Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

This paper uses cosmological simulations of three-component vector (spin-1) dark matter to establish an empirical core-halo mass relation for Proca-star condensates, M_star ∝ M_halo^0.64, and to measure how often such core condensates form.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 16:18 UTC pith:VICWVSUP

load-bearing objection First vector-DM core-halo relation with a real selection-bias caveat—should go to review, but don't take the slope at face value yet. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18025 v1 pith:VICWVSUP submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.CO

Core-Halo Mass Relation in Cosmological Vector Dark Matter

Jiajun Chen , Yonghao Yao , David J. E. Marsh This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 95.35.+d98.80.-k
keywords vector dark matterProca starscore-halo mass relationSchrödinger-Poisson simulationsultralight bosonic dark mattersoliton corespolarizationhalo mass function
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks whether vector (spin-1) ultralight dark matter forms compact central condensates, called Proca stars, inside cosmological halos, and how the mass of such a condensate relates to the mass of its host halo. Using three-component Schrödinger–Poisson simulations with vector-field initial conditions enhanced on small scales, it finds that by redshift z≈790 about one in ten halos contains a profile-confirmed Proca star, and for those halos the Proca-star mass scales as M_halo^0.6403±0.0235. This exponent is steeper than the M_halo^{1/3} relation often quoted for scalar wave dark matter, but consistent with the maximum slope M_halo^{3/5} seen in cosmological scalar simulations, implying that the vector nature of the field and the cosmological setting matter for core-halo scaling. The paper also tracks global polarization and local spin, finding that transverse polarization and spin density grow inside halos over time. These results provide input for predictions of Proca-star abundances and merger rates.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in cosmological vector dark matter, self-gravitating Proca-star condensates form at halo centers and obey an empirical core-halo mass relation M_star = (2.65±0.42) M_halo^{0.6403±0.0235} at a≃4.3 (redshift z≃790), obtained from a combined sample of simulations with different box sizes. The exponent is steeper than the M^1/3 scaling often quoted for scalar wave dark matter, but consistent within errors with the maximum slope of M^3/5 found in cosmological scalar simulations, indicating that initial conditions, halo environment, and the vector degrees of freedom shape the relation. Only roughly 10% of halos pass the profile-confirmation criteria, and the autho

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the non-relativistic vector Schrödinger–Poisson system: a complex three-component wavefunction ψ=(ψ_x, ψ_y, ψ_z) whose total density sources the Newtonian potential, while the relative amplitudes and phases encode polarization and spin. Cosmological initial conditions from inflationary vector-field fluctuations produce a power spectrum peaked at a characteristic scale k⋆, leading to early nonlinear collapse. Halos are identified as overdensity peaks with boundary δ_sph(R_h)=25, and Proca-star candidates are confirmed by fitting the inner radial density profile to the soliton form ρ(r)=ρ_c[1+(0.230 r/r_s)^2]^{-8}; the fitted profile integrated over the fit radius defi

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the inner density profiles of the simulated condensates are accurately described by the fitted soliton form, and that the profile-acceptance cuts (epsilon_prof<0.5 dex, at least six radial samples, at least 0.5 dex dynamic range) do not systematically bias which halos are included in the sample.

What would settle it

Recompute M_star and M_halo from the same simulation snapshots using a different halo boundary definition (e.g., δ=200 instead of δ=25) and relaxed profile-acceptance cuts (e.g., epsilon_prof<0.7 dex, fewer radial samples) and check whether the least-squares slope α stays within 0.6403±0.0235; if it moves outside that range, the quoted relation is an artifact of the halo and profile definitions.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the M_star ∝ M_halo^0.64 relation holds, heavier halos contain proportionally more massive Proca stars, which raises the expected Proca-star merger rate compared with a shallower M^1/3 law and affects estimates of decay and observational signatures.
  • The ~10% occupation fraction means abundance predictions must account for the fact that most halos do not show a confirmed central condensate; the paper notes that failure of the profile criterion does not demonstrate physical absence.
  • The steeper slope supports the view that the core-halo relation is not universal: cosmology and spin-1 physics can shift the scaling, so scalar-based predictions cannot be simply carried over to vector dark matter.
  • The observed growth of transverse polarization and local spin inside halos over time gives a vector-specific dynamical signature that could be probed in future simulations or direct-detection studies.
  • The simulation halo mass function exhibits a low-mass turnover not predicted by the smooth-k Sheth–Tormen model, suggesting that wave (Jeans) scale effects suppress low-mass halos in these vector dark matter cosmologies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the profile-selection cuts preferentially exclude low-mass or poorly resolved cores, the true Proca-star occupation fraction could be significantly higher than 10%, and the fitted slope 0.64 may be biased; a test would be to vary the acceptance thresholds and see whether the slope and fraction shift.
  • The steep core-halo slope appears tied to the small-scale-enhanced initial power spectrum of the vector field; running simulations with scalar-like scale-invariant initial conditions but the same vector dynamics could isolate whether the exponent is set by cosmology or by the spin-1 nature of the field.
  • The gradual spin-density build-up inside halos suggests that vector dark matter halos may develop a handedness or net polarization that could leave observable anisotropies in direct-detection experiments; this is not claimed by the paper but follows from the reported spin evolution.
  • If the relation persists at later redshifts and lower masses, Proca-star merger rates could be large enough to produce gravitational-wave or radio signatures distinct from scalar soliton mergers, offering a way to distinguish the dark matter spin observationally.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies cosmological structure formation in vector dark matter using three-component Schrödinger-Poisson simulations with initial conditions from inflationary vector-field fluctuations. It identifies halos via overdensity peaks and confirms central Proca-star condensates by fitting their radial density profiles to a soliton form. The main quantitative result is an empirical core-halo relation at a≈4.3: M_star = (2.65±0.42) M_halo^(0.6403±0.0235), obtained from a combined sample of ~300 profile-confirmed objects across four box sizes. The paper also measures a halo occupation fraction of about 10%, with f⋆ rising from near zero at low halo masses to ~0.2–0.3 at high masses, and characterizes global polarization fractions and local spin density evolution. The authors explicitly restrict claims to the resolved mass/redshift range and state that the relation is empirical rather than universal.

Significance. If the claimed core-halo relation holds, it is the first direct measurement of this scaling for cosmological Proca stars and provides input for estimates of Proca-star merger rates and phenomenological signals. The paper is transparent: it gives the fitted equations, the halo and profile definitions in an appendix, acceptance thresholds, and a convergence-based exclusion of a>4.3. It also reports a low occupation fraction honestly rather than interpreting non-detection as physical absence. The multiple box sizes and explicit error budget are strengths. However, the central exponent rests on a profile-confirmed sample whose selection is mass-dependent and not corrected, so the headline value must be treated with caution until that systematic is quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A, Appendix A, Eq. (A5)-(A7)] The central result α=0.6403±0.0235 is obtained by ordinary least squares on the profile-confirmed sample defined by the cuts in Appendix A (ε_prof<0.5 dex, ≥6 radial samples, ≥0.5 dex dynamic range). Fig. 6 shows the confirmation fraction rising from ~0 at M_h≲2×10^2 to ~0.2–0.3 at high M_h, and the text admits unconfirmed halos are concentrated at low masses. Low-mass halos have fewer resolved radial bins and smaller dynamic range, so the acceptance is mass-selective. If the selection probability depends on M⋆ at fixed M_h, OLS on the selected pairs yields a slope biased relative to the true population relation. The quoted 0.0235 is only the OLS standard error and does not include this selection systematic. This is load-bearing because the exponent is the paper's main claim and its comparison to scalar M_h^{3/5} rests on it. Please add a completeness/selection model or a targeted robust
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A5), (A7)] The Proca-star mass is not measured independently: 'confirmation' requires the inner profile to match the soliton Ansatz Eq. (A5), and M⋆ is then defined as the integral of that same fitted profile (Eq. A7). Thus the sample definition and mass measurement share the same model assumption. While the halo mass is measured independently and the relation is not forced by construction, the shape of the fitted profile sets M⋆ through the fitted radius and central density. The occupation fraction f⋆ then partly measures 'how many cores look like the assumed soliton' rather than the physical presence of a condensate. Please quantify the systematic from using a different inner-profile shape (e.g., a different exponent or a cored isothermal form) or at least state the expected direction of the bias on α.
  3. [Sec. III B, Eqs. (A3), (21)] The halo mass function requires an empirical low-mass cutoff (Eq. 21) not predicted by the smooth-k Sheth-Tormen model, and the halo definition itself uses a fixed overdensity threshold δ_sph(R_h)=25 (Eq. A3). The reported core-halo relation and occupation fraction depend on this halo definition and on the peak threshold δ_max>200. The paper does not test sensitivity of α or f⋆ to these choices. A robustness test varying δ_sph (e.g., 15–50) and δ_max (e.g., 150–300) would show whether the slope and the mass-dependent occupation fraction are stable or artifacts of the catalogue construction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV] Typo: 'Proca tars' should be 'Proca stars' in the third paragraph of the conclusions.
  2. [Sec. II A, Eq. (14)] The notation P_IC^AL(k) is used without a definition; please state explicitly that this is the initial longitudinal-mode power spectrum and define all symbols.
  3. [Sec. III D, Eq. (27)] The quantity defined in Eq. (27) is the ratio of total spin magnitude in a shell to total mass in that shell, not the density-weighted average of |s|/ρ as the text says. Please rephrase to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. III A, Fig. 4] The combined fit uses samples from four box sizes, but Fig. 4 does not show whether the residuals differ per box. Please report the per-box best-fit parameters or a scatter plot coloured by L to demonstrate that the result is not dominated by a single realization.
  5. [General] The tilde notation for dimensionless quantities is introduced but not applied consistently (e.g., in the abstract and in some equations); please standardize.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the core-halo law is an empirical fit, not derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the empirical relation M_star = (2.65±0.42) M_halo^(0.6403±0.0235), obtained by ordinary least squares on measured halo/Proca-star pairs (Eq. 17, Table I). M_halo is defined through the overdensity radius (Eqs. A3–A4) and M_star is defined by integrating the fitted inner profile (Eq. A7). Neither definition imposes the power-law correlation; the fit is performed on the resulting data and is not a parameter fitted to the target relation and then renamed as a prediction. The profile-confirmation step uses the same soliton form (Eq. A5) that defines M_star, so the occupation fraction and M_star values are operational and Ansatz-dependent, but the reported halo-mass dependence is an independent statistical result over the confirmed sample. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [41] for the numerical method) are method citations rather than load-bearing derivations, and no uniqueness theorem or prior self-cited result is invoked to force the exponent. The paper explicitly labels the relation empirical and lists caveats: 'we interpret the fitted relation as an empirical result over the mass and redshift range resolved by the present simulations, rather than as a universal asymptotic scaling law,' and 'failure of the profile criterion does not establish the physical absence of a Proca star.' The mass-dependent selection bias noted in Fig. 6 is a robustness concern, not a circularity: it could affect the fitted slope, but it does not make the slope equal to an input by construction. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the central result is not circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical simulation result. The main hidden inputs are the definition of what counts as a Proca-star core (the soliton profile Ansatz and the acceptance cuts), the external initial-condition construction, and the homogeneous treatment of the non-vector matter. The fitted normalization and slope are the claimed output, not independent constants. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Core-halo normalization A (Eq. 17) = 2.65 ± 0.42
    Ordinary least squares on the profile-confirmed sample at a≈4.3; this is the reported empirical result, not an independently predicted constant.
  • Core-halo slope alpha (Eq. 17) = 0.6403 ± 0.0235
    Same OLS fit; the paper interprets it as empirical over the resolved mass and redshift range and explicitly not universal.
  • Halo boundary overdensity threshold delta_sph(R_h)=25 = 25
    Chosen in Appendix A; directly determines halo mass M_h and therefore the fitted relation. A different halo definition would change the exponent.
  • Peak selection threshold delta_max>200 = 200
    Chosen in Appendix A; determines which density peaks enter the halo catalogue and thus the sample.
  • Profile-confirmation thresholds (epsilon_prof<0.5 dex, >=6 radial samples, >=0.5 dex dynamic range) = 0.5 dex, 6, 0.5 dex
    Chosen in Appendix A; controls which objects are counted as Proca stars and affects both the relation and the occupation fraction.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The nonrelativistic three-component Schrodinger-Poisson system (Eqs. 6-7) faithfully describes massive vector dark matter on the simulated scales and densities.
    Adopted in Sec. II A as the standard nonrelativistic reduction of the Proca field; neglects relativistic corrections and self-interactions.
  • domain assumption The cosmological initial conditions of Ref. [40] with spectrum Eq. (14) and vector-DM fraction f=0.84 are the correct representation of vector-field perturbations from inflation.
    The central result inherits these initial conditions; any error or normalization change in P_IC(k) alters halo and soliton formation.
  • domain assumption The remaining 16% of matter contributes only to the homogeneous expansion and has no inhomogeneous degrees of freedom.
    Stated in Sec. II A; ignores the gravitational effect of CDM/baryon fluctuations on halo collapse and core formation.
  • domain assumption Proca-star cores have the spherically averaged density profile Eq. (A5), with free central density and radius.
    Used in Appendix A to confirm cores and define M_star; if real cores deviate from this shape, sample selection and measured masses are altered.
  • domain assumption Simulation outputs with a<~4.3 are converged and free of finite-volume and resolution artifacts; outputs beyond are excluded.
    Authors state largest scales follow linear growth and restrict analysis to a<~4.3, but this cannot be externally verified without code or data.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10972 in / 15353 out tokens · 166864 ms · 2026-08-01T16:18:36.348040+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the cosmological core-halo relation in vector dark matter using three-component Schr\"odinger-Poisson simulations. Starting from cosmological vector-field initial conditions, which due to the evolution of the vector field during inflation are enhanced on small scales, we find that nonlinear evolution begins almost immediately following matter-radiation equality and produces compact self-gravitating Proca-star condensates at the centers of halos. After confirming the central condensates through their radial density profiles, we find the empirical relation \(\widetilde M_\star\propto \widetilde M_{\rm h}^{0.6403}\) between the Proca star mass and halo mass, although interestingly we find that we are only able to confirm Proca stars in $\mathcal{O}(10\%)$ of halos. This serves as important input for future studies of the abundance and merger rates of Proca stars in models of vector dark matter. We also examine the vector-field structure of the objects through global longitudinal and transverse polarization fractions and local spin density inside halos, which increases over cosmic time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18025 by David J. E. Marsh, Jiajun Chen, Yonghao Yao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Snapshots of the projected density field from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Representative radial density profiles for two halos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Core-halo measurements in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Halo mass function at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Proca-star occupation fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Global Fourier-space polarization fractions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Central spin fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 36 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    D. F. J. Kimball and K. van Bibber, eds.,The Search for Ultralight Bosonic Dark Matter(Springer, 2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    D. J. E. Marsh, D. Ellis, and V. M. Mehta,Dark Matter: Evidence, Theory, and Constraints, Princeton Series in Astrophysics (Princeton University Press, 2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  5. [5]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  6. [6]

    Abbott and P

    L. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  7. [7]

    L. M. Widrow and N. Kaiser, Astrophys. J. Lett.416, L71 (1993)

    1993

  8. [8]

    Su´ arez, V

    A. Su´ arez, V. H. Robles, and T. Matos, Astrophys. Space Sci. Proc.38, 107 (2014), arXiv:1302.0903 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    A. H. Guth, M. P. Hertzberg, and C. Prescod-Weinstein, Phys. Rev. D92, 103513 (2015), arXiv:1412.5930

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Uhlemann, M

    C. Uhlemann, M. Kopp, and T. Haugg, Phys. Rev. D90, 023517 (2014), arXiv:1403.5567 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    D. J. Kaup, Phys. Rev.172, 1331 (1968)

    1968

  13. [13]

    Ruffini and S

    R. Ruffini and S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev.187, 1767 (1969)

    1969

  14. [14]

    Colpi, S

    M. Colpi, S. L. Shapiro, and I. Wasserman, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 2485 (1986)

    1986

  15. [15]

    Seidel and W.-M

    E. Seidel and W.-M. Suen, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 2516 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9309015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  16. [16]

    S. L. Liebling and C. Palenzuela, Living Rev. Rel.15, 6 (2012), arXiv:1202.5809 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  17. [17]

    Schive, T

    H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Nature Phys.10, 496 (2014), arXiv:1406.6586 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Schive, M.-H

    H.-Y. Schive, M.-H. Liao, T.-P. Woo, S.-K. Wong, T. Chi- ueh, T. Broadhurst, and W.-Y. P. Hwang, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 261302 (2014)

    2014

  19. [19]

    Eggemeier and J

    B. Eggemeier and J. C. Niemeyer, Phys. Rev. D100, 063528 (2019), arXiv:1906.01348 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    D. G. Levkov, A. G. Panin, and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 151301 (2018), arXiv:1804.05857 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Chavanis, Eur

    P.-H. Chavanis, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136, 703 (2021), arXiv:2012.12858 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    H. Y. J. Chan, E. G. M. Ferreira, S. May, K. Hayashi, and M. Chiba, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511, 943 (2022), arXiv:2110.11882 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    J. Chen, X. Du, E. W. Lentz, D. J. E. Marsh, and J. C. Niemeyer, Phys. Rev. D104, 083022 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    J. Chen, X. Du, E. W. Lentz, and D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rev. D106, 023009 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    X. Du, C. Behrens, J. C. Niemeyer, and B. Schwabe, Phys. Rev. D95, 043519 (2017), arXiv:1609.09414 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    N. Bar, D. Blas, K. Blum, and S. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. D98, 083027 (2018), arXiv:1805.00122 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    N. Bar, K. Blum, T. Lacroix, and P. Panci, JCAP2019 (07), 045, arXiv:1905.11745 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1905

  28. [28]

    X. Du, D. J. E. Marsh, M. Escudero, A. Benson, D. Blas, C. K. Pooni, and M. Fairbairn, Phys. Rev. D109, 043019 (2024), arXiv:2301.09769 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Escudero, C

    M. Escudero, C. K. Pooni, M. Fairbairn, D. Blas, X. Du, and D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rev. D109, 043018 (2024), arXiv:2302.10206 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Teodori, A

    L. Teodori, A. Caputo, and K. Blum, Phys. Rev. D113, 023055 (2026), arXiv:2501.07631 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, JCAP2012(06), 013, arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    P. W. Graham, J. Mardon, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D93, 103520 (2016), arXiv:1504.02102 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Goodsell, J

    M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, JHEP2009(11), 027, arXiv:0909.0515 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    Caputo, A

    A. Caputo, A. J. Millar, C. A. J. O’Hare, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D104, 095029 (2021), arXiv:2105.04565 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, C. A. R. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, Phys. Lett. B752, 291 (2016), arXiv:1508.05395 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [36]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro, A. M. Pombo, and E. Radu, Phys. Lett. B773, 654 (2017), arXiv:1708.05674 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    Sanchis-Gual, C

    N. Sanchis-Gual, C. Herdeiro, E. Radu, J. C. Degol- lado, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. D95, 104028 (2017), arXiv:1702.04532 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Di Giovanni, N

    F. Di Giovanni, N. Sanchis-Gual, C. A. R. Herdeiro, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. D98, 064044 (2018), arXiv:1803.04802 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Jain and M

    M. Jain and M. A. Amin, Phys. Rev. D105, 056019 (2022), arXiv:2109.04892 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Gorghetto, E

    M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy, J. March-Russell, N. Song, and S. M. West, JCAP2022(08), 018, arXiv:2203.10100 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    J. Chen, X. Du, M. Zhou, A. Benson, and D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rev. D108, 083021 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    Zhang, M

    H.-Y. Zhang, M. Jain, and M. A. Amin, Phys. Rev. D 105, 096037 (2022), arXiv:2111.08700 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Adshead and K

    P. Adshead and K. D. Lozanov, Phys. Rev. D103, 103501 (2021), arXiv:2101.07265 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    J. Chen, L. H. Nguyen, and D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rev. D111, 043031 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Glennon, N

    N. Glennon, N. Musoke, and C. Prescod-Weinstein, Phys. Rev. D107, 063520 (2023), arXiv:2302.04302 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    C. J. Hogan and M. J. Rees, Phys. Lett. B205, 228 (1988)

    1988

  47. [47]

    E. W. Kolb and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D50, 769 (1994), astro-ph/9403011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  48. [48]

    Ellis, D

    D. Ellis, D. J. E. Marsh, and C. Behrens, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083525 (2021), arXiv:2006.08637 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, G. Pierobon, J. Redondo, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. D105, 055025 (2022), arXiv:2112.05117 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Y. Zeng, B. Zhang, and J. Chen, Self-Interaction Controls Vortex Scale in Soliton Mergers (2025), arXiv:2509.07401 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Chen, Yukawa-Screened Bose-Star Condensation (2026), arXiv:2605.23206 [hep-ph]

    J. Chen, Yukawa-Screened Bose-Star Condensation (2026), arXiv:2605.23206 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 308, 119 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9901122

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  53. [53]

    Schive, T

    H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, T. Broadhurst, and K.-W. Huang, Astrophys. J.818, 89 (2016), arXiv:1508.04621. 9 Appendix A: Halo and Proca-star definitions The total dimensionless vector-field density and over- density are eρ(ex) = X j=x,y,z | eψj(ex)|2,(A1) δ( ex) = eρ(ex)− eρ eρ .(A2) We use the overdensity field to construct a halo and Proca star catalogue f...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016