially unconverged regime.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2, abstract, conclusions] Section 2.2 states that cV rises by ~1.75 orders of magnitude for the fiducial run, while the abstract and conclusions state 'around two orders' or 'above two orders'; please reconcile these numbers or clearly specify that the higher value refers to more extreme orbits.
  2. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'Yet, we do not consider this a major issue, as the differences are not substantial in the range of parameters tested by our simulations' is vague; please provide a quantitative measure of the difference (e.g., the change in beta when the fit is restricted to log10(rmax/rmax,i) > -0.75).
  3. [Tables 2 and 3] The tables should explicitly state the range of log10(rmax/rmax,i) (or log10 fb) over which each fit was performed, in addition to the 1-sigma scatter.
  4. [Table 2] The D24 values in the rmax-fb row (0.5529 and 0.4675) appear with excessive digits and a formatting artefact; please standardise the table to a uniform number of decimal places.
  5. [Fig. 10] The pericentre fit (a0=3.0, a1=15) and apocentre fit appear to approach each other at large values of |log10(Vmax/Vmax,i)|; please state explicitly whether they converge asymptotically, as suggested by the text in Section 3.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tidal tracks and concentration trends are empirical fits to new simulations, with external benchmarks and explicit resolution caveats.

full rationale

The paper's central results are empirical fits to new N-body simulation outputs: the Vmax-fb and Vmax-rmax tidal tracks, the pericentre versus apocentre distinction, and the velocity-concentration enhancement. These are not derived from the assumptions; they are measurements from the simulations. The velocity concentration cV is defined in Eq. 3 in terms of Vmax, rmax, and H(z), and the paper explicitly separates the Hubble-parameter contribution using field-halo controls, so the concentration trend is a transparent transform of the measured structural parameters rather than a prediction equivalent to an input. The citation of Aguirre-Santaella et al. (2023) for the DASH code and host-potential setup is a methodological reference, not a load-bearing argument; the conclusions do not rest on a self-cited uniqueness theorem. The comparison with Stücker et al. (2023) involves overlapping authors, but it is used as an external semi-analytic benchmark and, if anything, highlights a discrepancy; the paper's own claims stand on its simulation data. The admitted resolution limitations in Appendix A and Section 3.2 are numerical correctness concerns, not circularity. No specific reduction of a claimed result to its inputs by construction, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain replacing evidence can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 21 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the simulation code, the chosen initial profile family, the analytic host potential, and the convergence criterion. The fitting functions and the neglect of baryonic feedback are additional domain assumptions. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (21)
  • mu, nu (Eq. 4, Vmax-fb, NFW, apocentre) = mu=0.38, nu=0.30
    Best fit to own simulations; Table 2.
  • mu, nu (Eq. 4, Vmax-fb, NFW, pericentre) = mu=0.60, nu=0.32
    Best fit to own simulations; Table 2.
  • mu, nu (Eq. 4, rmax-fb, NFW, apocentre) = mu=-0.04, nu=0.43
    Best fit to own simulations; Table 2.
  • mu, nu (Eq. 4, rmax-fb, NFW, pericentre) = mu=0.05, nu=0.43
    Best fit; Table 2.
  • alpha, beta (Eq. 5, Vmax-rmax, NFW, apocentre) = alpha=0.44, beta=0.72
    Best fit; Table 2.
  • alpha, beta (Eq. 5, Vmax-rmax, NFW, pericentre) = alpha=0.59, beta=0.74
    Best fit; Table 2.
  • mu, nu (Eq. 4, Vmax-fb, prompt cusp, apocentre) = mu=0.16, nu=0.19
    Best fit; Table 3.
  • mu, nu (Eq. 4, Vmax-fb, prompt cusp, pericentre) = mu=0.45, nu=0.23
    Best fit; Table 3.
  • mu, nu (Eq. 4, rmax-fb, prompt cusp, apocentre) = mu=0.04, nu=0.61
    Best fit; Table 3.
  • mu, nu (Eq. 4, rmax-fb, prompt cusp, pericentre) = mu=0.62, nu=0.70
    Best fit; Table 3.
  • alpha, beta (Eq. 5, Vmax-rmax, prompt cusp, apocentre) = alpha=0.13, beta=0.31
    Best fit; Table 3.
  • alpha, beta (Eq. 5, Vmax-rmax, prompt cusp, pericentre) = alpha=0.24, beta=0.33
    Best fit; Table 3.
  • a0, a1 (Eq. 6, cV track, NFW, apocentre) = a0=2.6, a1=10
    Best fit; Table 4.
  • a0, a1 (Eq. 6, cV track, NFW, pericentre) = a0=3.0, a1=15
    Best fit; Table 4.
  • Initial subhalo concentration c = 10 (fiducial), varied 5-30
    Simulation input, Table 1; not fitted to target result.
  • Accretion redshift z_acc = 2 (fiducial), varied 1-4
    Simulation input; Table 1.
  • Orbital circularity eta = 0.3 (fiducial), varied 0.1-0.8
    Simulation input; Table 1.
  • Orbital energy parameter x_c = 1.2 (fiducial), varied 0.8-1.6
    Simulation input; Table 1.
  • Orbital inclination theta = 45 deg (fiducial), varied 0-90
    Simulation input; Table 1.
  • Inner slope gamma = 1 (NFW), 1.5 (prompt cusp)
    Simulation input; Table 1.
  • Subhalo mass m_sub = 1e6 M_sun fixed
    Chosen; results claimed independent of m_sub for mass ratio < 1e-4.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Initial subhalo density profile is gNFW (Eq. 1) with alpha=1, beta=3, gamma=1 or 1.5
    Used for all initial conditions; footnote 2 notes gamma=1.5 may miss the NFW tail expected around prompt cusps.
  • domain assumption Host potential is an analytic, time-evolving MW-like model with DM halo, disc and bulge; no baryonic feedback
    Section 2; the paper states feedback is not incorporated.
  • domain assumption Dynamical friction and self-friction are negligible for m_sub/M_host < 1e-4
    Section 2, citing van den Bosch et al. (2018) and Paper I; this justifies single-orbit evolution with no back-reaction.
  • domain assumption Results are converged above the stated reliability thresholds (log10 fb > -3.5 for NFW, -2.5 for prompt cusps)
    Appendix A; the paper itself notes potential resolution issues even above these thresholds.
  • domain assumption The empirical forms of Eq. 4 (P10) and Eq. 5 (EN21) are adequate for fitting tidal tracks
    Equations 4 and 5; borrowed from prior literature, with no derivation of their validity for pericentre or prompt-cusp tracks.
  • domain assumption The bound-mass fraction fb as defined by the DASH code (particles remain bound if not unbound) is the correct mass-loss variable
    Section 3.2; the paper notes D24's different fb definition leads to a factor-of-two difference in bound mass.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New insights on low-mass dark matter subhalo tidal tracks via numerical simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZORXOQ52

@misc{pith2026250601152,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New insights on low-mass dark matter subhalo tidal tracks via numerical simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZORXOQ52}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01152}
}
abstract

Many studies assert that dark matter (DM) subhaloes without a baryonic counterpart and with an inner cusp always survive no matter the strength of the tidal force they undergo. In this work, we perform a suite of numerical simulations specifically designed to analyse the evolution of $V_\mathrm{max}$, $r_\mathrm{max}$ and concentration of low-mass DM subhaloes due to tidal stripping. We employ the improved version of the DASH code, introduced in our previous work arXiv:2207.08652 to investigate subhalo survival. We follow the tidal evolution of a single DM subhalo orbiting a Milky Way (MW)-size halo modeled with a baryonic disc and a bulge replicating the actual mass distribution of the MW. We consider the effect of the time-evolving gravitational potential of the MW itself. We simulate subhaloes with unprecedented accuracy, varying their initial concentration, orbital parameters, and inner slope (both NFW and prompt cusps are considered). Unlike the previous literature, we examine the evolution of subhalo structural parameters -- tidal tracks -- not only at orbit apocentres but also at pericentres, finding in the former case both similarities and differences -- particularly pronounced in the case of prompt cusps. Overall, $r_\mathrm{max}$ shrinks more than $V_\mathrm{max}$, leading to a continuous rise of subhalo concentration with time. The velocity concentration at present is found to be around two orders of magnitude higher than the one at infall, being comparatively larger for pericentre tidal tracks versus apocentres. These findings highlight the dominant role of tidal effects in reshaping low-mass DM subhaloes, providing valuable insights for future research via simulations and observations, such as correctly interpreting data from galaxy satellite populations, subhalo searches with gravitational lensing or stellar stream analyses, and indirect DM searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01152 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Circular velocities for each snapshot in a simulation with our fiducial parameters reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of 𝑐V as a function of 𝑉max (filled stars, top 𝑥 axis) and time (squares, bottom 𝑥 axis) for our fiducial run ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of 𝑉max and 𝑟max normalised to their initial values throughout the whole life of a subhalo since its accretion (yellow) un￾til present day (purple). Top panel: Each quantity against the time (lower axis) or redshift (upper axis). Bottom panel: One quantity against the other. Apocentres are highlighted as aquamarine hollow triangles while pericen￾tres appear as red and inverted. Changes occur near the peric… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panel: Evolution of 𝑉max (filled markers) and 𝑟max (hollow markers) as a function of the scale factor 𝑎, subtracting the value of the respective pericentre, throughout a single orbital period. Only the two first orbits and the last one are shown, with black circles…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relation between 𝑓b and 𝑉max/𝑉max,i , for the apocentres (green stars) and the pericentres (sky blue diamonds). Subhaloes have an NFW density profile at accretion. The tidal track found for each subset using Eq. 4 is drawn as a solid green line in the former case and a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relation between 𝑓b and 𝑉max divided by the initial values for the apocentres (green stars) and the pericentres (sky blue diamonds). Subhaloes exhibit an inner prompt cusp and an NFW tail at accretion. The tidal track found for each subset using Eq. 4 is drawn as a sol…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of 𝑐V versus 𝑉max for different simulations adopting an initial NFW profile for subhaloes. Each colour depicts a specific initial virial concentration. Apocentre values are plotted as stars, while pericentres are diamonds. Circles and their respective dashed …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of 𝑐V, normalised to its initial value 𝑐V,i and by the accretion redshift through the Hubble parameter, for different simulations with an initial NFW profile. The 𝑥 axis is the ratio 𝑉max/𝑉max,i , which becomes more negative with time. Apocentre values are p…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Dynamical evolution of dark matter subhaloes in the Milky Way: role of the Galactic disc

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    N-body simulations show that subhaloes on low-inclination orbits to the galactic disc lose mass faster due to tidal shocks while exactly coplanar orbits experience suppressed mass loss from adiabatic shielding.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Aghanim N., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...6P 641, A6

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  3. [3]

    A., Ogiya G., St \"u cker J., Angulo R

    Aguirre-Santaella A., S \'a nchez-Conde M. A., Ogiya G., St \"u cker J., Angulo R. E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2921 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518...93A 518, 93

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2921 2023

  4. [4]

    C., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv211101148A p

    Amorisco N. C., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv211101148A p. arXiv:2111.01148

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    E., Hahn O., 2022, @doi [Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics] 10.1007/s41115-021-00013-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022LRCA....8....1A 8, 1

    Angulo R. E., Hahn O., 2022, @doi [Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics] 10.1007/s41115-021-00013-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022LRCA....8....1A 8, 1

    doi:10.1007/s41115-021-00013-z 2022

  6. [6]

    E., Hahn O., Ludlow A

    Angulo R. E., Hahn O., Ludlow A. D., Bonoli S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.4687A 471, 4687

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1658 2017

  7. [7]

    J., Du X., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2750 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.1398B 517, 1398

    Benson A. J., Du X., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2750 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.1398B 517, 1398

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2750 2022

  8. [8]

    Bertone G., 2010, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature09509 , 468, 389

    doi:10.1038/nature09509 2010

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Rept.] 10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 , 405, 279

    Bertone G., Hooper D., Silk J., 2005, @doi [Phys. Rept.] 10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 , 405, 279

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Ogiya G., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty084 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.4066V 475, 4066

    Bosch van den F. C., Ogiya G., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty084 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.4066V 475, 4066

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Ogiya G., Hahn O., Burkert A., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx2956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.3043V 474, 3043

    Bosch van den F. C., Ogiya G., Hahn O., Burkert A., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx2956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.3043V 474, 3043

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Zolotov A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786...87B 786, 87

    Brooks A. M., Zolotov A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786...87B 786, 87

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Kolatt T

    Bullock J. S., Kolatt T. S., Sigad Y., Somerville R. S., Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A. A., Primack J. R., Dekel A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04068.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.321..559B 321, 559

    2001

  6. [14]

    S., White S

    Delos M. S., White S. D. M., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3373 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.3509D 518, 3509

    doi

  7. [15]

    S., White S

    Delos M. S., White S. D. M., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...10..008D 2023, 008

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Diemand J., Moore B., Stadel J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08094.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.353..624D 353, 624

    2004

  9. [17]

    Diemand J., Kuhlen M., Madau P., Zemp M., Moore B., Potter D., Stadel J., 2008, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature07153

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    Du X., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.110b3019D 110, 023019

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1215 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505...18E 505, 18

    Errani R., Navarro J. F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1215 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505...18E 505, 18

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Errani R., Pe \ n arrubia J., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz3349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.4591E 491, 4591

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Garrison-Kimmel S., et al., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx1710 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.1709G 471, 1709

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Ghigna S., Moore B., Governato F., Lake G., Quinn T., Stadel J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01918.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.300..146G 300, 146

    1998

  15. [23]

    Grand R. J. J., White S. D. M., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa3993 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.3558G 501, 3558

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467..179G 467, 179

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.4953G 507, 4953

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    B., van den Bosch F

    Green S. B., van den Bosch F. C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2767 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.2091G 490, 2091

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    F., Taylor J

    Hayashi E., Navarro J. F., Taylor J. E., Stadel J., Quinn T., 2003, @doi [APJ] 10.1086/345788 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...584..541H 584, 541

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    arXiv:2408.04470

    He F., Han J., Li Z., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240804470H p. arXiv:2408.04470

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480..800H 480, 800

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480..800H 480, 800

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    D., 2007, @doi [Comput

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Comput. Sci. Eng.] 10.1109/mcse.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    Ishiyama T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...27I 788, 27

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    Ishiyama T., Makino J., Ebisuzaki T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/723/2/L195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723L.195I 723, L195

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    Jung M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad245b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964..123J 964, 123

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Kravtsov A

    Kazantzidis S., Zentner A. R., Kravtsov A. V., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...641..647K 641, 647

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Garrison-Kimmel S., Boylan-Kolchin M., Pawlowski M

    Kelley T., Bullock J. S., Garrison-Kimmel S., Boylan-Kolchin M., Pawlowski M. S., Graus A. S., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz1553 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.4409K 487, 4409

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    W., Turner M

    Kolb E. W., Turner M. S., 1990, The early universe . Vol. 69

    1990

  29. [37]

    R., Frenk C

    Lovell M. R., Frenk C. S., Eke V. R., Jenkins A., Gao L., Theuns T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439..300L 439, 300

    2014 doi

  30. [39]

    B., van den Bosch F

    Miller T. B., van den Bosch F. C., Green S. B., Ogiya G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1450 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.4496M 495, 4496

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    A., Aguirre-Santaella A., et al., 2023, @doi [\ MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac2930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518..157M 518, 157

    Molin \'e \'A ., S \'a nchez-Conde M. A., Aguirre-Santaella A., et al., 2023, @doi [\ MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac2930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518..157M 518, 157

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    A., Palomares-Ruiz S., Prada F., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx026 , p

    Moliné A., Sánchez-Conde M. A., Palomares-Ruiz S., Prada F., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx026 , p. stx026

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    Moore B., Quinn T., Governato F., Stadel J., Lake G., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03039.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.310.1147M 310, 1147

    1999

  34. [43]

    O., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adbc6e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983L..23N 983, L23

    Nadler E. O., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adbc6e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983L..23N 983, L23

    2025 doi

  35. [44]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304888 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/1997ApJ...490..493N 490, 493

    1997 doi

  36. [45]

    Ogiya G., Hahn O., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4339O 473, 4339

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    C., Hahn O., Green S

    Ogiya G., van den Bosch F. C., Hahn O., Green S. B., Miller T. B., Burkert A., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485..189O 485, 189

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    F., McConnachie A

    Pe \ n arrubia J., Navarro J. F., McConnachie A. W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523686 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...673..226P 673, 226

    2008 doi

  39. [48]

    J., Walker M

    Pe \ n arrubia J., Benson A. J., Walker M. G., Gilmore G., McConnachie A. W., Mayer L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16762.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.1290P 406, 1290

    2010

  40. [49]

    E., 2007, @doi [Comput

    Perez F., Granger B. E., 2007, @doi [Comput. Sci. Eng.] 10.1109/mcse.2007.53 , 9, 21

    2007 doi

  41. [50]

    A., Johnson R

    Porter T. A., Johnson R. P., Graham P. W., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ARA&A..49..155P 49, 155

    2011 doi

  42. [51]

    A., Prada F., 2014, @doi [Mon

    S\'anchez-Conde M. A., Prada F., 2014, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stu1014 , 442, 2271

    2014 doi

  43. [52]

    Sawala T., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2753 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.2941S 448, 2941

    2015 doi

  44. [53]

    Sawala T., et al., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456...85S 456, 85

    doi

  45. [54]

    Sawala T., et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw145 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.1931S 457, 1931

    1931 doi

  46. [55]

    F., et al., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...396L...1S 396, L1

    Smoot G. F., et al., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...396L...1S 396, L1

    1992 doi

  47. [56]

    Springel V., et al., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14066.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391.1685S 391, 1685

    2008

  48. [57]

    E., Aguirre-Santaella A., S \'a nchez-Conde M

    St \"u cker J., Ogiya G., Angulo R. E., Aguirre-Santaella A., S \'a nchez-Conde M. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4432S 521, 4432

    2023 doi

  49. [58]

    Tulin S., Yu H.-B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhR...730....1T 730, 1

    2018 doi

  50. [59]

    E., et al., 2020, @doi [Nat

    Virtanen P., Gommers R., Oliphant T. E., et al., 2020, @doi [Nat. Methods] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  51. [60]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1536 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1518V 444, 1518

    2014 doi

  52. [61]

    C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Comput

    Walt van der S., Colbert S. C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Comput. in Sci. Eng.] 10.1109/mcse.2011.37 , 13, 22

    2011 doi

  53. [62]

    H., Bullock J

    Wechsler R. H., Bullock J. S., Primack J. R., Kravtsov A. V., Dekel A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...568...52W 568, 52

    2002 doi

  54. [63]

    Zhao H., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/278.2.488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.278..488Z 278, 488

    1996 doi

  55. [64]

    Zhu Q., Marinacci F., Maji M., Li Y., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.1559Z 458, 1559

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.