Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

To collapse or not to collapse: Halo evolution with self-interacting dark matter mass segregation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A halo made of two dark matter species with unequal masses can grow a dense, compact centre and then settle into a slowly changing state instead of undergoing gravothermal collapse.

desk verdict A competent two-species SIDM implementation and parameter scan, but collapse avoidance is not proven—the plateau may be an energy-error cutoff artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06272 v2 pith:VSXXUQ7Y submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Yashraj Patil , Moritz S. Fischer This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords self-interactingdarkmattertwo-speciesmasssegregationgravothermalcollapsedensitycoresN-bodysimulationsstronglensinghaloevolution
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 asks whether a dark matter halo made of two species with different particle masses, which scatter only with each other, can produce very dense centres without falling into the runaway gravothermal collapse that single-species self-interacting dark matter models ultimately undergo. Using N-body simulations of an isolated NFW halo, the authors show that the heavier particles sink to the centre while the lighter ones carry energy outward, raising the central density well above collisionless expectations. In the late stages the density stops growing sharply and appears to plateau, at a level set by the mass ratio and mass fraction of the two species. If this behaviour is physical, two-species models offer a way to explain compact lensing substructures while avoiding the collapse phase and the possible formation of a black hole from dark matter.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is dynamical mass segregation driven by elastic, velocity-independent scattering that acts only between the two species. Starting from a mixed NFW halo, encounters push the system toward energy equipartition: heavy particles lose energy and sink, light particles gain energy and move out, so the central density rises while the light species transports energy outward. What stops the runaway is depletion: once few light particles remain in the centre, the outward energy flow saturates and the central density approaches a plateau. The model is controlled by two parameters, the mass fraction f and the mass ratio r, with the cross-section normalized by the light particle mass.

What would settle it

Run the f = 0.2, r = 4 case for at least twice the current simulated time with a stricter energy-conservation criterion and track the logarithmic slope of the central density; if the density resumes a sharp rise before a true plateau is reached, the avoidance of collapse is a simulation artefact. Observationally, a strong-lensing subhalo whose inner enclosed mass exceeds the maximum plateau value allowed by the model for any f and r would contradict the mechanism as the sole explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that mass segregation in a two-species self-interacting dark matter halo acts as a safety valve: because the light species is the only carrier of the energy released by the sinking heavy particles, the outward energy transport slows dramatically once the light population has been pushed out of the inner region. The simulations show the central density first dips in a core-expansion phase, then rises to a maximum, and then flattens into a plateau rather than the sharp increase that marks the gravothermal catastrophe in single-species SIDM. The final density is set by the mass fraction f of the light species and the mass ratio r of heavy to light particles; over the simulated period of about 10 Gyr none of the investigated parameter combinations collapses. The authors present this as an alternative, non-catastrophic formation channel for surprisingly compact halos and dense substructures.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on assuming that the late-time flattening of the central density is the halo's true long-term behaviour and not a pause before a collapse that would show up if the simulation ran longer or with better energy conservation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same model can produce both cored halos during the early core-expansion phase and centrally dense halos, so a single two-species SIDM scenario can cover a wider range of observed central densities than single-species SIDM.
  • If the plateau is the true endpoint, two-species halos avoid the gravothermal catastrophe and the associated dark-matter black hole formation, removing a problematic late-time prediction of elastic single-species SIDM.
  • The final central density depends on f and r, so measuring the central densities of compact substructures with strong gravitational lensing could constrain these two parameters.
  • The projected enclosed mass and the logarithmic density slope in the inner regions grow and then stabilize, which is what strong-lensing perturbers appear to require.
  • Because the light species carries energy outward and some particles escape, the bound halo mass decreases slightly during evolution, but the central density does not run away.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the plateau is real, the abundance of halos at intermediate central densities becomes a direct test: single-species gravothermal collapse passes through such densities only briefly, so a large observed population of them would favour a mass-segregating two-species model.
  • The published runs cover only about 10 Gyr and cut data once energy conservation degrades by 0.5%, so the finite-density conclusion is only as strong as the assumption that the plateau is the asymptote; a delayed collapse at later times is not excluded by the current evidence.
  • A testable next step would be cosmological simulations of this two-species model, which could predict the abundance and redshift distribution of compact satellites for future lensing surveys to compare with observations.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a two-species self-interacting dark matter model with unequal particle masses and cross-species-only interactions, using N-body simulations with OpenGadget3. The authors implement the unequal-mass scattering, validate the implementation on a thermalization test against an analytic solution from Dvorkin et al. (2014), and then simulate an isolated NFW halo for several mass ratios and mass fractions. They report that mass segregation produces higher central densities than collisionless CDM, that core sizes depend on the model parameters, and most centrally, that the central density plateaus at late times instead of undergoing the gravothermal collapse seen in single-species SIDM. The paper concludes that such two-species models can explain compact halos while avoiding the gravothermal catastrophe.

Significance. If the late-time plateau is real, the result is significant for SIDM phenomenology: it provides a mechanism for forming dense, compact halos without the rare, short-lived collapse phase of single-species SIDM, and it gives a concrete, falsifiable prediction for the evolution of central density as a function of the two new parameters (mass ratio r and mass fraction f). The paper also makes a methodological contribution by extending the SIDM N-body module to unequal-mass scatterings with both fSIDM and rSIDM treatments, and it validates the energy-exchange rate against an analytic solution. The authors monitor energy conservation and openly discuss numerical limitations, which is commendable. However, the central claim of avoiding collapse rests on the interpretation of the late-time plateau in Fig. 5, and the paper currently lacks the numerical or analytic support needed to establish that this plateau is physical rather than a truncation artifact of the energy-error cutoff.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Fig. 5, Sect. 7] The central claim that the two-species model avoids gravothermal collapse depends on the flattening of the central-density curves in Fig. 5. Appendix B states that all other figures only include simulation data within a 0.5% energy-error margin, and it notes that energy error increases at stages with strongly increased density. The late-time plateau therefore coincides exactly with the regime where the simulation becomes numerically unreliable by the paper's own criterion. The flattening may be an artifact of excluding data beyond the error threshold rather than a physical asymptotic state. To support conclusion 3, the authors should either show the raw energy-error curves alongside the density evolution, rerun representative cases with a looser tolerance (e.g., 1-2%) or for longer times to see whether the density resumes growth, or provide an independent check (e.g., a fluid/conductivity model or a resolution-convergence study) demonstrating that the plateau is asymptotic. Without such evidence, the claim that the halo 'does not inevitable lead to the gravothermal collapse' is not established by the presented runs.
  2. [Sect. 4, Eqs. (7)-(9)] The thermalization test validates the implementation only in a uniform, gravity-free periodic box with constant densities and Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distributions. The analytic solution used for comparison, Eqs. (7)-(9), explicitly assumes constant densities and a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution that 'does not hold in the simulations beyond the initial and final stages' (Sect. 4.1). This test does not validate the code in the dense, self-gravitating, short-mean-free-path regime where the late-time plateau and the collapse-avoidance claim are made. A dedicated test in a self-gravitating, collapsing configuration (or at least a comparison against a known gravothermal solution) is needed to show that the numerical scheme does not artificially suppress the late-time collapse.
  3. [Sect. 5.2, Fig. 5, Table 1] No resolution-convergence study is presented. The central density at late times is a key observable for the paper's conclusion, and with only one resolution per parameter set, it is unclear whether the plateau is converged or whether higher resolution would show continued growth or collapse. Since the authors already note that increasing r makes accurate simulations more expensive (Sect. 6.1), a resolution study for at least one representative scenario (e.g., f=0.2, r=4) would directly address this concern and strengthen the claim that the plateau is physical.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 7, conclusion 3] The sentence 'does not inevitable lead to the gravothermal collapse' contains a grammatical error; it should read 'does not inevitably lead to the gravothermal collapse.'
  2. [Sect. 5.3, Fig. 9 caption] The text refers to 'our simulation with f = 0.02 and r = 4', but Table 1 lists f = 0.05, 0.2, and 0.5, and the figure caption says the same simulation as in Fig. 4, which is f = 0.2. The '0.02' appears to be a typo for '0.2'.
  3. [Sect. 4.1] The phrase 'each competent follows a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution' should be 'each component follows a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.'
  4. [General] The paper repeatedly uses 'e ffect' and 'T echnical' with stray spaces, likely from LaTeX ligature issues; a final proofread would fix these formatting artifacts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the collapse-avoidance claim is an emergent simulation result, validated against an external analytic solution.

full rationale

The central claim that two-species SIDM avoids the gravothermal catastrophe is an emergent outcome of the N-body evolution shown in Figs. 4-6, not a quantity fitted into the code or derived from the claim itself. The scattering implementation is checked in Sect. 4 against the analytic heat-exchange solution of Dvorkin et al. (2014) (Eqs. 7-9), an external result, so the code's physics is not justified by the paper's own conclusions. The parameter grid in Table 1 uses the normalization f r sigma_T/m_l = 100 cm^2/g, but this is a scanning convention that sets the interaction rate; it does not encode the final central density or the absence of collapse. Self-citations appear (Patil 2024; Fischer et al. 2021a,b, 2022, 2024, 2025a), but they support the code implementation and prior SIDM methodology; the collapse-avoidance result does not reduce to any of those citations. The possible numerical limitation that plotted data are cut at a 0.5% energy-error margin (Appendix B) and that runs last only ~10 Gyr is a genuine correctness and robustness risk, but it is not a circularity: the plateau is observed in the simulation output, not imposed by the truncation criterion in the derivation chain.

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

The central claim relies on the two-species SIDM model definition (cross-species only interactions), the initial NFW setup, and the assumption that the observed plateau is physical rather than numerical. No new particles or entities are introduced beyond the prior two-species model. The free parameters f, r, and the cross-section normalization set the model behavior and are scanned or chosen by hand.

free parameters (3)
  • Effective cross-section normalization f * r * sigma_T / m_l = 100 cm^2 g^-1
    Hand-chosen so that all simulated scenarios share the same product f r sigma_T/m_l (Table 1). Sets the interaction strength and evolution timescale; not derived from constraints.
  • Mass fraction f = 0.05, 0.2, 0.5
    Model parameter scanned to vary the abundance of light species transporting energy outward.
  • Mass ratio r = 1.5, 2, 3, 4
    Model parameter scanned to vary mass segregation efficiency and final central density.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Self-interactions occur only between the two different DM species, with no within-species scattering.
    Defines the model; motivated by a Majorana-type mass (Tulin et al. 2012). If within-species scattering exists, the heavy core could gravothermally collapse.
  • domain assumption Both species initially follow the same NFW density distribution with no mass segregation.
    Justified by velocity-independent cross-section making SIDM relevant only at low redshift (Sect. 5.2).
  • domain assumption The halo is isolated and environmental effects are neglected.
    Cosmological simulations are left to future work (Sect. 6.1).
  • domain assumption Scattering is elastic.
    The paper restricts to elastic scattering (Sect. 2); inelastic channels could alter energy exchange.
  • standard math The analytic thermalization solution of Dvorkin et al. (2014) is correct.
    Used in Sect. 4 to validate the implementation; external benchmark from published literature.
  • domain assumption Numerical two-body relaxation is subdominant to physical mass segregation in the SIDM runs.
    Appendix A shows small segregation in the CDM stability run, but no SIDM-specific resolution study is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of To collapse or not to collapse: Halo evolution with self-interacting dark matter mass segregation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VSXXUQ7Y

@misc{pith2026250606272,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: To collapse or not to collapse: Halo evolution with self-interacting dark matter mass segregation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VSXXUQ7Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06272}
}
abstract

Surprisingly compact substructures in galaxies and galaxy clusters, but also field halos, have been observed by gravitational lensing. They could be difficult to explain with collisionless dark matter (DM). To explain those objects, recent studies focused on the gravothermal collapse that halos consisting of self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) can undergo. However, simple models of elastic scattering could face problems explaining those compact objects during very later stages of the collapse and the post-collapse phase, where a black hole may have formed from DM. We aim to explain compact halos while avoiding the gravothermal catastrophe to which typical SIDM models are subject. Therefore, we investigate the evolution of a DM halo for an SIDM model consisting of two species with unequal masses, which features only interactions between the different species but not within themselves. Employing $N$-body simulations, we study the effect of unequal-mass SIDM models on the evolution of an isolated DM halo. In particular, the late stages of its evolution with high central densities are simulated. We find that our two-species SIDM models can produce density cores with their size depending on the mass ratio of the two species. Moreover, mass segregation caused by the unequal particle masses leads to a finite final density state or at least a slowly growing density, which depends on the mass ratio and the mass fraction of the two DM species. SIDM models consisting of two DM species can simultaneously explain DM halos with density cores, as well as systems that are denser in their centre than expected from collisionless DM, while avoiding the gravothermal catastrophe. They are a compelling alternative to single-species models, offering a rich phenomenology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06272 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the effect of dynamical mass segregation in an isolated SIDM halo with two DM species. The left column shows the initial state, and the right column shows the final evolved state of the DM halo. In the upper panels, the bigger golden dots represent the heavier DMh particles and the smaller red dots represent the lighter DMl particles. Initially, the distribution of both species is assumed to be unifo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The kinetic energy of DMh and DMl particle species as a function of time for different momentum transfer cross-sections (Eq. (3)) in forward-dominated, isotropic and isotropic viscosity matching scenarios. The dashed lines represent DMl and the solid lines represent DMh. The horizontal dashed lines show the theoretical equilibrium states. We observe that the higher cross-section evolves to the equilibrium state fast… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Analytic solution for the fSIDM, σT/mDMl = 2.5 cm2g −1 cross￾section scenario for r = 2 and 4. We show the kinetic energy relative to the total energy for the heavy and light species as a function of time. 5.1. Simulation setup Our simulation setup consists of a single isolated halo comprised of two DM species, where the population and masses of DM species are governed by two parameters, the mass ratio r, and the ma… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the density profile. The density as a function of radius is displayed for the total mass and the two species individually. The results are for the simulation with f = 0.2 and r = 4. The top panel shows the initial density profile, and the green curve indic…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Central density as a function of time. In the left panel we show the average density within 1 kpc and in the right panel within 0.5 kpc. All simulated scenarios given in Tab. 1 are shown. The curves moving to lower densities initially, showing a core expansion phase, a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Maximum circular velocity over time. We show the results for all simulations as given in Tab. 1 and indicated by the legend. The increase in central density results in increased maximum circular velocities. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time [Gyr] 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 Unbound…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fraction of particles that gain enough energy to escape the DM halo and become gravitationally unbound in the f = 0.5, r = 4 scenario. The fraction of unbound DM particles is shown in blue. The red and green curves display the total and bound mass, respectively. An inc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Knudsen number as a function of radius for both light and heavy species. The lighter particles in lower mass fraction scenarios lie in the smfp regime, and higher mass fractions tend towards lmfp regime. 10 8 10 9 10 10 10 11 M< r2D [M ] 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 2 D(r2 …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Projected logarithmic density profile slope as a function of pro￾jected enclosed mass. For our simulation with f = 0.2 and r = 4 (the same simulation as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dynamical flattening of halo density cusps by Q-ball dark matter

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Interacting Q-ball dark matter flattens NFW cusps via density-dependent mergers that convert rest mass into escaping relativistic dark-sector particles, preferentially in halo centers.

  2. The dark fate of ultra-faint dwarfs: Gravothermal collapse in action

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using high-resolution SIDM N-body simulations with tidal stripping, the authors find that the diverse dark-matter densities of Milky Way ultra-faint dwarfs can be explained if most are in the gravothermal collapse pha...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    K., et al

    Adhikari, S., Banerjee, A., Boddy, K. K., et al. 2022, Astrophysical Tests of Dark Matter Self-Interactions

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    J., Goodwin, S

    Allison, R. J., Goodwin, S. P., Parker, R. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, L99

    2009

  3. [3]

    S., & Garny, M

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

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Y ., et al

    Boldrini, P., Miki, Y ., Wagner, A. Y ., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5218–5225

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    W., Price-Whelan, A

    Bonaca, A., Hogg, D. W., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Conroy, C. 2019, ApJ, 880, 38

    2019

  6. [6]

    1952, MNRAS, 112, 195

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195

    1952

  7. [7]

    W., et al

    Cao, X., Li, R., Nightingale, J. W., et al. 2025, Probing Dark Matter Substruc- tures with Free-Form Modelling: A Case Study of the ‘Jackpot’ Strong Lens

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    2024, Dark Matter

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

    work page 2024

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

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

    Correa, C. A., Schaller, M., Schaye, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 536, 3338

    2024

  2. [10]

    M., Fassnacht, C

    Despali, G., Heinze, F. M., Fassnacht, C. D., et al. 2024, Detecting low-mass haloes with strong gravitational lensing II: constraints on the density profiles of two detected subhaloes

    2024

  3. [11]

    2025, A&A, 697, A213

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

    2025

  4. [12]

    2014, Phys

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

    2014

  5. [13]

    Feng, W.-X., Yu, H.-B., & Zhong, Y .-M. 2022, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2022, 036

    2022

  6. [14]

    2025, Dark Bondi Accretion Aided by Baryons and the Origin of JWST Little Red Dots

    Feng, W.-X., Yu, H.-B., & Zhong, Y .-M. 2025, Dark Bondi Accretion Aided by Baryons and the Origin of JWST Little Red Dots

    2025

  7. [15]

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

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

    2022

  8. [16]

    S., Dolag, K., & Yu, H.-B

    Fischer, M. S., Dolag, K., & Yu, H.-B. 2024, A&A, 689, A300

    2024

  9. [17]

    S., Kasselmann, L., Brüggen, M., et al

    Fischer, M. S., Kasselmann, L., Brüggen, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2327–2348

    2024

  10. [18]

    S., & Lally, J

    Garrison-Kimmel, S., Rocha, M., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., & Lally, J. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 3539

    2013

  11. [19]

    2022, A&A, 659, A24

    Granata, G., Mercurio, A., Grillo, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A24

    2022

  12. [20]

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

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

    2023

  13. [21]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020

  14. [22]

    W., et al

    He, Q., Robertson, A., Nightingale, J. W., et al. 2025, Not so dark, not so dense: an alternative explanation for the lensing subhalo in SDSSJ0946+1006

    2025

  15. [23]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90 Article number, page 10 of 13 Y . Patil & M. S. Fischer: SIDM mass segregation

    2007

  16. [24]

    T., & Sarkar, S

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

    2014

  17. [25]

    Little Dark Dot

    Li, S., Li, R., Wang, K., et al. 2025, The "Little Dark Dot": Evidence for Self- Interacting Dark Matter in the Strong Lens SDSSJ0946+1006?

    2025

  18. [26]

    D., Fall, S

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

    2023

  19. [27]

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

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

    2019

  20. [28]

    C., Peter, A

    Mace, C., Zeng, Z. C., Peter, A. H. G., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 123024

    2024

  21. [29]

    2020, Science, 369, 1347–1351

    Meneghetti, M., Davoli, G., Bergamini, P., et al. 2020, Science, 369, 1347–1351

    2020

  22. [30]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 1662–1683

    Minor, Q., Gad-Nasr, S., Kaplinghat, M., & Vegetti, S. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1662–1683

    2021

  23. [31]

    Minor, Q. E. 2025, ApJ, 981, 2

    2025

  24. [32]

    Monaghan, J. J. & Lattanzio, J. C. 1985, A&A, 149, 135

    1985

  25. [33]

    Moreno, V . J. F., Fattahi, A., Deason, A. J., Henstridge, F., & Benítez-Llambay, A. 2024, The accreted stellar haloes of Milky Way-mass galaxies as a probe of the nature of the dark matter Muñoz, J. B., Kovetz, E. D., & Ali-Haïmoud, Y . 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92

    2024

  26. [34]

    O., Yang, D., & Yu, H.-B

    Nadler, E. O., Yang, D., & Yu, H.-B. 2023, ApJ, 958, L39

    2023

  27. [35]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

    1997

  28. [36]

    2011, A&A, 532, A119

    Olczak, C., Spurzem, R., & Henning, T. 2011, A&A, 532, A119

    2011

  29. [37]

    Palubski, I., Slone, O., Kaplinghat, M., Lisanti, M., & Jiang, F. 2024, J. Cosmol- ogy Astropart. Phys., 2024, 074

    2024

  30. [38]

    2024, Digital Image Processing in Signatures of Self-Interacting Dark Matter Halo Mergers and Isolated Evolution

    Patil, Y . 2024, Digital Image Processing in Signatures of Self-Interacting Dark Matter Halo Mergers and Isolated Evolution

    2024

  31. [39]

    N., & Steinhardt, P

    Pollack, J., Spergel, D. N., & Steinhardt, P. J. 2015, ApJ, 804, 131

    2015

  32. [40]

    2024, A&A, 687, A270

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

    2024

  33. [41]

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

    2016

  34. [42]

    2025, Gravothermalizing into primor- dial black holes, boson stars, and cannibal stars

    Ralegankar, P., Perri, D., & Kobayashi, T. 2025, Gravothermalizing into primor- dial black holes, boson stars, and cannibal stars

    2025

  35. [43]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 4719

    Robertson, A., Massey, R., & Eke, V . 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4719

    2017

  36. [44]

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

    2013

  37. [45]

    C., Torrey, P., V ogelsberger, M., & O’Neil, S

    Rose, J. C., Torrey, P., V ogelsberger, M., & O’Neil, S. 2022, MNRAS, 519, 5623

    2022

  38. [46]

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

    Sabarish, V . M., Brüggen, M., Schmidt-Hoberg, K., & Fischer, M. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.14779

    2025

  39. [47]

    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

    2024

  40. [48]

    V ., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A

    Sales, L. V ., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 897

    2022

  41. [49]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    2005

  42. [50]

    C., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J

    Straight, M. C., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2025, Central densities of dark matter halos in FIRE-2 simulations of low-mass galaxies with cold dark matter and self-interacting dark matter

    2025

  43. [51]

    M., et al

    Tajalli, M., Vegetti, S., O’Riordan, C. M., et al. 2025, SHARP – IX. The dense, low-mass perturbers in B1938 +666 and J0946 +1006: implications for cold and self-interacting dark matter

    2025

  44. [52]

    & Yu, H.-B

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

    2018

  45. [53]

    Tulin, S., Yu, H.-B., & Zurek, K. M. 2012, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2012, 013–013

    2012

  46. [54]

    Vegetti, S., Koopmans, L. V . E., Bolton, A., Treu, T., & Gavazzi, R. 2010, MN- RAS, 408, 1969–1981

    2010

  47. [55]

    & Yu, H.-B

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

    2022

  48. [56]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 758–770 Article number, page 11 of 13 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Zhong, Y .-M., Yang, D., & Yu, H.-B. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 758–770 Article number, page 11 of 13 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda Appendix A: Stability Test Here, we show the simulation results carried out to confirm the stability of the IC produced by SpherIC. We take one of the ...

    2023

Pith tools

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