pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.03132 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The DREAMS Project: Disentangling the Impact of Halo-to-Halo Variance and Baryonic Feedback on Milky Way Dark Matter Density Profiles

Alex M. Garcia , Jonah C. Rose , Paul Torrey , Andrea Caputo , Mariangela Lisanti , Andrew B. Pace , Hongwan Liu , Abdelaziz Hussein
show 18 more authors
Haozhe Liu Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro John Barry Ilem Leisher Bel\'en Costanza Jonathan Kho Ethan Lilie Jiaxuan Li Niusha Ahvazi Aklant Bhowmick Tri Nguyen Stephanie O'Neil Xiaowei Ou Xuejian Shen Arya Farahi Nitya Kallivayalil Lina Necib Mark Vogelsberger
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 01:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Milky Way dark matterdensity profileshalo-to-halo variancebaryonic feedbackIllustrisTNGDREAMS simulationsdark matter searches
0
0 comments X

The pith

Milky Way dark matter density profiles show little response to feedback and cosmology changes, with halo-to-halo variance driving most scatter.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper simulates 1024 Milky Way-mass halos while varying supernova feedback, black hole feedback, and two cosmological parameters inside the IllustrisTNG model. It finds that these changes produce only small shifts in the dark matter density profiles, whereas the differences between separate halos produce much larger scatter. A reader cares because the Milky Way dark matter profile sets the expected signal strength in direct-detection and indirect-detection experiments. The work also shows that the strongest supernova winds can suppress galaxy formation so completely that the halos behave almost like pure dark-matter systems, and that the profiles remain consistent with simple adiabatic contraction from the baryons.

Core claim

For the DREAMS parameter variations, Milky Way-mass dark matter density profiles in the IllustrisTNG model are largely insensitive to astrophysics and cosmology variations, with the dominant source of scatter instead arising from halo-to-halo variance. Most of the comparatively minor feedback-driven variations come from the changes to supernova prescriptions. By comparing to dark-matter-only simulations, the strongest supernova wind energies are found to prevent galaxy formation so effectively that the halos are nearly entirely collisionless dark matter. Regardless of physics variation, all the DREAMS halos are roughly consistent with a halo contracting adiabatically from the presence of the

What carries the argument

The DREAMS suite of 1024 Milky Way-mass halo simulations that vary IllustrisTNG supernova and black-hole feedback parameters plus two cosmological parameters, compared against dark-matter-only runs to isolate effects on the inner density profile.

If this is right

  • Uncertainties in Milky Way dark matter density for particle searches are dominated by halo-to-halo variance rather than uncertainties in feedback modeling.
  • Strong supernova feedback can produce halos that are essentially collisionless, matching dark-matter-only expectations.
  • Dark matter profiles remain consistent with adiabatic contraction from baryons rather than the cores produced by bursty feedback.
  • Systematic errors in density-profile predictions for the Milky Way can be reduced by sampling many independent halos instead of refining feedback parameters further.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Larger suites that sample hundreds of halos per parameter set would be needed to quantify the halo-variance contribution more precisely.
  • If halo variance continues to dominate in other galaxy-formation models, the result would suggest that profile uncertainties are largely model-independent at Milky Way masses.
  • Direct-detection experiments could treat the Milky Way profile uncertainty as a statistical average over many possible host halos rather than a systematic tied to feedback calibration.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen ranges of supernova and black hole feedback parameters, plus the two cosmological parameters, are sufficient to capture the full plausible impact of baryonic physics on the dark matter profiles.

What would settle it

A direct measurement or dynamical inference of the Milky Way dark matter density profile that lies well outside the range spanned by all 1024 DREAMS halos across the explored parameter variations would falsify the claim that feedback effects are subdominant.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.03132 by Abdelaziz Hussein, Aklant Bhowmick, Alex M. Garcia, Andrea Caputo, Andrew B. Pace, Arya Farahi, Bel\'en Costanza, Ethan Lilie, Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro, Haozhe Liu, Hongwan Liu, Ilem Leisher, Jiaxuan Li, John Barry, Jonah C. Rose, Jonathan Kho, Lina Necib, Mariangela Lisanti, Mark Vogelsberger, Nitya Kallivayalil, Niusha Ahvazi, Paul Torrey, Stephanie O'Neil, Tri Nguyen, Xiaowei Ou, Xuejian Shen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Milky Way Mass Dark Matter Halos from the SB5 DREAMS CDM Suite. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Dark Matter Density Profiles in the DREAMS CDM Milky Way-Mass Suite. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dependence of generalized NFW scale density ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dependence of generalized NFW shape parameters on ¯ew. Predictions from our neural network emulator for the dependence of the inner slope (γ; dot-dashed line), transition rate (α; dashed line), and outer slope (β) of the best-fit gNFW profiles on the supernova wind energy (e¯w). As a point of reference, the dotted gray lines show the canonical NFW profile values (α = γ = 1 and β = 3). The short vertical so… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Properties of Central Galaxy. Predictions from our emulator for the scaling of the stellar mass (left two panels) and black hole mass (right panel) of the Milky Way-mass halo’s central galaxy with the DREAMS astrophysics variations. The three lines represent predictions from our ensemble of emulators at MHalo = 1011.8 M⊙ (dashed), 1012.0 M⊙ (solid), and 1012.2 M⊙ (dotted). The shaded regions represent the … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Density Profiles from Dark Matter-Only Simulations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ratio of Estimated Mass Contraction to Hydrodynamic Simulation Mass Profiles. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Role of Bursty Feedback in Adiabatic Con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we utilize a new suite of Milky Way-mass halos from the DREAMS Project, simulated with Cold Dark Matter (CDM), to quantify the influence of baryon feedback and intrinsic halo-to-halo variance on dark matter density profiles. Our suite of 1024 halos varies over supernova and black hole feedback parameters from the IllustrisTNG model, as well as variations in two cosmological parameters. We find that, for the DREAMS parameter variations, Milky Way-mass dark matter density profiles in the IllustrisTNG model are largely insensitive to astrophysics and cosmology variations, with the dominant source of scatter instead arising from halo-to-halo variance. However, most of the (comparatively minor) feedback-driven variations come from the changes to supernova prescriptions. By comparing to dark matter-only simulations, we find that the strongest supernova wind energies are so effective at preventing galaxy formation that the halos are nearly entirely collisionless dark matter. Finally, regardless of physics variation, all the DREAMS halos are roughly consistent with a halo contracting adiabatically from the presence of baryons, unlike models that have bursty stellar feedback. This work represents a step toward assessing the uncertainty in Milky Way dark matter profiles, with direct implications for dark matter searches where systematic uncertainty in the density profile remains a major challenge.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes results from the DREAMS suite of 1024 Milky Way-mass halos simulated in CDM with variations in supernova and black hole feedback parameters drawn from the IllustrisTNG model, together with two cosmological parameters. The central claim is that, within these DREAMS variations, the dark matter density profiles are largely insensitive to the astrophysics and cosmology changes, with halo-to-halo variance dominating the scatter. Most of the modest feedback-driven differences arise from supernova prescriptions; the strongest winds produce nearly collisionless halos. All halos remain consistent with adiabatic contraction from baryons, in contrast to bursty-feedback models.

Significance. If the results hold, the work is significant for quantifying systematic uncertainty in Milky Way dark matter profiles relevant to direct-detection searches. The large halo sample (1024) supplies robust statistics that support the claim that halo-to-halo variance exceeds feedback-induced scatter within the explored parameter space. The explicit comparison to dark-matter-only runs and the adiabatic-contraction consistency are useful benchmarks. Credit is given to the simulation volume that underpins the statistical conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the abstract states that profiles are 'largely insensitive' to the DREAMS variations but supplies no explicit bounds, sampling density, or justification for the supernova and black hole feedback parameter ranges. Without this information it is difficult to assess whether the explored variations are broad enough to capture regimes in which baryonic effects on the inner dark matter profile could become substantial, which is load-bearing for the claim that halo-to-halo variance dominates.
  2. [Methods] Methods section: the manuscript must detail the radial range, binning, fitting procedure, and error estimation used to extract and compare the dark matter density profiles. These choices directly affect the quantitative conclusion of insensitivity and the comparison to the dark-matter-only runs; their absence limits independent verification of the reported scatter.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly label which curves correspond to supernova variations, black-hole variations, cosmological variations, and the dark-matter-only reference runs.
  2. [Table 1] A short table summarizing the exact parameter values and ranges varied in the DREAMS suite would improve clarity and allow readers to judge the dynamic range of the astrophysical variations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and recommendation for minor revision. Their comments identify opportunities to improve clarity in the abstract and methods, which we address below. We have prepared revisions to incorporate the requested details without altering the core scientific conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The abstract states that profiles are 'largely insensitive' to the DREAMS variations but supplies no explicit bounds, sampling density, or justification for the supernova and black hole feedback parameter ranges. Without this information it is difficult to assess whether the explored variations are broad enough to capture regimes in which baryonic effects on the inner dark matter profile could become substantial.

    Authors: We agree that additional context on the parameter space would aid assessment of the claim. The DREAMS variations are drawn directly from the IllustrisTNG model parameter ranges for supernova and black hole feedback, which were calibrated to reproduce observed galaxy properties. In the revised manuscript we will expand the abstract to briefly note these ranges, the two cosmological parameters varied, and the sample of 1024 halos, thereby providing the requested justification and sampling information while preserving the abstract's brevity. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Methods section: the manuscript must detail the radial range, binning, fitting procedure, and error estimation used to extract and compare the dark matter density profiles. These choices directly affect the quantitative conclusion of insensitivity and the comparison to the dark-matter-only runs.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current Methods section omits explicit descriptions of these analysis choices. This was an oversight in the submitted version. In the revision we will add a concise subsection specifying the radial range (0.1–10 kpc, with emphasis on the inner profile), logarithmic binning, the procedure for constructing and comparing median density profiles, and the error estimation via halo-to-halo variance with bootstrap resampling. These additions will enable independent verification while leaving the reported results unchanged. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct measurements from simulation outputs with no circular derivation

full rationale

The paper's central claim follows from running 1024 Milky Way-mass halo simulations in the DREAMS suite (varying supernova, black hole feedback, and two cosmological parameters within the IllustrisTNG model) and directly extracting and comparing dark matter density profiles from the outputs, including against dark matter-only runs. No parameters are fitted to the target density profiles, no self-definitional loops or uniqueness theorems are invoked, and no ansatzes or prior self-citations are used to derive the profiles themselves. The reported insensitivity to astrophysics/cosmology variations (with halo-to-halo variance dominant) and consistency with adiabatic contraction are empirical outcomes of the simulation measurements, making the analysis self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the IllustrisTNG subgrid feedback model being a reasonable representation of baryonic physics and on the selected parameter variations spanning the relevant astrophysical range.

free parameters (3)
  • supernova feedback parameters
    Varied across the range allowed by the IllustrisTNG model
  • black hole feedback parameters
    Varied across the range allowed by the IllustrisTNG model
  • two cosmological parameters
    Varied in addition to feedback parameters
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Cold Dark Matter cosmology governs halo formation
    All simulations assume standard CDM initial conditions
  • domain assumption IllustrisTNG feedback prescriptions capture the dominant baryonic effects
    Variations are performed within the IllustrisTNG framework

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5673 in / 1317 out tokens · 32467 ms · 2026-05-17T01:49:48.959919+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Cole , S., Frenk , C

    Steinmetz, M. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 435, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16912.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16912.x 2010

  2. [2]

    V., Leitner, S

    Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A. V., Leitner, S. N., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2013, ApJ, 770, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/25 2013

  3. [3]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 5826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab322

    Agertz, O., Renaud, F., Feltzing, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5826, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab322

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab322 2021

  4. [4]

    Akiba, T., Sano, S., Yanase, T., Ohta, T., & Koyama, M. 2019, in Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD ’19 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 2623–2631, doi: 10.1145/3292500.3330701

    work page doi:10.1145/3292500.3330701 2019

  5. [5]

    E., & Farahi, A

    Anbajagane, D., Evrard, A. E., & Farahi, A. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3177

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3177 2022

  6. [6]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1125

    Bhagwat, A., Costa, T., Ciardi, B., Pakmor, R., & Garaldi, E. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1125

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1125 2024

  7. [7]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    R., Faber, S

    Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Flores, R., & Primack, J. R. 1986, ApJ, 301, 27, doi: 10.1086/163867

    work page doi:10.1086/163867 1986

  9. [9]

    M., & Zolotov, A

    Brooks, A. M., & Zolotov, A. 2014, ApJ, 786, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/87

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/2/87 2014

  10. [10]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M

    Bullock, J. S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 343, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 2017

  11. [11]

    M., Cautun, M., Deason, A

    Callingham, T. M., Cautun, M., Deason, A. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz365

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz365 2019

  12. [12]

    J., et al

    Cautun, M., Benítez-Llambay, A., Deason, A. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1017

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1017 2020

  13. [13]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  14. [14]

    K., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al

    Chan, T. K., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2981, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2165

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2165 2015

  15. [15]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3531

    Hernquist, L. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3531

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3531 2019

  16. [16]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 2681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1897

    Hernquist, L. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1897

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1897 2022

  17. [17]

    A., & van de Voort, F

    Crain, R. A., & van de Voort, F. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618 de Blok, W. J. G. 2010, Advances in Astronomy, 2010, 789293, doi: 10.1155/2010/789293 de Blok, W. J. G., & Bosma, A. 2002, A&A, 385, 816, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020080 de Blok, W. J. G., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2648, doi: 10.1088/0004-62...

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618 2023

  18. [18]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C

    Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C. B., Dutton, A. A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2986, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu729

    work page doi:10.1086/164050 1986

  19. [19]

    P., Cole , S., Frenk , C

    Duffy, A. R., Schaye, J., Kay, S. T., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2161, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16613.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16613.x 2010

  20. [20]

    J., Lynden-Bell, D., & Sandage, A

    Eggen, O. J., Lynden-Bell, D., & Sandage, A. R. 1962, ApJ, 136, 748, doi: 10.1086/147433

    work page doi:10.1086/147433 1962

  21. [21]

    M., & Efstathiou, G

    Fall, S. M., & Efstathiou, G. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 189, doi: 10.1093/mnras/193.2.189

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/193.2.189 1980

  22. [22]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac721e

    Farahi, A., Nagai, D., & Anbajagane, D. 2022, ApJ, 933, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac721e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac721e 2022

  23. [23]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.08925

    Feldmann, R., & Bieri, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.08925. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08925

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    D., et al

    Fitts, A., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Elbert, O. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1757

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1757 2017

  25. [25]

    S., McCarthy, I

    Font, A. S., McCarthy, I. G., Poole-Mckenzie, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1765, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2463

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2463 2020

  26. [26]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  27. [27]

    M., Torrey, P., Hemler, Z

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Hemler, Z. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3749

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3749 2023

  28. [28]

    M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S., et al

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 531, 1398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1252

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1252

  29. [29]

    M., Torrey, P., Grasha, K., et al

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Grasha, K., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 529, 3342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae737

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae737

  30. [30]

    M., Torrey, P., Bhagwat, A., et al

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Bhagwat, A., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03804, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03804

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.03804

  31. [31]

    M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2025b, MNRAS, 536, 119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2587

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2587

  32. [32]

    Metallicity Gradients in Modern Cosmological Simulations II: The Role of Bursty Versus Smooth Feedback at High-Redshift

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Bhagwat, A., et al. 2025c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.26877, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.26877

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.26877

  33. [33]

    L., Springel, V., et al

    Genel, S., Bryan, G. L., Springel, V., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf4bb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf4bb 2019

  34. [34]

    1998, MNRAS, 300, 146, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01918.x

    Ghigna, S., Moore, B., Governato, F., et al. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 146, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01918.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01918.x 1998

  35. [35]

    Y., Kravtsov, A

    Gnedin, O. Y., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., & Nagai, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 16, doi: 10.1086/424914 24 Garcia et al

    work page doi:10.1086/424914 2004

  36. [36]

    2010, Nature, 463, 203, doi: 10.1038/nature08640

    Governato, F., Brook, C., Mayer, L., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 203, doi: 10.1038/nature08640

    work page doi:10.1038/nature08640 2010

  37. [37]

    Grand, R. J. J., Gómez, F. A., Marinacci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 179, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx071

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx071 2017

  38. [38]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 1164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1562

    Hartley, B., & Ricotti, M. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1562

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1562 2016

  39. [39]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    work page doi:10.1086/168845 1990

  40. [40]

    F., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1738 2014

  41. [41]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1690 2018

  42. [42]

    F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3489

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3489 2023

  43. [43]

    W., Yuan, H

    Huang, Y., Liu, X. W., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2623, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2096

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2096 2016

  44. [44]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14868, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14868

    Hussein, A., Necib, L., Kaplinghat, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14868, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14868

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.14868 2025

  45. [45]

    1983, MNRAS, 202, 995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.995

    Jaffe, W. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.995

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/202.4.995 1983

  46. [46]

    D., Sales, L

    Jahn, E. D., Sales, L. V., Marinacci, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad109

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad109 2023

  47. [47]

    Jeffrey, N., & Wandelt, B. D. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.05991, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2011.05991

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.05991 2020

  48. [48]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 6103, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2540

    Kugel, R., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 6103, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2540

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2540 2023

  49. [49]

    Larson, R. B. 1974, MNRAS, 169, 229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/169.2.229

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/169.2.229 1974

  50. [50]

    S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al

    Lazar, A., Bullock, J. S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2101

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2101 2020

  51. [51]

    R., Pillepich, A., Genel, S., et al

    Lovell, M. R., Pillepich, A., Genel, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1950, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2339

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2339 2018

  52. [52]

    D., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., & Bower, R

    Ludlow, A. D., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., & Bower, R. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa316

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa316 2020

  53. [53]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2206 2018

  54. [54]

    S., Mercado, F

    McKeown, D., Bullock, J. S., Mercado, F. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 55, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac966

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac966 2022

  55. [55]

    W., Moore, B., Diemand, J., & Terzić, B

    Merritt, D., Graham, A. W., Moore, B., Diemand, J., & Terzić, B. 2006, AJ, 132, 2685, doi: 10.1086/508988

    work page doi:10.1086/508988 2006

  56. [56]

    Monaghan, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 543, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551 1992

  57. [57]

    C., et al

    Mostow, O., Torrey, P., Rose, J. C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.09566, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09566

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.09566 2024

  58. [58]

    L., Kereš, D., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al

    Muratov, A. L., Kereš, D., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2691, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2126

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2126 2015

  59. [59]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty618 2018

  60. [60]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    work page doi:10.1086/304888 1997

  61. [61]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3040 2018

  62. [62]

    2019a, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019a, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    work page doi:10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

  63. [63]

    2019b, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2019b, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2306

  64. [64]

    B., Treu , T., Ellis , R

    Newman, A. B., Treu, T., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/24

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/1/24 2013

  65. [65]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02980, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02980

    Nguyen, T., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Mishra-Sharma, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02980, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02980

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.02980 2024

  66. [66]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad022a Oñorbe, J., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J

    Ni, Y., Genel, S., Anglés-Alcázar, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad022a Oñorbe, J., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2092, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2072

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad022a 2023

  67. [67]

    A., Navarro, J

    Oman, K. A., Navarro, J. F., Fattahi, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1504

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1504 2015

  68. [68]

    2025, MNRAS, 543, 1761, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1542

    Pakmor, R., Bieri, R., Fragkoudi, F., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 1761, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1542

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1542 2025

  69. [69]

    1996, MNRAS, 281, 27, doi: 10.1093/mnras/278.1.27

    Persic, M., Salucci, P., & Stel, F. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 27, doi: 10.1093/mnras/278.1.27

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/278.1.27 1996

  70. [70]

    2018a, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656

  71. [71]

    2018b, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3112

  72. [72]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 —. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2338 2019

  73. [73]

    B., Scranton , R., M \'e nard , B., et al

    Pontzen, A., & Governato, F. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3464, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20571.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20571.x 2012

  74. [74]

    M., Torrey, P., et al

    Qi, J., Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.18687, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.18687

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.18687 2025

  75. [75]

    P., Agertz, O., Starkenburg, T

    Rey, M. P., Agertz, O., Starkenburg, T. K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad513

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad513 2023

  76. [76]

    C., Torrey, P., Vogelsberger, M., & O’Neil, S

    Rose, J. C., Torrey, P., Vogelsberger, M., & O’Neil, S. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5623, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3634

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3634 2023

  77. [77]

    C., Torrey, P., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., et al

    Rose, J. C., Torrey, P., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 982, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb8e5

  78. [78]

    C., Lisanti, M., Torrey, P., et al

    Rose, J. C., Lisanti, M., Torrey, P., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.00148. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.00148

    work page arXiv

  79. [79]

    C., Ford, Jr., W

    Rubin, V. C., Ford, Jr., W. K., & Thonnard, N. 1980, ApJ, 238, 471, doi: 10.1086/158003 The Impact of Physics and Halo-to-Halo V ariations on Dark Matter Halos 25

    work page doi:10.1086/158003 1980

  80. [80]

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

    Sales, L. V., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 897, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01689-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01689-w 2022

Showing first 80 references.