arxiv: 2605.01023 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.HE· gr-qc· hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Formation and Redshift Evolution of Dark Matter Spikes

Gonzalo Herrera , Abdelaziz Hussein , Lina Necib , Elliot Y. Davies , Xuejian Shen

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-ph

keywords dark matter spikessupermassive black holesstellar gravitational heatingFokker-Planck evolutionredshift evolutionindirect detectiongalactic nuclei

0 comments

The pith

Stellar gravitational heating softens dark matter spikes around black holes to an inner slope of 1.5 within a few billion years.

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

The paper builds a semi-analytic model that first generalizes how dark matter spikes form around growing black holes and then tracks their evolution over cosmic time. It solves coupled Fokker-Planck equations for the dark matter and stellar distributions, with heating tied to the cosmic star formation rate. The central result is that stars gradually flatten the dense inner spike, driving its slope to roughly 1.5 after several billion years. This reduces the spike's central overdensity by two to four orders of magnitude relative to earlier static models, though the profile remains steeper than a standard NFW cusp. Updated redshift-dependent predictions for column density and annihilation J-factors are supplied so that indirect searches can use realistic targets.

Core claim

Starting conservatively from canonical Gondolo-Silk spikes and marginalizing over astrophysical uncertainties, the semi-analytic framework shows that stellar gravitational heating drives the inner slope towards γ_χ ≃ 1.5 within a few Gyrs (e.g by z ≲ 2 for spikes formed at z≃10), yielding overdensities two to four orders of magnitude below canonical expectations but still well above an NFW-like cusp. Redshift-dependent benchmarks for the column density and J-factor relevant to scattering, decay and annihilation signatures are provided.

What carries the argument

The semi-analytic framework that generalizes adiabatic spike formation to finite seed masses, stellar cusps and non-circular orbits, then evolves the system by solving coupled Fokker-Planck equations for dark matter and stellar phase-space distributions with a heating rate modulated by the cosmic star formation rate.

If this is right

Inner dark matter slope evolves toward 1.5 after a few billion years of stellar heating.
Central overdensities fall two to four orders of magnitude below static canonical predictions.
Spikes remain denser than NFW-like cusps at all redshifts examined.
Redshift-dependent column densities and J-factors are supplied for use in indirect detection calculations.
Robust interpretation of dark matter signals from galactic nuclei requires including this evolutionary softening.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The reduced late-time densities would lower expected annihilation fluxes from galactic centers compared with unevolved spike models.
Stellar dynamical data in the same nuclei could provide an independent check on the predicted slope change.
The framework could be extended to different black-hole seed masses or merger histories to map a wider range of possible final profiles.
Similar heating-driven softening may occur in other dense stellar environments around compact objects.

Load-bearing premise

The model begins from standard Gondolo-Silk spikes and assumes that the heating rate follows the cosmic star formation history while the semi-analytic treatment of non-circular orbits and stellar cusps remains accurate.

What would settle it

A measurement of the inner dark matter density slope in a galactic nucleus at z less than 2 that is significantly steeper than 1.5 or flatter than 1.5 would directly test whether stellar heating has operated as modeled.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01023 by Abdelaziz Hussein, Elliot Y. Davies, Gonzalo Herrera, Lina Necib, Xuejian Shen.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1 view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Marginalized predictions for the DM logarithmic density slope view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Cosmic evolution of the averaged inner DM density view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Impact of the cosmic star forming rate on the evolution of the inner DM spike slope. view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Impact of the assumed spike formation redshift on the view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Redshift evolution of the central dark-matter column view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9 view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. DM spikes obtained for three different prescriptions and two choices of initial black hole seed mass. The dashed black view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11 view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12 view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13. Comparison of different SFR implementations used in this work: the smooth cosmic SFR from Ref. [ view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14 view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Dark matter density spikes forming around adiabatically growing black holes can dramatically enhance indirect and direct detection signals. Canonical predictions, however, assume a zero-mass seed in a purely dark matter environment and do not track the long-term dynamical impact of surrounding stars. We present a semi-analytic framework that first generalizes adiabatic spike formation to include finite seed masses, stellar cusps, and non-circular orbits, and then studies the subsequent cosmic evolution by solving coupled Fokker-Planck equations for the dark matter and stellar phase-space distributions, with a heating rate modulated by the cosmic star formation rate. Starting conservatively from canonical Gondolo-Silk spikes and marginalizing over astrophysical uncertainties, we find that stellar gravitational heating drives the inner slope towards $\gamma_\chi \simeq 1.5$ within a few Gyrs (e.g by $z \lesssim 2$ for spikes formed at $z\simeq 10$), yielding overdensities two to four orders of magnitude below canonical expectations but still well above an NFW-like cusp. We provide redshift-dependent benchmarks for the column density and $J$-factor relevant to scattering, decay and annihilation signatures. Any robust interpretation of indirect dark matter signals from galactic nuclei must account for this evolution.

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

Stellar heating over Gyr timescales flattens DM spikes to gamma~1.5 and cuts overdensities by 2-4 orders, but the orbit-averaged diffusion coefficients in the coupled FP step need explicit validation.

read the letter

The main point is that this work shows how stars can erase most of the canonical Gondolo-Silk spike overdensity by z~2, leaving a milder cusp that still beats NFW but changes J-factors and column densities enough to matter for indirect detection forecasts. They generalize the initial adiabatic spike to finite seed mass, stellar cusps, and non-circular orbits, then evolve the joint DM-star distribution with Fokker-Planck, modulating the heating by the cosmic SFR and marginalizing some astrophysical choices. That produces redshift-dependent benchmarks that previous static models lacked. The approach is a clear step beyond the zero-mass, star-free starting point that has dominated the literature. The benchmarks themselves look like the most immediately usable output for people running signal predictions in galactic nuclei. The soft spot sits in the numerical implementation of the orbit-averaged diffusion coefficients for non-circular orbits inside the Keplerian BH potential. The stress-test concern is fair: if the radial and angular-momentum terms miss a proper loss-cone treatment or the stellar cusp self-gravity, the heating rate can shift by a factor of a few and move the flattening redshift. The paper claims a conservative start and marginalization, but without side-by-side checks against direct N-body runs or published diffusion-coefficient derivations, the exact 1.5 slope and the quoted density reduction stay provisional. This is aimed at indirect-detection modelers and galactic-dynamics people who need updated central densities at different redshifts. A reader who already works with spike signals will find concrete numbers to plug in; someone looking for a fully simulation-validated evolution will want more tests. It deserves a serious referee. The framework is new, the implications are stated plainly, and the gaps are fixable with added validation rather than fatal.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper develops a semi-analytic framework that generalizes the canonical Gondolo-Silk dark matter spikes to finite seed black hole masses, stellar cusps, and non-circular orbits, then evolves the coupled dark matter and stellar phase-space distributions via Fokker-Planck equations with a heating rate modulated by the cosmic star formation rate. Starting from conservative initial conditions and marginalizing over astrophysical uncertainties, it concludes that stellar gravitational heating softens the inner DM slope to γ_χ ≃ 1.5 within a few Gyr (e.g., by z ≲ 2 for z_form ≃ 10), reducing overdensities by 2–4 orders of magnitude relative to static canonical spikes while remaining above NFW cusps, and supplies redshift-dependent benchmarks for column densities and J-factors relevant to indirect detection.

Significance. If the numerical evolution holds, the result would require substantial revision of indirect-detection forecasts for galactic nuclei, as the softened spikes imply annihilation/decay signals orders of magnitude below those from unevolved Gondolo-Silk profiles. The conservative starting point, explicit marginalization over uncertainties, and provision of redshift-dependent observables constitute clear strengths; the coupled Fokker-Planck treatment of DM–star interactions is a methodological advance over static spike models.

major comments (1)

[coupled Fokker-Planck treatment] The section describing the coupled Fokker-Planck equations and orbit-averaged diffusion coefficients: the softening timescale to γ_χ ≃ 1.5 (and therefore the quoted 2–4 order reduction in overdensity and the z ≲ 2 benchmark) is controlled by the radial and angular-momentum diffusion terms in the Keplerian regime. The manuscript must demonstrate that these coefficients properly incorporate the loss-cone boundary condition and the self-gravity of the stellar cusp; without such validation or comparison to full-orbit integrations, the central claim that stellar heating dominates on Gyr timescales remains sensitive to an unquantified systematic.

minor comments (1)

[abstract] Abstract: the statement 'two to four orders of magnitude below canonical expectations' would benefit from an explicit range or functional form for the reduction factor as a function of redshift or formation time.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the paper's significance and for the constructive major comment. We address the concern point-by-point below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation and validation of the Fokker-Planck methodology.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [coupled Fokker-Planck treatment] The section describing the coupled Fokker-Planck equations and orbit-averaged diffusion coefficients: the softening timescale to γ_χ ≃ 1.5 (and therefore the quoted 2–4 order reduction in overdensity and the z ≲ 2 benchmark) is controlled by the radial and angular-momentum diffusion terms in the Keplerian regime. The manuscript must demonstrate that these coefficients properly incorporate the loss-cone boundary condition and the self-gravity of the stellar cusp; without such validation or comparison to full-orbit integrations, the central claim that stellar heating dominates on Gyr timescales remains sensitive to an unquantified systematic.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important aspect of our methodology. The coupled Fokker-Planck equations and orbit-averaged diffusion coefficients are presented in Section 3, with explicit forms for the radial and angular-momentum terms in the Keplerian regime (Equations 8-11). These coefficients are derived from the standard stellar-dynamical formalism, where the loss-cone boundary condition is implemented via an absorbing boundary condition at the critical angular momentum set by the black-hole capture radius. The self-gravity of the stellar cusp enters through a self-consistent potential that is recomputed at each time step from the evolving stellar distribution function and used in the diffusion coefficients. In the revised manuscript we have expanded Section 3.1 with a dedicated derivation subsection and added Appendix B, which shows the step-by-step reduction of the coefficients to the known loss-cone and self-gravitating limits, and compares the resulting stellar relaxation timescales to published N-body results for galactic nuclei (e.g., Merritt and collaborators). While a direct, new comparison to full-orbit integrations of the coupled DM-star system over Gyr timescales is not feasible within the scope of this semi-analytic study, the Fokker-Planck approach itself has been extensively validated in the stellar-dynamics literature for analogous problems. We have also added a brief discussion of remaining numerical systematics in the revised Section 5. These changes directly address the concern and support the robustness of the quoted softening timescale. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper generalizes the Gondolo-Silk adiabatic spike to finite seed mass, stellar cusps and non-circular orbits, then evolves the system by solving coupled Fokker-Planck equations whose diffusion coefficients and heating term are set by standard orbital dynamics plus an external cosmic SFR modulation. The reported inner slope γ_χ ≃ 1.5 and the 2–4 order reduction in overdensity are direct numerical outcomes of that integration, not quantities defined in terms of themselves or obtained by fitting a parameter to the target result and relabeling it a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, or ansatz smuggled via prior work appears in the chain; the framework remains self-contained against the standard FP formalism and externally supplied initial conditions and SFR history.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard astrophysical equations and assumptions drawn from prior literature; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract description.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Adiabatic growth of black holes in dark matter halos produces density spikes (Gondolo-Silk)
Explicitly stated as the conservative starting point for the model.
standard math Coupled Fokker-Planck equations govern the phase-space evolution of dark matter and stellar distributions
Core method invoked for tracking long-term dynamical impact.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5533 in / 1382 out tokens · 51375 ms · 2026-05-09T18:16:57.150371+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

[1]

effective

We then map this density spike to energy space via Eddington inversion [74]. For an isotropic system, the phase-space distribution functionf(E)can be recovered 7 10−3 10−2 10−1 r [pc] 106 107 108 109 1010 1011 1012 1013 ρχ(r) [ M⊙pc−3] Gnedin–Primack–Merritt (γχ = 3/2) z = 10.0 z = 8.2 z = 7.0 z = 5.4 z = 3.9 z = 2.6 z = 1.6 z = 0.0 10−3 10−2 10−1 r [pc] ...
[2]

Hinshaw, J

G. Hinshaw, J. L. Weiland, R. S. Hill, N. Odegard, D. Lar- son, C. L. Bennett, J. Dunkley, B. Gold, M. R. Greason, N. Jarosik, E. Komatsu, M. R. Nolta, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, E. Wollack, M. Halpern, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, G. S. Tucker, and E. L. Wright, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series180, 225–245 (2009)

2009
[3]

C. L. Bennett, D. Larson, J. L. Weiland, N. Jarosik, G. Hinshaw, N. Odegard, K. M. Smith, R. S. Hill, B. Gold, M. Halpern, E. Komatsu, M. R. Nolta, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, E. Wollack, J. Dunkley, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, G. S. Tucker, and E. L. Wright, ApJS208, 20 (2013), arXiv:1212.5225 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2013
[4]

V. C. Rubin, W. K. Ford, Jr., and N. Thonnard, ApJ 238, 471 (1980)

1980
[5]

Zwicky, ApJ86, 217 (1937)

F. Zwicky, ApJ86, 217 (1937)

1937
[6]

2018, Rev

G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Reviews of Modern Physics 90(2018), 10.1103/revmodphys.90.045002

work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.045002 2018
[7]

Dark Matter

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, “Dark matter,” (2025), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[8]

Lacroix, Astron

T. Lacroix, Astron. Astrophys.619, A46 (2018), arXiv:1801.01308 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2018
[9]

Shen, G.-W

Z.-Q. Shen, G.-W. Yuan, C.-Z. Jiang, Y.-L. S. Tsai, Q. Yuan, and Y.-Z. Fan, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527, 3196 (2023), arXiv:2303.09284 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2023
[10]

Sharma, G

M. Sharma, G. Herrera, N. Arav, and S. Horiuchi, (2025), arXiv:2506.10122 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2025
[11]

Alachkar, J

A. Alachkar, J. Ellis, and M. Fairbairn, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103033 (2023), arXiv:2207.10021 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[12]

The first robust evidence showing a dark matter density spike around the super- massive black hole in oj 287,

M. H. Chan and C. M. Lee, “The first robust evidence showing a dark matter density spike around the super- massive black hole in oj 287,” (2024), arXiv:2402.03751 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2024
[13]

D. Deb, A. Gopakumar, and M. J. Valtonen, Astrophys. J. Lett.984, L66 (2025), arXiv:2504.05715 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[14]

F.ScarcellaandB.J.Kavanagh, (2025),arXiv:2510.11635 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[15]

Gondolo and J

P. Gondolo and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1719 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9906391

work page arXiv 1999
[16]

P. J. E. Peebles, General Relativity and Gravitation3, 63 (1972)

1972
[17]

Young, ApJ242, 1232 (1980)

P. Young, ApJ242, 1232 (1980)

1980
[18]

Cohn and R

H. Cohn and R. M. Kulsrud, ApJ226, 1087 (1978)

1978
[19]

G. D. Quinlan, L. Hernquist, and S. Sigurdsson, Astro- phys. J.440, 554 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9407005

work page arXiv 1995
[20]

Sigurdsson, inCarnegie Observatories Centennial Sym- posium

S. Sigurdsson, inCarnegie Observatories Centennial Sym- posium. 1. Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies(2003) arXiv:astro-ph/0303311

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2003
[21]

Herrera and K

G. Herrera and K. Murase, Phys. Rev. D110, L011701 (2024), arXiv:2307.09460 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[22]

E. E. Salpeter, ApJ140, 796 (1964)

1964
[23]

Lacroix, C

T. Lacroix, C. Bœhm, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D92, 043510 (2015), arXiv:1505.00785 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2015
[24]

Shelton, S

J. Shelton, S. L. Shapiro, and B. D. Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 231302 (2015), arXiv:1506.04143 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2015
[25]

S. L. Shapiro and J. Shelton, Phys. Rev. D93, 123510 (2016), arXiv:1606.01248 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2016
[26]

D. S. Chattopadhyay, P. S. B. Dev, and Y. Porto, (2026), arXiv:2602.23348 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[27]

Phoroutan-Mehr and H.-B

M. Phoroutan-Mehr and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. D111, 115033 (2025), arXiv:2411.18751 [hep-ph]. 15

work page arXiv 2025
[28]

Kivokurtseva, Eur

P. Kivokurtseva, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1100 (2025), arXiv:2410.09500 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[29]

Betancourt Kamenetskaia, M

B. Betancourt Kamenetskaia, M. Fujiwara, A. Ibarra, and T. Toma, JCAP09, 074 (2025), arXiv:2506.12642 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[30]

A. G. De Marchi, A. Granelli, J. Nava, and F. Sala, Phys. Rev. D112, 043042 (2025), arXiv:2412.07861 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[31]

R. A. Gustafson, G. Herrera, M. Mukhopadhyay, K. Murase, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D111, L121303 (2025), arXiv:2408.08947 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[32]

A. K. Mishra, N. Liu, and C.-T. Lu, Phys. Dark Univ. 49, 102050 (2025), arXiv:2504.03409 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

Kantzas, F

D. Kantzas, F. Calore, and M. Chianese, (2025), arXiv:2509.18850 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[34]

Hussein and G

A. Hussein and G. Herrera, (2025), arXiv:2510.12877 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[35]

S. A. Meighen-Berger, P. S. B. Dev, and M. Hostert, (2025), arXiv:2512.18093 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[36]

J.-W. Wang, A. Granelli, and P. Ullio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 221104 (2022), arXiv:2111.13644 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[37]

R. A. Gustafson, G. Herrera, M. Mukhopadhyay, K. Murase, and I. M. Shoemaker, (2025), arXiv:2508.20984 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[38]

A. G. De Marchi, A. Granelli, J. Nava, and F. Sala, JHEP12, 136 (2025), arXiv:2507.12278 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[39]

New constraints on the dark matter-neutrino and dark matter-photon scattering cross sections from TXS 0506+056,

F. Ferrer, G. Herrera, and A. Ibarra, JCAP05, 057 (2023), arXiv:2209.06339 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[40]

Herrera, Phys

G. Herrera, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102156 (2025), arXiv:2504.21560 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[41]

J. M. Cline, S. Gao, F. Guo, Z. Lin, S. Liu, M. Puel, P. Todd, and T. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 091402 (2023), arXiv:2209.02713 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[42]

Fujiwara and G

M. Fujiwara and G. Herrera, Phys. Lett. B851, 138573 (2024), arXiv:2312.11670 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[43]

Pompa and M

F. Pompa and M. Sen, (2025), arXiv:2508.10983 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[44]

G. D. Zapata, J. Jones-Pérez, and A. M. Gago, JCAP 07, 042 (2025), arXiv:2503.03823 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[45]

Fujiwara, G

M. Fujiwara, G. Herrera, and S. Horiuchi, (2024), arXiv:2412.00805 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[46]

Tseng and Y.-M

P.-Y. Tseng and Y.-M. Yeh, JCAP08, 038 (2025), arXiv:2412.08537 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[47]

Road through Darkness: Probing dark matter-neutrino interactions using KM3-230213A,

R. Mondol, S. Bouri, A. K. Saha, and R. Laha, (2025), arXiv:2506.19910 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[48]

Bertólez-Martínez, G

T. Bertólez-Martínez, G. Herrera, P. Martínez-Miravé, and J. Terol Calvo, (2025), 10.1103/ds8v-lvmw, arXiv:2506.08993 [hep-ph]

work page doi:10.1103/ds8v-lvmw 2025
[49]

Alonso- ´Alvarez, J

G. Alonso-Álvarez, J. M. Cline, and C. Dewar, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 021401 (2024), arXiv:2401.14450 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[50]

Bertone, Nucl

G. Bertone, Nucl. Phys. B1003, 116487 (2024), arXiv:2404.11513 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[51]

Sharpe, Y

C. Sharpe, Y. B. Ginat, T. F. M. Spieksma, and B. Kocsis, (2026), arXiv:2603.28866 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2026
[52]

J. F. Acevedo, A. J. Reilly, and L. Santos-Olmsted, (2025), arXiv:2510.01320 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[53]

R. A. Gustafson, I. M. Shoemaker, and V. Takhistov, (2025), arXiv:2510.07387 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[54]

Merritt, Phys

D. Merritt, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 201304 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0311594

work page arXiv 2004
[55]

Merritt, S

D. Merritt, S. Harfst, and G. Bertone, Phys. Rev. D75, 043517 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0610425

work page arXiv 2007
[56]

Merritt, M

D. Merritt, M. Milosavljevic, L. Verde, and R. Jimenez, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 191301 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0201376

work page arXiv 2002
[57]

Vasiliev and M

E. Vasiliev and M. Zelnikov, Phys. Rev. D78, 083506 (2008), arXiv:0803.0002 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2008
[58]

The Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos

J.F.Navarro, C.S.Frenk, andS.D.M.White,Astrophys. J.462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025

work page Pith review arXiv 1996
[59]

Sadeghian, F

L. Sadeghian, F. Ferrer, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 88, 063522 (2013), arXiv:1305.2619 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2013
[60]

Madau and M

P. Madau and M. J. Rees, Astrophys. J. Lett.551, L27 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101223

work page arXiv 2001
[61]

S. F. Portegies Zwart and S. L. W. McMillan, Astrophys. J.576, 899 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0201055

work page arXiv 2002
[62]

M. C. Begelman, M. Volonteri, and M. J. Rees, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.370, 289 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0602363

work page arXiv 2006
[63]

J. N. Bahcall and R. A. Wolf, ApJ209, 214 (1976)

1976
[64]

Genzel, F

R. Genzel, F. Eisenhauer, and S. Gillessen, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 3121–3195 (2010)

2010
[65]

Genzelet al., Astrophys

R. Genzelet al., Astrophys. J.594, 812 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0305423

work page arXiv 2003
[66]

Preto, D

M. Preto, D. Merritt, and R. Spurzem, Astrophys. J. Lett.613, L109 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0406324

work page arXiv 2004
[67]

Navarro, C.S

J.F.Navarro, C.S.Frenk, andS.D.M.White,Astrophys. J.490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

work page arXiv 1997
[68]

Schödel, T

R. Schödel, T. Ott, R. Genzel, A. Eckart, N. Mouawad, and T. Alexander, ApJ596, 1015 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0306214 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2003
[69]

Neumayer, A

N. Neumayer, A. Seth, and T. Böker, A&A Rev.28, 4 (2020), arXiv:2001.03626 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2020
[70]

Bertone, A

G. Bertone, A. R. A. C. Wierda, D. Gaggero, B. J. Ka- vanagh, M. Volonteri, and N. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D112, 043537 (2025), arXiv:2404.08731 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[71]

Metropolis and S

N. Metropolis and S. Ulam, Journal of the American Statistical Association44, 335 (1949), pMID: 18139350, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01621459.1949.10483310

work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1949.10483310 1949
[72]

Frank and M

J. Frank and M. J. Rees, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 176, 633 (1976)

1976
[73]

Merritt, ApJ264, 24 (1983)

D. Merritt, ApJ264, 24 (1983)

1983
[74]

O. Y. Gnedin and J. R. Primack, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 061302 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0308385

work page arXiv 2004
[75]

Binney and S

J. Binney and S. Tremaine,Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition(2008)

2008
[76]

A. P. Lightman and S. L. Shapiro, ApJ211, 244 (1977)

1977
[77]

S. L. Shapiro and A. B. Marchant, ApJ225, 603 (1978)

1978
[78]

Ullio, H

P. Ullio, H. Zhao, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 64, 043504 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101481

work page arXiv 2001
[79]

Cosmic Star Formation History

P. Madau and M. Dickinson, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics52, 415 (2014), arXiv:1403.0007

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[80]

Little Red Dots on FIRE: The Ability of Bursty Galaxies to Host an Abundant Population of High-Redshift AGN

A. Marszewski, C.-A. Faucher-Giguère, G. Sun, D. Anglés- Alcázar, R. Feldmann, K.-Y. Su, T. B. Miller, and N. C. Roy, “Little red dots on fire: The ability of bursty galaxies to host an abundant population of high-redshift agn,” (2026), arXiv:2601.22213 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.