New Cold Dark Matter Crisis Revealed by Multiscale Cluster Lensing

Barry T. Chiang; Isaque Dutra; Priyamvada Natarajan

arxiv: 2601.07909 · v3 · submitted 2026-01-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA· hep-ph

New Cold Dark Matter Crisis Revealed by Multiscale Cluster Lensing

Priyamvada Natarajan , Barry T. Chiang , Isaque Dutra This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 14:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAhep-ph

keywords dark mattergalaxy clustersgravitational lensingsubhalosself-interacting dark matterdensity profilesstrong lensing

0 comments

The pith

Multiscale lensing in galaxy clusters reveals subhalos with inner densities steeper than cold dark matter models predict.

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

The paper combines strong and weak gravitational lensing data from massive galaxy clusters to probe dark matter subhalos over a wide range of scales. It finds that the mass functions and truncation radii of subhalos match cold dark matter expectations, but the inner density profiles and radial distributions do not. The rate of strong lensing by subhalo cores is nearly ten times higher than predicted, requiring very steep central density slopes. This points to the need for dark matter models that allow strong interactions in dense regions. The findings challenge purely collisionless cold dark matter and suggest alternatives like self-interacting dark matter.

Core claim

Using state-of-the-art lens models on combined strong- and weak-lensing data, the authors extract subhalo mass functions, projected radial distributions, internal density profiles, and tidal truncation radii. The mass functions and truncation radii align with cold dark matter predictions, but the inner density profiles and radial distributions of subhalos are discrepant. The incidence of galaxy-galaxy strong lensing from subhalo cores exceeds predictions by nearly an order of magnitude, requiring inner density slopes as steep as γ ≳ 2.5 within r ≲ 0.01 R_200, consistent with core-collapsed self-interacting dark matter while behaving as collisionless in their outskirts. The radialdistribution

What carries the argument

Gravitational lensing reconstruction of subhalo density profiles and radial distributions in galaxy clusters

If this is right

Subhalo central densities must be higher than allowed in collisionless cold dark matter simulations.
The observed number of strong lensing events from subhalos is about ten times larger than predicted.
Radial distributions of subhalos around cluster centers do not match cold dark matter expectations.
Dark matter models must incorporate self-interactions in dense environments to explain the observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

This discrepancy may extend to other small-scale dark matter structures if similar lensing precision is achieved.
Velocity-dependent interaction strengths in dark matter could allow core collapse only in the densest subhalos.
Future surveys with better resolution could provide direct tests of these density slopes in additional clusters.
Hybrid models combining collisionless and interacting dark matter components offer a possible resolution.

Load-bearing premise

State-of-the-art lens models accurately recover subhalo internal density profiles and radial distributions without significant biases from reconstruction methods or cluster mass assumptions.

What would settle it

New lensing observations that show the incidence of galaxy-galaxy strong lensing events from subhalos agrees with cold dark matter predictions to within a factor of two would falsify the reported discrepancy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.07909 by Barry T. Chiang, Isaque Dutra, Priyamvada Natarajan.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: The mass function of subhalos associated with spectroscopically confirmed bright cluster member galaxies in observed lensing clusters (Lenstool, color-shaded) compared with CDM predictions from simulated analogs (TNG-Cluster, solid lines) under the same selection criteria; see Section 4 for details. the best-fit combined mass distribution of both large and small-scale components. 5. SUBHALO MASS FUNCTION S… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Top panel: The projected radial distribution of subhalos associated with spectroscopically confirmed member galaxies in observed clusters (color-shaded) and in simulated analogs (solid lines; averaged over five best-matched analogs and over three random projections). Bottom panels: The projected spatial distribution of subhalos around cluster centers in observations (left column) and simulated analogs (… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Tidal radii from lensing-based observational inferences (gray line; shading indicates conservative 5σ uncertainties), overlaid with individual CDM (blue horizon dashes) and strongly collisional SIDM (red; conservative upper bounds) predictions for all spectroscopically confirmed member galaxies in our sample. We also plot the respective median (circles), central 68% (triangles), and central 95% ranges (… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Schematic illustrating the implications for CDM and SIDM models. Left panel: Collisionless CDM matches subhalo tidal extents but severely under-predicts GGSL. Right panel: Core-collapsed SIDM yields steep inner profiles that match GGSL, but this strongly collisional regime also results in more pronounced mass stripping that significantly reduces tidal extents even after accounting for the slight expansion … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The properties of substructure in galaxy clusters, exquisitely probed by gravitational lensing, offer a stringent test of dark matter (DM) models. Combining strong- and weak-lensing data for massive clusters, we map their total mass -- dominated by DM -- over the dynamic range needed to confront small-scale predictions for collisionless cold DM (CDM). Using state-of-the-art lens models, we extract four key subhalo properties: the mass function, projected radial distribution, internal density profile, and tidal truncation radius. We find that the subhalo mass functions and truncation radii are consistent with CDM expectations. In contrast, the inner density profiles and radial distributions of subhalos are strongly discrepant with CDM. The incidence of galaxy-galaxy strong lensing from subhalo cores exceeds CDM predictions by nearly an order of magnitude, requiring inner density slopes as steep as $\gamma \gtrsim 2.5$ within $r \lesssim 0.01R_{200}$ consistent with core-collapsed self-interacting DM (SIDM), while the same subhalos behave as collisionless in their outskirts. Additionally, the observed radial distribution of subhalos hosting bright cluster member galaxies, explicitly modeled in the lens reconstructions, remains incompatible with CDM. Taken together, these small-scale stress tests reveal an intriguing paradox and challenge the DM microphysics of purely collisionless CDM, motivating hybrid scenarios -- such as a dual-component model with both CDM and SIDM or entirely new classes of DM theories.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper claims multiscale lensing reveals cluster subhalos with inner slopes steeper than CDM allows, producing ~10x more galaxy-galaxy strong lensing events.

read the letter

The headline result is that subhalo cores in massive clusters produce nearly an order of magnitude more galaxy-galaxy strong lensing than CDM simulations predict, which the authors tie to inner density slopes steeper than gamma of 2.5 inside 0.01 R200. They also note a mismatch in the radial distribution of subhalos hosting bright galaxies, while the mass function and truncation radii come out consistent with CDM. This is presented as evidence for core-collapsed self-interacting dark matter in the centers while the outskirts remain collisionless. The work is new in its simultaneous extraction of four subhalo properties from combined strong- and weak-lensing maps across clusters, giving a multiscale view that prior single-probe studies did not deliver at this level of detail. The direct comparison to external simulation predictions without fitting new parameters inside the dataset is a clean way to frame the test. The approach is useful for anyone working on small-scale DM problems because it turns existing cluster lensing data into quantitative stress tests on microphysics. The soft spots are real but not fatal. The abstract gives no error bars, no sample size, and no mock recovery tests for the lens models, so it is impossible to judge how much the claimed discrepancy could be driven by parameterization choices or degeneracies between the main halo, subhalos, and member galaxies. The stress-test note about possible artificial steepening from model assumptions lands on target given how lens reconstructions work. Without those validation steps shown, the quantitative claim of a factor-of-ten excess rests on thinner ground than the interpretation suggests. This paper is for cluster lensing groups and theorists exploring SIDM or hybrid DM models. It deserves a serious referee because the observational setup is timely and the claimed tension is sharp enough to warrant detailed scrutiny of the methods rather than a desk rejection.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes multiscale strong- and weak-lensing data from massive galaxy clusters to extract four subhalo properties (mass function, projected radial distribution, internal density profile, and tidal truncation radius) via state-of-the-art lens models. It reports that subhalo mass functions and truncation radii are consistent with CDM expectations, while inner density profiles are discrepant (requiring slopes γ ≳ 2.5 within r ≲ 0.01 R_200) and radial distributions of subhalos hosting bright galaxies differ, producing a nearly order-of-magnitude excess in galaxy-galaxy strong lensing incidence relative to CDM predictions; this is interpreted as evidence for core-collapsed self-interacting dark matter in a hybrid CDM+SIDM scenario.

Significance. If the results hold after validation, the work would be significant for dark matter microphysics by providing a direct small-scale test of collisionless CDM using lensing-derived subhalo properties across a wide dynamic range. The multiscale approach constraining both inner profiles and outer truncation is a strength, yielding falsifiable predictions that could motivate hybrid DM models; the consistency found for mass functions and truncation radii adds nuance to the claimed paradox.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and § on lens modeling] Abstract and results on GGSL incidence: the headline claim of an order-of-magnitude excess (implying γ ≳ 2.5) is presented without quantitative error bars, sample size, or recovery tests on CDM mocks; this is load-bearing because the skeptic correctly notes that parameterized lens models (NFW or truncated power laws for main halo plus subhalos) can induce degeneracies that artificially steepen recovered inner slopes or inflate GGSL counts.
[Results on subhalo properties] Section on subhalo internal profiles: the assertion that mass functions and truncation radii match CDM while only inner profiles and radial distributions do not requires explicit demonstration that the reconstruction pipeline returns unbiased γ and GGSL statistics when the input is pure CDM; without mock validation, the central discrepancy cannot be cleanly attributed to DM microphysics rather than modeling assumptions.

minor comments (1)

[Notation and methods] Clarify the exact definition and measurement of R_200 for the cluster sample and how it enters the r ≲ 0.01 R_200 scaling.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We agree that quantitative uncertainties and explicit validation of the lens-modeling pipeline are essential to support the central claims. We have revised the abstract, results sections, and added a new appendix with mock recovery tests to address these points directly. Our responses to the major comments are below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and § on lens modeling] Abstract and results on GGSL incidence: the headline claim of an order-of-magnitude excess (implying γ ≳ 2.5) is presented without quantitative error bars, sample size, or recovery tests on CDM mocks; this is load-bearing because the skeptic correctly notes that parameterized lens models (NFW or truncated power laws for main halo plus subhalos) can induce degeneracies that artificially steepen recovered inner slopes or inflate GGSL counts.

Authors: We have added explicit 1σ error bars on the GGSL incidence (now stated as a factor of 8–12 excess with uncertainties) and clarified the sample size (12 massive clusters with multiscale lensing coverage). A new Appendix C presents recovery tests on pure-CDM mocks generated with the same parameterization; the pipeline recovers input γ values to within 0.1 and does not artificially inflate GGSL counts beyond Poisson noise. While degeneracies between main-halo and subhalo parameters exist, the combination of strong-lensing constraints on subhalo cores and weak-lensing constraints on the outer profile breaks them sufficiently that the recovered steep inner slopes remain robust. We have updated the abstract and §3 accordingly. revision: yes
Referee: [Results on subhalo properties] Section on subhalo internal profiles: the assertion that mass functions and truncation radii match CDM while only inner profiles and radial distributions do not requires explicit demonstration that the reconstruction pipeline returns unbiased γ and GGSL statistics when the input is pure CDM; without mock validation, the central discrepancy cannot be cleanly attributed to DM microphysics rather than modeling assumptions.

Authors: We agree that mock validation is required to isolate any modeling bias. We have added Appendix C containing end-to-end recovery tests on CDM mocks that include realistic subhalo populations, tidal truncation, and the same multiscale lensing data quality. These tests confirm that the pipeline returns unbiased mass functions, truncation radii, and γ distributions when the input is collisionless CDM; the observed steep γ ≳ 2.5 and radial-distribution mismatch are not reproduced. Mass-function and truncation-radius consistency with CDM is therefore not an artifact. We have expanded §4 to include these results and a brief discussion of residual degeneracies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Lensing-derived subhalo properties compared to external CDM simulations with no load-bearing circularity

full rationale

The paper fits state-of-the-art lens models to strong- and weak-lensing data to extract subhalo mass functions, radial distributions, inner density profiles (γ), and truncation radii. These quantities are then directly contrasted against independent CDM N-body simulation predictions. The abstract explicitly states that mass functions and truncation radii are consistent with CDM while inner slopes (γ ≳ 2.5) and radial distributions are discrepant; this is a comparison to external benchmarks rather than a reduction of any claimed prediction to a parameter fitted within the same dataset. No self-definitional equations, fitted-input-called-predictions, or load-bearing self-citation chains appear in the provided text. The radial-distribution claim for explicitly modeled bright galaxies is still an output of the data-driven reconstruction, not a tautology. Minor self-citation risk exists in lens-modeling methodology but is not load-bearing for the discrepancy claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on the accuracy of lens modeling assumptions and the fidelity of CDM simulation predictions used as benchmarks; no new particles or forces are introduced, but the interpretation invokes core-collapsed SIDM as a possible explanation.

free parameters (1)

inner density slope γ
The value γ ≳ 2.5 is required to match the observed strong-lensing incidence and is not derived from first principles.

axioms (1)

domain assumption State-of-the-art lens models accurately recover subhalo internal density profiles and radial distributions
Invoked when extracting the four key subhalo properties from the combined strong- and weak-lensing data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5581 in / 1390 out tokens · 61003 ms · 2026-05-16T14:40:08.258710+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Using state-of-the-art lens models, we extract four key subhalo properties: the mass function, projected radial distribution, internal density profile, and tidal truncation radius.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

inner density slopes as steep as γ ≳ 2.5 within r ≲ 0.01 R_200 consistent with core-collapsed self-interacting DM

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

12 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Segregations in clusters of galaxies

Adami, C., Biviano, A., & Mazure, A. 1998, A&A, 331, 439, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9709268 Balberg, S., Shapiro, S. L., & Inagaki, S. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 475, doi: 10.1086/339038 Balestra, I., Mercurio, A., Sartoris, B., et al. 2016, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 224, 33, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/33 Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9709268 1998
[2]

The valuesα= 0.25 and β= 0.5 corresponding to the Faber-Jackson relation (Faber & Jackson

σdPIE =σ dPIE∗ L L∗ α , rt =r t∗ L L∗ β , rcore =r core∗ L L∗ 1/2 , (A3) where quantities with a star subscript denote the characteristic member galaxy properties, obtained by fitting a Schechter function to the luminosities of the hosted member galaxies (Schechter 1976). The valuesα= 0.25 and β= 0.5 corresponding to the Faber-Jackson relation (Faber & Jackson

work page 1976
[3]

To assess how this numerical uncertainty impacts the projected luminosity-selected subhalo radial distribution and hence the robustness 14Natarajan et al. Hopkins+23 TNG-C(MJ0416) TNG-C(MJ1206) TNG-C(MJ1149) 210.50.20.1 1 10-1 10-2 r/R200 Nsub(>r) /N sub(≤2R200) 10 20 30 40 50 60Nsub spec Lenstool TNG-C(mod) MACS J0416 0 0.2 0.4 R/R200 MACS J1206 0 0.2 0....

work page 2023
[4]

manually injecting

and in simulated analogs with injected inner subhalos. The solid (dotted) lines show the mean (1σconfidence interval) inferred from one million bootstrapping iterations.Within the projected radius of≲0.2R 200, individual radial bins remain5–40σdiscrepant with the observed abundance, even after explicitly accounting for numerical uncertainties due to artif...

work page 2023
[5]

2017; Despali & Vegetti 2017; see however Haggar et al

This benchmark represents a conservative upper limit on the normalized abundance of inner subhalos, as the addition of baryons and baryonic feedback can exacerbate the depletion of inner substructures in cluster environments (Chua et al. 2017; Despali & Vegetti 2017; see however Haggar et al. 2021). Furthermore, in dark-matter-only simulations, the normal...

work page 2017
[6]

highly optimistic

Lastly, the subhalo properties of Hopkins et al. (2023) were computed usingRockstar(Behroozi et al. 2013a), which accesses the full 6D phase-space information and shows demonstrable improvement in subhalo identification compared to methods that only use 3D spatial information, such asSubFind(e.g., van den Bosch & Jiang 2016). Taken together, this benchmar...

work page 2023
[7]

The right panel of Figure A1 shows the average distribution and the respective 1σconfidence interval

We perform such statistical bootstrap resampling iterations to obtain 10 6 independent projections on the simulated analogs for each observed cluster. The right panel of Figure A1 shows the average distribution and the respective 1σconfidence interval. Even after explicitly accounting for the missing satellite population due to inadequate-force- resolutio...

work page 2025
[8]

The SIDM run assumes a velocity-dependent cross section with the Rutherford-like parameterization dσ/d cosθ≡σ 0w4/2[w2 +v 2 sin2(θ/2)]2 (Ibe & Yu 2010; Yang & Yu 2022), with σ0/mSIDM = 147.1 cm2g−1 andw= 120 km s −1. Under this choice, the effective cross section at massive cluster scale isσ/m SIDM(M200 ∼10 15 M⊙)∼10 −2 cm2g−1 and monotonically increases ...

work page 2010
[9]

8,Symfindinherits these branch identifiers from the RCT merger tree, allowing each matched branch to be mapped to its correspondingSymfind entry. We have verified the robustness of this cross-simulation identification by the consistency in matched subhalo peak masses, mass assembly histories, and orbital trajectories prior to and shortly after accretion. ...

work page 1962
[10]

lies within projected cluster-centric distances of 0.2–0.5R200 (see Figure 2), and thus on average experiences more pronounced tidal mass loss than the entire subhalo population (e.g., van den Bosch et al. 2016). We perform additional selection on this sample based on either the CDM subhalo instantaneous 3D orbital distancer/R 200 or bound mass fractionf ...

work page 2016
[11]

and accelerate core collapse in SIDM (Zhong et al. 2023). Conversely, stellar and AGN feedback are expected to effectively lower central density slopes (e.g., Pontzen & Governato 2012; Di Cintio et al. 2014; Tollet et al

work page 2023
[12]

The net outcome is further complicated by the still-debated impact of baryons on CDM subhalo survival in the cluster environment (Chua et al

within the mass range of the cluster subhalos considered here (Figure 1). The net outcome is further complicated by the still-debated impact of baryons on CDM subhalo survival in the cluster environment (Chua et al. 2017; Despali & Vegetti 2017; Haggar et al. 2021). However, we note that the order-of-magnitude discrepancy found for inner and heavily strip...

work page 2017

[1] [1]

Segregations in clusters of galaxies

Adami, C., Biviano, A., & Mazure, A. 1998, A&A, 331, 439, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9709268 Balberg, S., Shapiro, S. L., & Inagaki, S. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 475, doi: 10.1086/339038 Balestra, I., Mercurio, A., Sartoris, B., et al. 2016, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 224, 33, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/33 Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9709268 1998

[2] [2]

The valuesα= 0.25 and β= 0.5 corresponding to the Faber-Jackson relation (Faber & Jackson

σdPIE =σ dPIE∗ L L∗ α , rt =r t∗ L L∗ β , rcore =r core∗ L L∗ 1/2 , (A3) where quantities with a star subscript denote the characteristic member galaxy properties, obtained by fitting a Schechter function to the luminosities of the hosted member galaxies (Schechter 1976). The valuesα= 0.25 and β= 0.5 corresponding to the Faber-Jackson relation (Faber & Jackson

work page 1976

[3] [3]

To assess how this numerical uncertainty impacts the projected luminosity-selected subhalo radial distribution and hence the robustness 14Natarajan et al. Hopkins+23 TNG-C(MJ0416) TNG-C(MJ1206) TNG-C(MJ1149) 210.50.20.1 1 10-1 10-2 r/R200 Nsub(>r) /N sub(≤2R200) 10 20 30 40 50 60Nsub spec Lenstool TNG-C(mod) MACS J0416 0 0.2 0.4 R/R200 MACS J1206 0 0.2 0....

work page 2023

[4] [4]

manually injecting

and in simulated analogs with injected inner subhalos. The solid (dotted) lines show the mean (1σconfidence interval) inferred from one million bootstrapping iterations.Within the projected radius of≲0.2R 200, individual radial bins remain5–40σdiscrepant with the observed abundance, even after explicitly accounting for numerical uncertainties due to artif...

work page 2023

[5] [5]

2017; Despali & Vegetti 2017; see however Haggar et al

This benchmark represents a conservative upper limit on the normalized abundance of inner subhalos, as the addition of baryons and baryonic feedback can exacerbate the depletion of inner substructures in cluster environments (Chua et al. 2017; Despali & Vegetti 2017; see however Haggar et al. 2021). Furthermore, in dark-matter-only simulations, the normal...

work page 2017

[6] [6]

highly optimistic

Lastly, the subhalo properties of Hopkins et al. (2023) were computed usingRockstar(Behroozi et al. 2013a), which accesses the full 6D phase-space information and shows demonstrable improvement in subhalo identification compared to methods that only use 3D spatial information, such asSubFind(e.g., van den Bosch & Jiang 2016). Taken together, this benchmar...

work page 2023

[7] [7]

The right panel of Figure A1 shows the average distribution and the respective 1σconfidence interval

We perform such statistical bootstrap resampling iterations to obtain 10 6 independent projections on the simulated analogs for each observed cluster. The right panel of Figure A1 shows the average distribution and the respective 1σconfidence interval. Even after explicitly accounting for the missing satellite population due to inadequate-force- resolutio...

work page 2025

[8] [8]

The SIDM run assumes a velocity-dependent cross section with the Rutherford-like parameterization dσ/d cosθ≡σ 0w4/2[w2 +v 2 sin2(θ/2)]2 (Ibe & Yu 2010; Yang & Yu 2022), with σ0/mSIDM = 147.1 cm2g−1 andw= 120 km s −1. Under this choice, the effective cross section at massive cluster scale isσ/m SIDM(M200 ∼10 15 M⊙)∼10 −2 cm2g−1 and monotonically increases ...

work page 2010

[9] [9]

8,Symfindinherits these branch identifiers from the RCT merger tree, allowing each matched branch to be mapped to its correspondingSymfind entry. We have verified the robustness of this cross-simulation identification by the consistency in matched subhalo peak masses, mass assembly histories, and orbital trajectories prior to and shortly after accretion. ...

work page 1962

[10] [10]

lies within projected cluster-centric distances of 0.2–0.5R200 (see Figure 2), and thus on average experiences more pronounced tidal mass loss than the entire subhalo population (e.g., van den Bosch et al. 2016). We perform additional selection on this sample based on either the CDM subhalo instantaneous 3D orbital distancer/R 200 or bound mass fractionf ...

work page 2016

[11] [11]

and accelerate core collapse in SIDM (Zhong et al. 2023). Conversely, stellar and AGN feedback are expected to effectively lower central density slopes (e.g., Pontzen & Governato 2012; Di Cintio et al. 2014; Tollet et al

work page 2023

[12] [12]

The net outcome is further complicated by the still-debated impact of baryons on CDM subhalo survival in the cluster environment (Chua et al

within the mass range of the cluster subhalos considered here (Figure 1). The net outcome is further complicated by the still-debated impact of baryons on CDM subhalo survival in the cluster environment (Chua et al. 2017; Despali & Vegetti 2017; Haggar et al. 2021). However, we note that the order-of-magnitude discrepancy found for inner and heavily strip...

work page 2017