Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Small-scale cosmic structure already sets tight limits on dark-matter particle physics, and joint multi-probe analyses will dominate the next gains.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 03:33 UTC pith:UM3HP7D2

load-bearing objection Solid field-organizing review: accurate synthesis of sub-Mpc DM limits, honest about systematics, and clear that the next step is joint modeling—not a new result, but worth engaging. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28564 v1 pith:UM3HP7D2 submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAhep-ph

Dark Matter Constraints from Small-Scale Cosmic Structure

Ethan O. Nadler , Keir K. Rogers , Alex Drlica-Wagner This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAhep-ph
keywords dark mattersmall-scale structurewarm dark matterfuzzy dark matterself-interacting dark matterLyman-alpha foreststrong lensingdwarf galaxies
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.

This review argues that cosmic structure on scales smaller than about one megaparsec is a decisive laboratory for the microphysics of dark matter. Free-streaming, wave interference, and non-gravitational interactions change both how many low-mass halos form and what their internal density profiles look like; those changes are already visible in dwarf galaxies, strong lenses, the Lyman-alpha forest, stellar streams, and high-redshift galaxies. The authors compile the resulting limits on warm, fuzzy, interacting, self-interacting, and decaying dark matter, translating each observable into particle-mass or cross-section bounds while cataloguing the galaxy–halo, baryonic-feedback, and selection-function systematics that still dominate the error budget. Their central claim is that the field is leaving the era of isolated single-probe upper limits and entering an era of precision cosmology on nonlinear scales, in which the strongest and most robust constraints will come from statistically combining several probes inside a shared modeling framework. Upcoming facilities will supply the data volume needed for that program, provided theory and inference keep pace.

Core claim

Frontier observables that probe nonlinear structure below roughly one megaparsec already deliver competitive microphysical dark-matter limits (optimistic joint analyses reaching thermal-relic warm-dark-matter masses above about 10 keV), and the decisive next advance will be joint statistical combination of multiple probes rather than further isolated single-probe analyses.

What carries the argument

The half-mode mass (or equivalent cutoff scale) that maps a dark-matter transfer function onto the suppression of the halo and subhalo mass functions; it is the common currency that lets abundance and profile measurements from different probes be compared and combined.

Load-bearing premise

That once galaxy–halo connection, baryonic feedback, intergalactic-medium history, and survey selection are marginalized, residual systematics in translating one probe’s limit into another’s language remain smaller than the statistical gain from combining the probes.

What would settle it

A joint analysis of the next generation of strong-lensing flux-ratio, Lyman-alpha forest, and Milky-Way satellite datasets that, after full marginalization over the shared nuisance parameters, returns a warm-dark-matter mass limit no stronger than the best single-probe bound would show that systematics still dominate and that probe combination does not yet deliver the claimed gain.

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

If this is right

  • Warm, fuzzy, and interacting dark-matter models that suppress power below roughly 10^7–10^8 solar masses will be ruled in or out at high significance once multi-probe posteriors are routine.
  • Self-interacting and decaying models will be bounded from both above and below across the velocity range set by dwarf-to-cluster scales.
  • Simulation-based inference and shared semi-analytic frameworks will become standard infrastructure rather than optional tools.
  • Upcoming wide-field imaging, high-resolution spectroscopy, and 21-cm experiments will be designed explicitly as complementary dark-matter probes rather than as stand-alone surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same half-mode machinery that unifies current limits can be inverted: a confirmed detection of a cutoff in one probe immediately predicts the amplitude of the signal that must appear in every other probe, turning non-detections into powerful cross-checks.
  • If residual baryonic systematics prove larger than hoped, the field may need new, purely gravitational observables (completely dark subhalos in streams or lenses) before joint analyses can claim particle-physics precision.
  • The review’s emphasis on prior-dependent warm-dark-matter posteriors implies that community standards for reporting limits (prior ranges, frequentist versus Bayesian statements) will become as important as the raw data volume.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review synthesizes dark-matter constraints from nonlinear cosmic structure on sub-Mpc scales (k ≳ 6 Mpc^{-1}). It organizes models into ab initio (transfer-function) and in situ (dynamical) effects, covering warm, fuzzy, interacting, self-interacting, and decaying DM; surveys established probes (dwarf galaxies, strong lensing, Lyman-α forest) and emerging ones (stellar streams, high-z galaxies, weak lensing, 21-cm); and argues that the tightest future limits will come from statistically combining probes in a common modeling framework, aided by simulation-based inference and upcoming facilities. Constraints are mapped to microphysical parameters (e.g., m_WDM, m_FDM, σ/m, DM–SM cross sections), with explicit discussion of modeling uncertainties and systematics.

Significance. If the literature synthesis holds, the paper provides a timely, field-organizing reference that clarifies which observables currently drive microphysical DM limits and why probe combination—not isolated single-probe analyses—is the strategic path forward. Strengths include careful flagging of prior-dependent Bayesian WDM posteriors, IGM thermal-history sensitivity, FDM SHMF-fit disagreements, baryon–SIDM degeneracies, and EDGES-related 21-cm fragility; useful summary figures (Figs. 3–6) and an appendix of thermal-relic WDM limits; and a clear ab initio vs. in situ taxonomy. The work is valuable for both specialists and newcomers and should influence how the community designs joint analyses over the next decade.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section VI; Introduction; Section IV opening] Section VI and the Introduction headline optimistic joint analyses at m_WDM ≳ 10 keV (citing Nadler et al. 2021a). Section IV already notes that Bayesian WDM limits depend on the prior range and that statistical interpretations differ across studies. When the 10 keV figure is used as the field’s current frontier, the text should state in the same paragraph which systematics (galaxy–halo connection, SHMF prior, host-mass marginalization, selection functions) remain open and whether the joint result is a formal combined likelihood or a qualitative intersection of limits. Without that, readers may over-read the number as systematics-robust.
  2. [Section III.A; Section IV.A.1; Section IV.C] Section III.A and the probe sections often translate constraints via half-mode matching or “strictly more suppressed than ruled-out WDM” mappings (e.g., IDM and FDM from MW satellites; §IV.A.1). The paper correctly flags that DAO-bearing and curved transfer functions make this lossy (e.g., §IV.C on Lyman-α; Dienes et al. 2022). A short, explicit recommendation—when half-mode matching is adequate versus when dedicated simulations/emulators are required—would make the review more actionable and reduce the risk that quoted cross-model limits are over-interpreted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3; Appendix A] Figure 3 and Appendix A: ensure every arrow’s statistical interpretation (95% CL, 2σ, 10:1 odds, etc.) is stated uniformly in the appendix table, since the main text stresses that these differ across analyses.
  2. [Section II.A, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) defines M_halo(k) with a top-hat of radius π/k; a one-sentence note that other conventions (e.g., R = 2π/k or filtering mass) appear in the literature would help readers comparing to external SHMF papers.
  3. [Section V.D] Section V.D: the EDGES vs. SARAS tension is described well; a single sentence on how the review treats EDGES-based limits (illustrative only vs. baseline) would help non-specialists.
  4. [Throughout] Typos/notation: “Vielet al.” spacing and similar author–et al. concatenations appear in several places (e.g., Lyman-α subsection); “knl” vs. “k_nl” should be consistent; check “form WDM” → “for m_WDM” type drops in a few constraint sentences.
  5. [Table I; Section V.C] Table I: “Current data (precision probes)” vs. “frontier probes” is useful; consider adding a footnote that weak lensing straddles both categories depending on k reach, to match the discussion in §V.C.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: literature review summarizing external constraints, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

This is a field-organizing review of dark-matter limits from small-scale structure (dwarf galaxies, strong lensing, Lyman-α forest, streams, high-z galaxies, etc.). It does not claim a first-principles derivation in which a target observable is obtained from a fit or definition that already encodes that same observable. Quoted limits (e.g. m_WDM, m_FDM, σ/m, IDM cross sections) are attributed to published analyses with stated statistical interpretations; transfer-function and half-mode mappings (Eqs. 6–10, 17–21) are standard parameterizations used to translate those external results, not closed loops that redefine the data. Extensive self-citation (COZMIC, MW-satellite forward models, Lyman-α emulators) is normal practitioner review practice and is load-bearing only as literature pointers, not as an unverified uniqueness theorem or fitted-input-as-prediction. The strategic claim that probe combination will strengthen constraints is programmatic, not a completed joint likelihood forced by construction. No self-definitional step, fitted-as-prediction, or ansatz-smuggling reduction is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a review, load-bearing content is inherited standard cosmology plus the modeling assumptions inside the cited constraint papers. The authors do not introduce a new particle or force; they adopt conventional parameterizations (thermal WDM transfer functions, FDM Schrödinger–Poisson / Jeans scale, IDM σ∝v^n, SIDM σ/m(v), two-body DDM) and the operational definition that ‘small-scale structure’ means k>k_nl with frontier focus k≳6 Mpc^{-1}. Free parameters live in those external analyses (IGM thermal histories, SMHM scatter, SHMF normalizations, lens mass-model nuisances), not as new fits performed here.

free parameters (4)
  • Galaxy–halo connection / SMHM faint-end parameters
    Satellite-abundance WDM/FDM/IDM limits depend on how luminous galaxies occupy low-mass subhalos; marginalized in cited forward models but still a dominant systematic for abundance probes.
  • IGM thermal and reionization history parameters
    Lyman-α forest DM bounds are explicitly shown to move by keV-scale amounts when smooth vs non-smooth temperature evolution or colder reionization histories are assumed.
  • SIDM cross-section shape parameters (σ0, w or σ_eff(v))
    Velocity-dependent benchmarks used to interpret dwarfs, streams, and lensing perturbers are phenomenological shapes constrained piecewise by data, not derived from a unique microphysical model in this review.
  • Strong-lens source/lens/substructure nuisance parameters and SHMF priors
    Flux-ratio and gravitational-imaging WDM limits shift with Galacticus vs Symphony SHMF priors and detection thresholds; review reports both.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption ΛCDM background cosmology (Planck-like parameters) is the correct large-scale baseline against which small-scale DM extensions are defined.
    Stated adoption of Planck 2018 parameters in the introduction; differences across literature constraints are noted but not re-marginalized globally.
  • ad hoc to paper Small-scale structure is defined as modes with k(z)>k_nl(z), with frontier probes at k≳6 Mpc^{-1} (≲1 Mpc).
    Section II operational definition that sets the scope of included observables; conventional but review-specific cutoff for ‘frontier.’
  • domain assumption Ab initio effects are adequately captured by linear transfer functions T(k) (half-mode mass mappings) evolved with gravity-only or standard hydrodynamics unless in situ physics is explicitly simulated.
    Section III taxonomy used throughout translations of WDM/FDM/IDM limits; paper discusses exceptions (FDM wave dynamics, SIDM cores, DDM kicks).
  • domain assumption Cited single- and multi-probe statistical limits can be compared at face value after noting prior and confidence-level differences.
    Section IV preamble warns that Bayesian priors on m_WDM affect quoted bounds; aggregate historical figure still stacks heterogeneous analyses.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 59827 in / 3179 out tokens · 62666 ms · 2026-07-31T03:33:38.556320+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Small-scale cosmic structure provides a powerful test of the fundamental nature of dark matter (DM). A wide range of DM models impact matter clustering on small scales, including warm, fuzzy, and (self-)interacting DM. In these scenarios, DM physics such as free-streaming, wave interference, and self/Standard Model interactions alter the abundance and internal structure of DM halos. Cosmological and astrophysical probes of nonlinear structure---including dwarf galaxies, strong lensing, the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest, stellar streams, and high-redshift galaxies---are therefore sensitive to these effects. Here, we review DM constraints provided by small-scale structure, focusing on observables that probe scales smaller than $\sim 1~\mathrm{Mpc}$, which define the frontier of current measurements. We summarize how these constraints have been translated to limits on microphysical DM models, and we discuss key modeling uncertainties and observational systematics. Finally, we highlight the growing importance of probe combination and simulation-based inference for this field, and we overview upcoming observational facilities that will sharpen small-scale structure tests of DM physics.

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

25 extracted references · 20 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Sterile neutrinos in cosmology,

    Abazajian, K. N. (2017), “Sterile neutrinos in cosmology,” Phys. Rept.711-712, 1, arXiv:1705.01837 [hep-ph]. Abbott, L. F., and P. Sikivie (1983), “A cosmological bound on the invisible axion,” PLB120(1-3),

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  2. [3]

    A compre- hensive model for the formation and evolution of the faintest Milky Way dwarf satellites,

    Probe Referencem WDM lower limit [keV] Interpretation Lyman-αforest Narayananet al.(2000) 0.75 3σ Vielet al.(2005) 0.55 2σ Seljaket al.(2006) 2.5 95% C.L. Vielet al.(2006) 2.0 95% confidence Vielet al.(2008) 1.2, 4.0 2σ Vielet al.(2013) 3.3 2σ Bauret al.(2016) 2.96, 4.09 95% C.L. Irˇ siˇ cet al.(2017) 3.5, 5.3 2σ Y` echeet al.(2017) 4.65 95% C.L. Murgiaet...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  3. [11]

    Tidal disruption of solitons in self-interacting ultralight axion dark matter,

    Glennon, N., E. O. Nadler, N. Musoke, A. Banerjee, C. Prescod-Weinstein, and R. H. Wechsler (2022), “Tidal disruption of solitons in self-interacting ultralight axion dark matter,” PRD105(12), 123540, arXiv:2205.10336 [astro-ph.CO]. Glennon, N., and C. Prescod-Weinstein (2021), “Modify- ing PyUltraLight to model scalar dark matter with self- interactions,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [12]

    Cosmology from the Chinese Space Station Optical Survey (CSS-OS),

    Hydrodynamics of the low den- sity IGM,” MNRAS296, 44, arXiv:astro-ph/9706219. Gong, Y., X. Liu, Y. Cao, X. Chen, Z. Fan, R. Li, X.-D. Li, Z. Li, X. Zhang, and H. Zhan (2019), “Cosmology from the Chinese Space Station Optical Survey (CSS-OS),” ApJ 883, 203, arXiv:1901.04634 [astro-ph.CO]. Gonz´ alez-Morales, A. X., D. J. E. Marsh, J. Pe˜ narrubia, and L. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [22]

    Cosmological Constraints on the Scale of Supersymmetry Breaking,

    Weinberg, S. (1982), “Cosmological Constraints on the Scale of Supersymmetry Breaking,” PRL48,

    1982

  6. [127]

    Formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies by selfsimilar gravitational conden- sation,

    Press, W. H., and P. Schechter (1974), “Formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies by selfsimilar gravitational conden- sation,” ApJ187,

    1974

  7. [133]

    DES Y3 + KiDS-1000: Consistent cosmology combining cosmic shear surveys,

    Abbott, T. M. C.,et al.(Kilo-Degree Survey, DES) (2023), “DES Y3 + KiDS-1000: Consistent cosmology combining cosmic shear surveys,” OJAp6, 2305.17173, arXiv:2305.17173 [astro-ph.CO]. Abbott, T. M. C.,et al.(DES) (2026), “Dark Energy Sur- vey Year 6 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Galaxy Clustering and Weak Lensing,” arXiv:2601.14559 [astro- ph.CO]....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [137]

    Sterile-neutrinos as dark matter,

    Dodelson, S., and L. M. Widrow (1994), “Sterile-neutrinos as dark matter,” PRL72, 17, arXiv:hep-ph/9303287. Doke, Y., and K. Hattori (2022), “Probability of Forming Gaps in the GD-1 Stream by Close Encounters of Globu- lar Clusters,” ApJ941(2), 129, arXiv:2203.15481 [astro- ph.GA]. Dome, T., S. May, A. Lagu¨ e, D. J. E. Marsh, S. Johnston, S. Bose, A. Toc...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  9. [209]

    Astrophysical implications of the neu- trino rest mass. III. Nonlinear growth of perturbations and the missing mass,

    Doroshkevich, A. G., Y. B. Zeldovich, R. A. Sunyaev, and M. Khlopov (1980), “Astrophysical implications of the neu- trino rest mass. III. Nonlinear growth of perturbations and the missing mass,” Sov. Astron. Lett.6,

    1980

  10. [223]

    Hints, neutrino bounds and WDM constraints from SDSS DR14 Lyman-αand Planck full-survey data,

    Palanque-Delabrouille, N., C. Y` eche, N. Sch¨ oneberg, J. Les- gourgues, M. Walther, S. Chabanier, and E. Armengaud (2020), “Hints, neutrino bounds and WDM constraints from SDSS DR14 Lyman-αand Planck full-survey data,” JCAP04, 038, arXiv:1911.09073 [astro-ph.CO]. Palanque-Delabrouille, N.,et al.(BOSS) (2013), “The one- dimensional Ly-alpha forest power ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [249]

    Imprints of temperature fluctuations on thez∼5 Lyman-αforest: a view from radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of reion- ization,

    Wu, X., M. McQuinn, R. Kannan, A. D’Aloisio, S. Bird, F. Marinacci, R. Dav´ e, and L. Hernquist (2019), “Imprints of temperature fluctuations on thez∼5 Lyman-αforest: a view from radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of reion- ization,” MNRAS490(3), 3177, arXiv:1907.04860 [astro- ph.CO]. Xu, D., S. Mao, A. P. Cooper, L. Gao, C. S. Frenk, R. E. Angulo, and J....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [257]

    Structure formation and the global 21-cm signal in the presence of Coulomb-like dark matter-baryon inter- actions,

    Driskell, T., E. O. Nadler, J. Mirocha, A. Benson, K. K. Boddy, T. D. Morton, J. Lashner, R. An, and V. Gluscevic (2022), “Structure formation and the global 21-cm signal in the presence of Coulomb-like dark matter-baryon inter- actions,” PRD106(10), 103525, arXiv:2209.04499 [astro- ph.CO]. Drlica-Wagner, A.,et al.(DES) (2020), “Milky Way Satellite Census...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [279]

    Extreme axions unveiled: A novel fluid approach for cosmological modeling,

    Winch, H., R. Hlozek, D. J. E. Marsh, D. Grin, and K. K. Rogers (2024a), “Extreme axions unveiled: A novel fluid approach for cosmological modeling,” PRD110(4), 043517, arXiv:2311.02052 [astro-ph.CO]. Winch, H., K. K. Rogers, R. Hloˇ zek, and D. J. E. Marsh (2024b), “High-redshift, Small-scale Tests of Ultralight Ax- ion Dark Matter Using Hubble and Webb ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [362]

    From Images to Dark Matter: End-to-end Infer- ence of Substructure from Hundreds of Strong Gravita- tional Lenses,

    Wagner-Carena, S., J. Aalbers, S. Birrer, E. O. Nadler, E. Darragh-Ford, P. J. Marshall, and R. H. Wechsler (2023), “From Images to Dark Matter: End-to-end Infer- ence of Substructure from Hundreds of Strong Gravita- tional Lenses,” ApJ942(2), 75, arXiv:2203.00690 [astro- ph.CO]. Wagner-Carena, S., J. Lee, J. Pennington, J. Aalbers, S. Bir- rer, and R. H....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [379]

    Full-shape BOSS constraints on dark matter interacting with dark radiation and lifting the S8 tension,

    Rubira, H., A. Mazoun, and M. Garny (2023), “Full-shape BOSS constraints on dark matter interacting with dark radiation and lifting the S8 tension,” JCAP01, 034, arXiv:2209.03974 [astro-ph.CO]. Rudakovskyi, A., A. Mesinger, D. Savchenko, and N. Gillet (2021), “Constraints on warm dark matter from UV lu- minosity functions of high-z galaxies with Bayesian ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [382]

    MIKE: A Double Echelle Spec- trograph for the Magellan Telescopes at Las Campanas Ob- servatory,

    Bernstein, R., S. A. Shectman, S. M. Gunnels, S. Mochnacki, and A. E. Athey (2003), “MIKE: A Double Echelle Spec- trograph for the Magellan Telescopes at Las Campanas Ob- servatory,” inInstrument Design and Performance for Op- tical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Se- ries, Vol. 4841,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  17. [407]

    Substruc- ture Detection in Realistic Strong Lensing Systems with Machine Learning,

    Tsang, A., A. C ¸ . S ¸eng¨ ul, and C. Dvorkin (2024), “Substruc- ture Detection in Realistic Strong Lensing Systems with Machine Learning,” arXiv:2401.16624 [astro-ph.CO]. Tulin, S., and H.-B. Yu (2018), “Dark Matter Self- interactions and Small Scale Structure,” Phys. Rept.730, 1, arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]. Tulin, S., H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek (2013), “...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [425]

    Recon- structing the matter power spectrum with future cosmic shear surveys,

    Preston, C., A. Amon, and G. Efstathiou (2024), “Recon- structing the matter power spectrum with future cosmic shear surveys,” MNRAS533(1), 621, arXiv:2404.18240 [astro-ph.CO]. Preston, C., K. K. Rogers, A. Amon, and G. Efstathiou (2025), “Prospects for disentangling dark matter with weak lensing,” MNRAS542(4), 2698, arXiv:2505.02233 [astro- ph.CO]. Price...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [517]

    First Cosmological Constraint on the Effective Theory of Dark Matter-Proton Interactions,

    Boddy, K. K., and V. Gluscevic (2018), “First Cosmological Constraint on the Effective Theory of Dark Matter-Proton Interactions,” PRD98(8), 083510, arXiv:1801.08609 [astro-ph.CO]. Boddy, K. K., V. Gluscevic, V. Poulin, E. D. Kovetz, M. Kamionkowski, and R. Barkana (2018), “Critical as- sessment of CMB limits on dark matter-baryon scatter- ing: New treatm...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [1063]

    Cos- mological signatures of supersymmetry with spontaneously broken R-parity,

    Berezinsky, V., A. Masiero, and J. W. F. Valle (1991), “Cos- mological signatures of supersymmetry with spontaneously broken R-parity,” PLB266,

    1991

  21. [1158]

    Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies,

    Hu, W., and S. Dodelson (2002), “Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies,” ARA&A40, 171, arXiv:astro- ph/0110414. Hui, L., J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten (2017), “Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter,” PRD95, 043541. Ibe, M., and H.-b. Yu (2010), “Distinguishing Dark Mat- ter Annihilation Enhancement Scenarios via Halo Shapes,” PLB6...

    arXiv 2002

  22. [1303]

    Fundamental physics with the Square Kilometre Array,

    Weltman, A.,et al.(2020), “Fundamental physics with the Square Kilometre Array,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37, e002, arXiv:1810.02680 [astro-ph.CO]. Wempe, E., G. Lavaux, S. D. M. White, A. Helmi, J. Jasche, and S. Stopyra (2024), “Constrained cosmological simula- tions of the Local Group using Bayesian hierarchical field- level inference,” A&A691, A348,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [1398]

    Dark Matter Halo Merger Histories Beyond Cold Dark Matter: I - Methods and Application to Warm Dark Mat- ter,

    Benson, A. J., A. Farahi, S. Cole, L. A. Moustakas, A. Jenk- ins, M. Lovell, R. Kennedy, J. Helly, and C. Frenk (2013), “Dark Matter Halo Merger Histories Beyond Cold Dark Matter: I - Methods and Application to Warm Dark Mat- ter,” MNRAS428, 1774, arXiv:1209.3018 [astro-ph.CO]. Berezhiani, Z. G., A. S. Sakharov, and M. Y. Khlopov (1992), “Primordial backg...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [1440]

    Compressing the Cosmological Information in One- dimensional Correlations of the LyαForest,

    Pedersen, C., A. Font-Ribera, and N. Y. Gnedin (2023), “Compressing the Cosmological Information in One- dimensional Correlations of the LyαForest,” ApJ944(2), 223, arXiv:2209.09895 [astro-ph.CO]. Pedersen, C., A. Font-Ribera, T. D. Kitching, P. McDonald, S. Bird, A. Slosar, K. K. Rogers, and A. Pontzen (2020), “Massive neutrinos and degeneracies in Lyman...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [2026]

    Strong Gravitational Lensing as a Probe of Dark Matter,

    Vegetti, S.,et al.(2024), “Strong Gravitational Lensing as a Probe of Dark Matter,” Space Sci. Rev.220(5), 58, arXiv:2306.11781 [astro-ph.CO]. Venumadhav, T., F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, K. N. Abazajian, and C. M. Hirata (2016), “Sterile neutrino dark matter: Weak interactions in the strong coupling epoch,” PRD94(4), 043515, arXiv:1507.06655 [astro-ph.CO]. Verwohlt...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024