Cosmic Structures in CDM and SIDM

Sut-Ieng Tam

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 158 references

Cosmic Structures in CDM and SIDM

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Self-interacting dark matter is a viable extension of ΛCDM, but galaxy-cluster observations cap its cross-section at about 0.1–1 cm²/g and point to velocity-dependent scattering.

desk verdict Solid, current SIDM review undermined by a central claim the paper's own cited results soften. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13070 v1 pith:QT3I3R7W submitted 2026-08-13 astro-ph.CO

Sut-Ieng Tam This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords darkmatterself-interactingSIDMgalaxyclusterssmall-scalestructureproblemsvelocity-dependentcross-sectiongravitationallensinghalos

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) is presented as a viable extension of ΛCDM that keeps the model's large-scale successes while addressing small-scale structure problems such as cuspy halo cores and over-dense satellites. The central claim is that galaxy clusters—with their high densities and velocity dispersions near 1000 km/s—are the sharpest test of SIDM, and that cluster observations currently cap the self-interaction cross-section per unit mass at roughly $\sigma/m \lesssim 0.1$–$1\ \mathrm{cm^2/g}$. Because dwarf galaxies require larger cross-sections of order $0.5$–$10\ \mathrm{cm^2/g}$ to explain their observed cores, the review concludes that a single velocity-independent cross-section cannot satisfy both scales. The resolution it highlights is velocity-dependent SIDM, in which a light mediator makes scattering strong at low velocities and weak at cluster velocities. A careful reader would care because this turns a speculative particle-physics extension into a quantitatively testable framework for upcoming lensing and deep-imaging surveys.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the self-interaction cross-section per unit mass, $\sigma/m$, together with the local scattering rate $\Gamma = \rho_{\rm dm}(r)\, v(r)\, \sigma/m$, which determines where a dark-matter particle scatters about once over a halo lifetime. The rate peaks in dense cluster cores and drops with radius, so SIDM builds an isothermal core in the centre and reverts to the NFW cusp outside a transition radius $r_1$. The second mechanism is velocity dependence: for a Yukawa potential with a light mediator, the cross-section decreases with relative velocity, giving $\sigma/m \sim 1\ \mathrm{cm^2/g}$ in dwarf galaxies and $\sim 0.1\ \mathrm{cm^2/g}$ in clusters. The review organizes every cluster probe—density profiles, halo roundness, strong-lensing critical curves, merger bulleticity, BCG wobble, and the radial acceleration relation—around where and how often this scattering rate crosses $\Gamma\, t_{\rm age} \sim 1$.

What would settle it

Measure the bulleticity parameter $\beta_\parallel$ in a stacked sample of merging galaxy clusters: a value significantly above zero (e.g., $\beta_\parallel > 0.1$) would show dark matter lagging behind the galaxies, contradicting the collisionless-CDM null and the review's $\sigma/m \lesssim 0.5\ \mathrm{cm^2/g}$ merger limit, whereas a null result near $\beta_\parallel = 0$ would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, this review establishes that SIDM is a mature, observationally testable extension of the standard cosmological model rather than a toy alternative. Its central quantitative claim is that current galaxy-cluster observations—strong gravitational lensing, X-ray and Sunyaev–Zel'dovich mass reconstructions, stacked weak lensing, cluster merger offsets, and the cluster-scale radial acceleration relation—consistently place the self-interaction cross-section per unit mass in the range $\sigma/m \lesssim 0.1$–$1\ \mathrm{cm^2/g}$ at collision velocities near $1000\ \mathrm{km/s}$. The same body of evidence, combined with dwarf-galaxy kinematics that need $\sigma/m \sim 0.5$–$10\ \mathrm{cm^2/g}$, cannot be explained by a single velocity-independent cross-section and instead favours velocity-dependent scattering mediated by a light dark-sector particle. The review also emphasizes that baryonic feedback can mimic SIDM cores, so the allowed parameter space is only meaningful when baryonic physics is modeled at the same time. The conclusion is that SIDM survives current cluster tests, with the surviving models pointing to a particle whose self-interaction fades at high velocity.

Load-bearing premise

The review's case rests on the assumption that the cluster observations it compiles—strong-lensing limits, merger offsets, X-ray/SZ shapes, and stacked weak-lensing profiles—are not systematically biased by baryonic contamination or projection effects, and that the simulations used to interpret them model baryonic feedback correctly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If cluster-scale $\sigma/m$ is capped near $0.1$–$1\ \mathrm{cm^2/g}$, a constant velocity-independent cross-section cannot simultaneously explain dwarf cores and cluster limits, so surviving SIDM models must have a cross-section that falls with velocity.
Cluster observables sensitive to the inner halo—strong-lensing critical curves, BCG offsets, and the radial acceleration relation—are predicted to differ measurably between CDM and SIDM even at $\sigma/m \lesssim 0.3\ \mathrm{cm^2/g}$, giving concrete targets for upcoming lensing surveys.
The galaxy-galaxy strong-lensing excess, if confirmed, could be a SIDM signature: gravothermally collapsed subhalo cores steepen inner density slopes and boost lensing efficiency beyond what baryons alone can do in CDM.
Baryonic feedback and SIDM produce overlapping core-forming effects, so robust discrimination requires hydrodynamical simulations that include both, rather than contrasting observations to dark-matter-only predictions.
Upcoming wide-field surveys should tighten cluster-scale bounds by an order of magnitude, either closing the remaining window for velocity-independent SIDM or revealing a floor that points to a specific dark-sector mediator.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural extension the review leaves implicit: if the galaxy-galaxy strong-lensing excess survives better simulations, SIDM's gravothermal collapse could turn one of ΛCDM's recent anomalies into positive evidence for self-interactions rather than just a constraint.
The cluster-scale radial acceleration relation suggests a sharper test than core density alone: measuring its slope in many clusters could map $\sigma/m$ as a function of velocity, effectively probing the mediator mass.
If future BCG-wobble surveys confirm a non-zero offset amplitude in relaxed clusters, that would provide an independent, largely baryon-free indication that cluster cores exist, motivating a comparison of wobble amplitudes across cluster masses to separate SIDM from feedback-driven core formation.
A direct test of the velocity-dependent scenario would be to stack clusters in bins of velocity dispersion and check whether the inferred $\sigma/m$ declines with velocity, as the light-mediator picture predicts.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a review, not a new result, and its central narrative—cluster-scale limits of sigma/m ~ 0.1-1 cm^2/g force velocity-dependent SIDM—is not as robust as the paper claims. That said, the review is a competent, current synthesis and worth engaging with as a reference.

What it does well: it covers the theoretical framework (semi-analytic models, isothermal Jeans, gravothermal collapse), the simulation landscape (BAHAMAS, Dianoga, AIDA-TNG, DARKSKIES), and the main observational probes of cluster-scale SIDM: density profiles, halo shapes, mergers, GGSL, and the RAR. The compilation of constraints in Section 5 is well-organized and up to date, including recent work from 2025-2026. The RAR section, built on the author's own published work, is a useful addition and is presented transparently as such.

Soft spots, in order. First, the load-bearing claim is internally inconsistent with its own cited evidence. Section 5.3 reports that Wittman et al. revised the Harvey et al. stacked limit from 0.47 to 2.0 cm^2/g after better centroid measurements; Section 4.2.2 notes that Dianoga finds baryons raise central densities in SIDM relative to collisionless runs, opposite to BAHAMAS; Section 5.2 concedes that weak-lensing-inferred shapes are statistically indistinguishable between CDM and SIDM. If the true cluster-scale limit is near 1-2 cm^2/g, a constant cross-section near 1 cm^2/g remains viable. The paper mentions these caveats but does not revise its conclusion accordingly; that is a coherence problem in a review. Second, there are typos and missing in-text citations for Vogelsberger et al. and Fry et al. in Section 4.2.2—minor, but sloppy for a review. Third, the scope is cluster-heavy; galaxy-scale constraints and particle model building get less depth. That is a scope choice, not a flaw.

Should you engage with it? Yes, but with the caveat above. It deserves a serious referee—a review that is currently useful but would be genuinely solid after revision that reconciles the Wittman/Dianoga caveats with the velocity-dependence argument. The citations and equations look accurate in broad strokes, and the presentation is honest about individual probes' limitations.

Recommendation: send to peer review, but require a substantive revision addressing the central tension.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a solicited review of cosmic structure formation in collisionless cold dark matter (CDM) and self-interacting dark matter (SIDM). It reviews the theoretical foundations of CDM structure formation, the classical small-scale challenges (core-cusp, missing satellites, too-big-to-fail), the basic physics and semi-analytic models of SIDM, recent hydrodynamical simulations, and observational constraints on the self-interaction cross-section per unit mass, with particular emphasis on galaxy clusters. The central scientific claim is that SIDM is a viable extension of ΛCDM that can resolve small-scale tensions, but that galaxy-cluster observations currently constrain the cross-section to roughly σ/m ≲ 0.1–1 cm²/g, which, combined with the larger cross-sections needed for dwarf galaxy cores (σ/m ≳ 1 cm²/g), motivates velocity-dependent self-interactions. The review also highlights newer probes such as the galaxy-galaxy strong-lensing excess, the cluster radial acceleration relation, and double radio relic mergers, and outlines future prospects.

Significance. If its synthesis is accurate, the review is a useful and up-to-date reference for the SIDM field, particularly for cluster-scale tests. Its strengths include a broad coverage of recent simulation suites (BAHAMAS-SIDM, Dianoga, AIDA-TNG, DARKSKIES), a clear presentation of semi-analytic SIDM models, and a generally accurate quotation of the published constraints, including the important Wittman et al. revision of the Harvey et al. stacked merger limit. The manuscript is also transparent in several places about degeneracies and systematics, such as the baryonic-contraction effects in the Dianoga simulations and the projection effects in weak-lensing shape measurements. The discussion of the cluster radial acceleration relation, including the author's own published work with the BAHAMAS-SIDM simulations, is clearly attributed and appropriately framed as one probe among several. The value of the review, however, depends on whether its central conclusion—that cluster-scale limits robustly pin σ/m to 0.1–1 cm²/g and therefore require velocity dependence—survives the caveats that the manuscript itself reports.

major comments (3)

[Section 5.3, Section 4, and Section 6] The central argument that cluster-scale constraints robustly require velocity-dependent SIDM is weakened by the manuscript's own reporting. Section 5.3 states that Wittman et al. revised the stacked Harvey et al. limit from σ/m ≲ 0.47 cm²/g to σ/m ≲ 2.0 cm²/g after improved centroid measurements, and that individual mergers constrain σ/m ≲ 1–4 cm²/g. If the true cluster-scale limit is near 1–2 cm²/g, a constant cross-section near 1 cm²/g remains viable and the tension with dwarf-scale requirements (Section 4, around Eq. 3) is substantially reduced. The review should explicitly acknowledge this and reframe velocity-dependent SIDM as a plausible but not uniquely required extension, rather than presenting it as the forced conclusion of the compiled constraints.
[Section 4.2.2 and Section 5.1, Eq. (16)] The strongest cluster-scale upper limits quoted in Section 5.1 (Andrade et al. σ/m < 0.13 cm²/g; Eckert et al. σ/m < 0.19 cm²/g) rely on simulation-based mappings between observable quantities and σ/m, notably Eq. (16), which is calibrated with the BAHAMAS-SIDM simulations. However, Section 4.2.2 reports that the Dianoga SIDM simulations find that including baryons raises central densities in SIDM relative to collisionless runs, opposite to the BAHAMAS result. The manuscript should state clearly that the 0.1 cm²/g-scale limits are therefore not robust against variations in baryonic treatment, and that this uncertainty propagates directly into the velocity-dependence argument.
[Section 5.2] The halo-shape discussion concedes that weak-lensing-inferred cluster shapes are statistically indistinguishable between CDM and SIDM and that shape-based constraints suffer from projection effects and intrinsic scatter of 10–20%. Yet the section summary concludes that shape-based studies favor σ/m ≲ 0.1–1 cm²/g. The manuscript would be more accurate if it distinguished which shape probes actually drive this range (e.g., strong-lensing ellipticity of individual systems such as MS2137-23) from those that do not (stacked weak lensing), so that the claimed convergence of constraints is not overstated.

minor comments (6)

[Section 4.2.2] The in-text mentions of "Vogelsberger et al." and "Fry et al." do not have citation numbers, and Fry et al. does not appear to be in the reference list. Please add the missing citations.
[Section 2, around Eq. (B4)] The Einasto profile is labeled as Eq. (B4), which appears to be a leftover LaTeX label; it should be renumbered as a regular numbered equation in the text.
[Section 5.3] The text refers to "Section 4.1.3" for the discussion of merger offsets and BCG oscillations, but no Section 4.1.3 exists in the manuscript; the relevant material appears in Section 4.2.2. Please correct the cross-reference.
[Section 1] There is a duplicated phrase "through through" in the description of Rubin et al.'s rotation curve measurements; please proofread.
[Section 4.2.1] The text contains typos such as "leasd" and "cental" in the discussion of cluster-scale halo cores; these should be corrected.
[Section 5.2] The statement that the Miralda-Escudé constraint was "likely overestimated" is ambiguous; since subsequent work found a weaker (larger) limit, the original constraint was too strict. Please rephrase for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a literature synthesis whose central claims are supported by external, independently published constraints and simulations.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its central claim from its own inputs. The main assertion—that cluster-scale observations constrain sigma/m to roughly 0.1–1 cm^2/g and that this motivates velocity-dependent SIDM—is presented as a review of external measurements and simulations. Each cluster constraint is cited to a separate, independently published analysis (e.g., Andrade et al. 2022, Eckert et al. 2022, Harvey et al., Jee et al.), and the review does not fit any parameter or construct a new model. The only self-citation is the Halo RAR section (Section 5.5), which reports the author's earlier study (Tam et al. 2023) comparing BAHAMAS-SIDM predictions with CLASH data. That result is used as one illustrative probe, not as the load-bearing premise for the review's overall conclusion; even if that section were removed, the cluster constraints and the velocity-dependence argument would remain fully supported by the external references. The paper also acknowledges internal model uncertainties, such as the conflicting baryonic effects seen in Dianoga versus BAHAMAS-SIDM simulations and the revised merger constraint of Wittman et al., but these are robustness concerns rather than circular reductions. No equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This review introduces no new free parameters, fitting, or invented entities. The quantities it discusses are defined in the cited literature. The only implicit assumptions are the standard physical framework and the reliability of the cited simulations and observations, which are inherited from the referenced works.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Dark matter exists and is composed of non-relativistic particles in the Lambda-CDM framework.
All sections, especially Sections 2 and 4, rely on this standard cosmological postulate.
domain assumption General relativity is the correct theory of gravity on large scales.
Used implicitly in all gravitational potentials and lensing calculations throughout.
domain assumption The results of the cited N-body and hydrodynamical simulations are reliable and accurately model SIDM physics.
The review's synthesis of SIDM predictions in Sections 4.2 and 5 depends on these simulations being faithful.
domain assumption The observational constraints discussed are correctly interpreted and free of unidentified systematics.
The central picture that sigma/m is bounded at cluster scales depends on the accuracy of these measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmic Structures in CDM and SIDM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QT3I3R7W

@misc{pith2026260813070,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmic Structures in CDM and SIDM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QT3I3R7W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13070}
}

abstract

The standard $\Lambda$ Cold Dark Matter ($\Lambda$CDM) model has achieved remarkable success in explaining the formation and evolution of cosmic structures on large scales, supported by a wide range of observations, including the cosmic microwave background, large-scale structure surveys, and galaxy clusters. However, discrepancies between theoretical predictions and observations on small scales, have motivated the exploration of alternative dark matter models, including the self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) scenario. This review provides an overview of the theoretical foundations of CDM structure formation, the small-scale challenges, and the solutions proposed within the SIDM framework. We summarize recent theoretical developments in the SIDM framework and discuss current observational constraints on the dark matter self-interaction cross-section with particular emphasis on galaxy clusters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13070 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Left: Dark matter density profiles for low-mass halos from SIDM N-body simulations with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Top: Solid lines show the minor-to-major axis ratios for dark matter, gas, and stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Velocity dependence of self-interactions, shown as the mean velocity-weighted cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison between the observed RAR from CLASH clusters (Tian et al. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

158 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

[1]

Zwicky,Helvetica Phys

F. Zwicky,Helvetica Phys. Acta6(1933) 110–127

1933
[2]

V. C. Rubin, W. K. Ford, Jr. and N. Thonnard,Astrophysical Journal238(June 1980) 471

1980
[3]

Lea, Silk, Kellogg, & Murray,Astrophysical Journal184(September 1973) L105

1973
[4]

Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano,Astronomy and Astrophysics,49, (May 1976), 137 - 144

1976
[5]

Lynds & PetrosianAstrophysical Journal,336, 1989, 1

1989
[6]

Soucail, G., Fort, B., Mellier, Y., Picat, J.-P.,Astronomy and Astrophysics,172, L14 (1987a)

1987
[7]

G. F. Smoot et al. (COBE Collaboration),Astrophysical Journal Letters396(1992) L1

1992
[8]

K. N. Abazajian et al. (SDSS Collaboration),Astrophys. J. Suppl.182(2009) 543

2009

Show all 158 references

[9]

DESI Collaboration, arXiv e-prints (October 2016) arXiv:1611.00036

2016 arXiv
[10]

A. G. Riess et al.,Astron. J.116(1998) 1009

1998
[11]

Perlmutter et al

S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project),Astrophys. J.517(1999) 565

1999
[12]

G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., et al. (2022),Astrophys. J.,934, L7

2022
[13]

P. J. E. Peebles,Astrophys. J.185(1973) 413–440

1973
[14]

P. J. E. Peebles,Astrophys. J. Letters.,263, L1 (1982)

1982
[15]

G. R. Blumenthal and J. R. Primack, in Fourth Workshop on Grand Unification, eds. H. A. Weldon, P. Langacker and P. J. Steinhardt (Birkhauser, Boston, 1983), p. 256

1983
[16]

Bond and G

R. Bond and G. Efstathiou,Astrophys. J.285(1984) L45–L48

1984
[17]

G. R. Blumenthal, S. M. Faber, J. R. Primack and M. J. Rees,Nature,311517 (1984)

1984
[18]

Davis, G

M. Davis, G. Efstathiou, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White,Astrophys. J292(1985) 371

1985
[19]

D., Caldwell, R., Devlin, M

Miller, A. D., Caldwell, R., Devlin, M. J., Dorwart, W. B., Herbig, T., Nolta, M. R., Page, L. A., Puchalla, J., Torbet, E. and Tran, H. T.,Astrophys. J,524(1999), L1

1999
[20]

de Bernardis et al

P. de Bernardis et al. (BOOMERanG Collaboration),AIP Conf. Proc.555(2001) 85

2001
[21]

Hanany et al

S. Hanany et al. (MAXIMA Collaboration),Astrophys. J. Lett.545(2000) L5

2000
[22]

WMAP Collaboration, C. L. Bennett et al.,Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.148(2003) 1

2003
[23]

Aghanim et al.Astron

Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al.Astron. Astrophys641(September 2020) A6

2020
[24]

S. D. M. White and C. S. Frenk,Astrophysical Journal379(September 1991) 52

1991
[25]

Milgrom,Astrophys

M. Milgrom,Astrophys. J270(July 1983) 365 August 14, 2026 0:49 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE review˙final 30Sut-Ieng Tam

1983
[26]

Schaye et al.,Mon

J. Schaye et al.,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.446(2015) 521

2015
[27]

Nelson et al.Mon

D. Nelson et al.Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc.475(March 2018) 624

2018
[28]

Pakmor et al.Mon

R. Pakmor et al.Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc.524(September 2023) 2539

2023
[29]

Zhao and B

H. Zhao and B. Famaey,Physical Review D86(September 2012) 067301

2012
[30]

Skordis and T

C. Skordis and T. Zlo´snik,Physical Review Letters127(October 2021) 161302

2021
[31]

J. D. Bekenstein,Physical Review D71(March 2005) 069901

2005
[32]

C. S. Frenk, S. D. M. White, G. Efstathiou and M. Davis,Nature317(October 1985) 595

1985
[33]

and Frenk, Carlos S

Navarro, Julio F. and Frenk, Carlos S. and White, Simon D. M.,Astrophys. J462 (1996) 563

1996
[34]

Umetsu, E

K. Umetsu, E. Medezinski, M. Nonino, J. Merten, M. Postman, M. Meneghetti, M. Donahue, N. Czakon, A. Molino, S. Seitz, D. Gruen, D. Lemze, I. Balestra, N. Ben´ıtez, A. Biviano, T. Broadhurst, H. Ford, C. Grillo, A. Koekemoer, P. Mel- chior, A. Mercu- rio, J. Moustakas, P. Rosa...
[35]

Merritt, A

D. Merritt, A. W. Graham, B. Moore, J. Diemand and B. Terzi´c,The Astronomical Journal132(December 2006) 2685

2006
[36]

A. A. Dutton and A. V. Macci‘o,Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc.441(July 2014) 3359,

2014
[37]

Zhao H., 1996,Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc.,278, 488

1996
[38]

Einasto J., 1965,Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata, 5, 87

1965
[39]

Anderhalden and J

D. Anderhalden and J. Diemand,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013(April 2013) 009

2013
[40]

Ishiyama,Astrophys

T. Ishiyama,Astrophys. J.788(June 2014) 27,

2014
[41]

Moore, F

B. Moore, F. Governato, T. Quinn, J. Stadel and G. Lake,Astrophys. J. Letters.499 (May 1998) L5

1998
[42]

Fukushige and J

T. Fukushige and J. Makino,Astrophys. J557(August 2001) 533,

2001
[43]

R. A. Flores and J. R. Primack,Astrophys. J. Letters.427(May 1994) L1

1994
[44]

Moore,Nature370(August 1994) 629

B. Moore,Nature370(August 1994) 629

1994
[45]

Moore, T

B. Moore, T. Quinn, F. Governato, J. Stadel and G. Lake,Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc., 310(December 1999) 1147

1999
[46]

J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin,Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 55(August 2017) 343

2017
[47]

Del Popolo and M

A. Del Popolo and M. Le Delliou,Galaxies5(February 2017) 17

2017
[48]

S.-H. Oh, W. J. G. de Blok, E. Brinks, F. Walter and R. C. Kennicutt, Jr.,Astron. J.141(June 2011) 193,

2011
[49]

Oh et al.The Astronomical Journal149(June 2015) 180

S.-H. Oh et al.The Astronomical Journal149(June 2015) 180

2015
[50]

Governato, C

F. Governato, C. Brook, L. Mayer, A. Brooks, G. Rhee, J. Wadsley, P. Jonsson, B. Willman, G. Stinson, T. Quinn and P. Madau,Nature463(January 2010) 203

2010
[51]

Ben´ıtez-Llambay, C

A. Ben´ıtez-Llambay, C. S. Frenk, A. D. Ludlow and J. F. Navarro,Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc.488(September 2019) 2387

2019
[52]

de Blok W. J. G.,Advances in Astronomy,2010, 789293

2010
[53]

P. F. Hopkins et al.,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.480(2018) 800

2018
[54]

T. K. Chan, D. Kereˇs, J. O˜norbe, P. F. Hopkins, A. L. Muratov, C. A. Faucher- Gigu‘ere and E. Quataert,Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc.454(December 2015) 2981,

2015
[55]

Del Popolo and M

A. Del Popolo and M. Le Delliou,Galaxies9(December 2021) 123,

2021
[56]

Tollet, A

E. Tollet, A. V. Macci‘o, A. A. Dutton, G. S. Stinson, L. Wang, C. Penzo, T. A. Gutcke, T. Buck, X. Kang, C. Brook, A. Di Cintio, B. W. Keller and J. Wadsley,Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc.456(March 2016) 3542,

2016
[57]

Kauffmann, S

G. Kauffmann, S. D. M. White, and B. Guiderdoni,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.264, 201 (1993). August 14, 2026 0:49 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE review˙final Cosmic Structures in CDM and SIDM31

1993
[58]

Moore, S

B. Moore, S. Ghigna, F. Governato, G. Lake, T. R. Quinn, J. Stadel, and P. Tozzi, Astrophys. J.524, L19 (1999),

1999
[59]

A. A. Klypin, A. V. Kravtsov, O. Valenzuela, and F. Prada,Astrophys. J.522, 82 (1999)

1999
[60]

A. M. Brooks, M. Kuhlen, A. Zolotov and D. Hooper,Astrophys. J.765(March 2013) 22

2013
[61]

Homma, M

D. Homma, M. Chiba, Y. Komiyama, M. Tanaka, S. Okamoto, M. Tanaka, M. N. Ishigaki, K. Hayashi, N. Arimoto, R. H. Lupton, M. A. Strauss, S. Miyazaki, S.- Y. Wang and H. Murayama,Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan76(August
[62]

Boylan-Kolchin, J

M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock and M. Kaplinghat,Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc.415 (July 2011) L40

2011
[63]

Springel, J

V. Springel, J. Wang, M. Vogelsberger, A. Ludlow, A. Jenkins, A. Helmi, J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc. 391 (December 2008) 1685

2008
[64]

Cautun, C

M. Cautun, C. S. Frenk, R. van de Weygaert, W. A. Hellwing and B. J. T. Jones, Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc.445(December 2014) 2049,

2014
[65]

J. Wang, C. S. Frenk, J. F. Navarro, L. Gao and T. Sawala, Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc. 424 (August 2012) 2715

2012
[66]

Zavala, M

J. Zavala, M. Vogelsberger and M. G. Walker,Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc.431(April
[67]

A. M. Brooks and A. Zolotov,Astrophys. J786(May 2014) 87,

2014
[68]

Vogelsberger, J

M. Vogelsberger, J. Zavala, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, C. Pfrommer, T. Bringmann and K. Sigurdson,Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc.460(August 2016) 1399,

2016
[69]

J. M. Cline, Z. Liu, G. D. Moore and W. Xue,Physical Review D90(July 2014) 015023

2014
[70]

M. R. Lovell, V. Gonzalez-Perez, S. Bose, A. Boyarsky, S. Cole, C. S. Frenk and O. Ruchayskiy,Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc.468(July 2017) 2836

2017
[71]

M. R. Lovell, V. Eke, C. S. Frenk, L. Gao, A. Jenkins, T. Theuns, J. Wang, S. D. M
[72]

Boyarsky and O

White, A. Boyarsky and O. Ruchayskiy,Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc.420(March 2012) 2318

2012
[73]

D. N. Spergel and P. J. Steinhardt,Physical Review Letters84(April 2000) 3760

2000
[74]

Tulin and H.-B

S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Physics Reports 730 (February 2018) 1,

2018
[75]

Adhikari, A

S. Adhikari, A. Banerjee, K. K. Boddy, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, H. Desmond, C. Dvorkin,B. Jain, F. Kahlhoefer, M. Kaplinghat, A. Nierenberg, A. H. G. Peter, A. Robertson, J. Sakstein and J. Zavala, arXiv e-prints (July 2022) arXiv:2207.10638

2022
[76]

Kaplinghat, S

M. Kaplinghat, S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Physical Review Letters 116 (January 2016) 041302,

2016
[77]

Dav´e, D

R. Dav´e, D. N. Spergel, P. J. Steinhardt and B. D. Wandelt, The Astrophysical Journal 547 (February 2001) 574,

2001
[78]

(2012)Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society,423(4), 3740–3752

Vogelsberger, M., Zavala, J., & Loeb, A. (2012)Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society,423(4), 3740–3752

2012
[79]

A. B. Newman, T. Treu, R. S. Ellis and D. J. Sand,The Astrophysical Journal765 (March 2013) 25

2013
[80]

Kuzio de Naray, S

R. Kuzio de Naray, S. S. McGaugh and W. J. G. de Blok, The Astrophysical Journal 676 (April 2008) 920

2008
[81]

A.Fundamentals of Nuclear Physics.Cambridge University Press; 1990

Jelley N. A.Fundamentals of Nuclear Physics.Cambridge University Press; 1990

1990
[82]

Ibe and H.-B

M. Ibe and H.-B. Yu, Physics Letters B 692 (August 2010) 70

2010
[83]

A. H. G. Peter, M. Rocha, J. S. Bullock and M. Kaplinghat,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society430(March 2013) 105

2013
[84]

Rocha, A

M. Rocha, A. H. G. Peter, J. S. Bullock, M. Kaplinghat, S. Garrison-Kimmel, J. August 14, 2026 0:49 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE review˙final 32Sut-Ieng Tam O˜norbe and L. A. Moustakas,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society430 (March 2013) 81,

2026
[85]

Yoshida, V

N. Yoshida, V. Springel, S. D. M. White and G. Tormen,The Astrophysical Journal 535(June 2000) L103

2000
[86]

Moore, S

B. Moore, S. Gelato, A. Jenkins, F. R. Pearce and V. Quilis,The Astrophysical Jour- nal,535(May 2000) L21,

2000
[87]

O. D. Elbert, J. S. Bullock, S. Garrison-Kimmel, M. Rocha, J. O˜norbe and A. H. G. Peter,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society453(October 2015) 29

2015
[88]

Robertson, D

A. Robertson, D. Harvey, R. Massey, V. Eke, I. G. McCarthy, M. Jauzac, B. Li and J. Schaye,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society488(September 2019) 3646

2019
[89]

Robertson, E

A. Robertson, E. Huff and K. Markoviˇc,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society521(May 2023) 3172,

2023
[90]

G., Schaye, J., Bird, S., Le Brun, A

McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Bird, S., Le Brun, A. M. C. 2017,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,465, 2936

2017
[91]

G., Bird, S., Schaye, J., et al

McCarthy, I. G., Bird, S., Schaye, J., et al. 2018,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society,476, 2999,

2018
[92]

H., Vogelsberger M., 2018,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,474, 746

Brinckmann T., Zavala J., Rapetti D., Hansen S. H., Vogelsberger M., 2018,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,474, 746

2018
[93]

Harvey, F

D. Harvey, F. Courbin, J. P. Kneib and I. G. McCarthy,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society472(December 2017) 1972

2017
[94]

S. Y. Kim, A. H. G. Peter and D. Wittman,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society469(August 2017) 1414,

2017
[95]

H., Clowe D., Vikhlinin A., Forman W., Jones C., Murray S., Tucker W.,The Astrophysical Journal,606, 819 (2004)

Markevitch M., Gonzalez A. H., Clowe D., Vikhlinin A., Forman W., Jones C., Murray S., Tucker W.,The Astrophysical Journal,606, 819 (2004)

2004
[96]

W., Markevitch M., Clowe D., Gonzalez A

Randall S. W., Markevitch M., Clowe D., Gonzalez A. H., Bradaˇ c M.,The Astrophys- ical Journal,679, (2008), 1173

2008
[97]

Harvey D., et al., 2014,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,441, 404

2014
[98]

Harvey D., Massey R., Kitching T., Taylor A., Tittley E., 2015,Science,347, 1462

2015
[99]

E. L. Sirks, D. Harvey, R. Massey, K. A. Oman, A. Robertson, C. Frenk, S. Everett, A. S. Gill, D. Lagattuta and J. McCleary,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society530(May 2024) 3160

2024
[100]

Despali, L

G. Despali, L. Moscardini, D. Nelson, A. Pillepich, V. Springel and M. Vogelsberger, Astronomy Astrophysics 697 (May 2025) A213

2025
[101]

Harvey, Y

D. Harvey, Y. Revaz, M. Schaller, A. Schneider, E. Tregidga and F. Vecchi,Astron- omy & Astrophysics703(2025) A112

2025
[102]

Ragagnin, M

A. Ragagnin, M. Meneghetti, F. Calura, G. Despali, K. Dolag, M. S. Fischer, C. Giocoli and L. Moscardini, Astronomy Astrophysics 687 (July 2024) A270,

2024
[103]

Balberg, S

S. Balberg, S. L. Shapiro, and S. Inagaki,The Astrophysical Journal,568, 475 (2002)

2002
[104]

Koda and P

J. Koda and P. R. Shapiro, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 415, 1125 (2011),

2011
[105]

E., Linden T., Yu H.-B., 2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, 021302

Kaplinghat M., Keeley R. E., Linden T., Yu H.-B., 2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, 021302

2014
[106]

Kaplinghat M., Tulin S., Yu H.-B., 2016, Physical Review Letters, 116, 041302

2016
[107]

Robertson A., Massey R., Eke V., Schaye J., Theuns T., 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501

2021
[108]

K., Kaplinghat M., 2020, Physical Review D, 101, 063009

Nishikawa H., Boddy K. K., Kaplinghat M., 2020, Physical Review D, 101, 063009

2020
[109]

Jiang, F. et al. A semi-analytic study of self-interacting dark-matter haloes with baryons.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,521, 4630–4644 (2023)

2023
[110]

Zhong, D

Y.-M. Zhong, D. Yang and H.-B. Yu,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society526(November 2023) 758 August 14, 2026 0:49 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE review˙final Cosmic Structures in CDM and SIDM33

2023
[111]

Sagunski, S

L. Sagunski, S. Gad-Nasr, B. Colquhoun, A. Robertson and S. Tulin,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021 (January 2021) 024

2021
[112]

N., Steinhardt, P

Dav´ e, R., Spergel, D. N., Steinhardt, P. J., & Wandelt, B. D. 2001,The Astrophysical Journal,547, 574

2001
[113]

2019,Physical Review X,9,031020

Ren, T., Kwa, A., Kaplinghat, M., & Yu, H.-B. 2019,Physical Review X,9,031020

2019
[114]

& Yu, H.-B

Valli, M. & Yu, H.-B. 2018,Nature Astronomy, 2, 907

2018
[115]

Meneghetti, N

M. Meneghetti, N. Yoshida, M. Bartelmann, L. Moscardini, V. Springel, G. Tormen, and S. D. M. White,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,325, 435 (2001)

2001
[116]

Firmani, E

C. Firmani, E. D’Onghia, V. Avila-Reese, G. Chincarini, and X. Hernandez,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,315, L29 (2000)

2000
[117]

Firmani, E

C. Firmani, E. D’Onghia, G. Chincarini, X. Hernandez, and V. Avila-Reese,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,321, 713 (2001)

2001
[118]

E., Fuson, J., Gad-Nasr, S., et al

Andrade, K. E., Fuson, J., Gad-Nasr, S., et al. 2022,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,510, 54

2022
[119]

B., Treu T., Ellis R

Newman A. B., Treu T., Ellis R. S., Sand D. J., 2013b,The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 25
[120]

Q. He, H. Li, R. Li, C. S. Frenk, M. Schaller, D. Barnes, Y. Bah´e, S. T. Kay, L. Gao and C. Dalla Vecchia,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,496(August
[121]

Eckert, S

D. Eckert, S. Ettori, A. Robertson, R. Massey, E. Pointecouteau, D. Harvey and I. G. McCarthy,Astronomy Astrophysics666(October 2022) A41

2022
[122]

Adhikari, A

S. Adhikari, A. Banerjee, B. Jain, T.-h. Shin and Y.-M. Zhong,The Astrophysical Journal983(April 2025) 50

2025
[123]

Sevilla-Noarbe, I. et al. 2021,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series,254, 24

2021
[124]

2021,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series,253, 3

Hilton, M., Sif´ on, C., Naess, S., et al. 2021,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series,253, 3

2021
[125]

Miralda-Escude,The Astrophysical Journal,564, 60 (2002)

J. Miralda-Escude,The Astrophysical Journal,564, 60 (2002)

2002
[126]

Mellier, B

Y. Mellier, B. Fort, and J.-P. Kneib,The Astrophysical Journal,407, 33 (1993)

1993
[127]

Miralda-Escude J., 1995,The Astrophysical Journal,438, 514

1995
[128]

Richard, G

J. Richard, G. P. Smith, J.-P. Kneib, R. Ellis, A. Sanderson, et al.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society(2009), 0911.3302

2009 arXiv
[129]

Robertson, E

A. Robertson, E. Huff and K. Markoviˇc,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,521(May 2023) 3172

2023
[130]

Markevitch, A

M. Markevitch, A. H. Gonzalez, D. Clowe, A. Vikhlinin, L. David, W. Forman, C. Jones, S. Murray, and W. Tucker,The Astrophysical Journal,606, 819 (2004)

2004
[131]

S. W. Randall, M. Markevitch, D. Clowe, A. H. Gonzalez, and M. Bradac,The Astrophysical Journal,679, 1173 (2008)

2008
[132]

Harvey, E

D. Harvey, E. Tittley, R. Massey, T. D. Kitching, A. Taylor, S. R. Pike, S. T. Kay, E. T. Lau, and D. Nagai,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,441, 404 (2014)

2014
[133]

Wittman, N

D. Wittman, N. Golovich, and W. A. Dawson,The Astrophysical Journal,898, 104, (2017)

2017
[134]

A New Robust Constraint on the Self-interaction Cross-section of Dark Matter with Double Radio Relic Clusters,

M. J. Jee, D. Park and W. Lee, “A New Robust Constraint on the Self-interaction Cross-section of Dark Matter with Double Radio Relic Clusters,” arXiv:2605.00093 (2026)

2026 arXiv
[135]

G., 2019,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,488, 1572

Harvey D., Robertson A., Massey R., McCarthy I. G., 2019,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,488, 1572

2019
[136]

Cross et al

D. Cross et al. (DES Collaboration),Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.529(2024) 52

2024
[137]

Meneghetti et al.Science,369(September 2020) 1347, August 14, 2026 0:49 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE review˙final 34Sut-Ieng Tam

M. Meneghetti et al.Science,369(September 2020) 1347, August 14, 2026 0:49 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE review˙final 34Sut-Ieng Tam

2020
[138]

Meneghetti et al.Astronomy&Astrophysics,678(October 2023) L2

M. Meneghetti et al.Astronomy&Astrophysics,678(October 2023) L2

2023
[139]

Yang and H.-B

D. Yang and H.-B. Yu,Physical Review D,104(November 2021) 103031,

2021
[140]

Dutra, P

I. Dutra, P. Natarajan and D. Gilman,The Astrophysical Journal,978(January
[141]

M., Dutra, I., Natarajan, P., et al

Tokayer, Y. M., Dutra, I., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024,The Astrophysical Journal,970, 143

2024
[142]

S. S. McGaugh, F. Lelli and J. M. Schombert, Physical Review Letters, 117 (Novem- ber 2016) 201101

2016
[143]

S., Schombert, J

Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., Pawlowski, M. S. 2017,The Astrophysical Journal,836, 152

2017
[144]

Y. Rong, H. Li, J. Wang, L. Gao, R. Li, J. Ge, Y. Jing, J. Pan, J. G. Fern´andez- Trincado, O. Valenzuela and E. A. Ort´ız,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,477(March 2018) 230,

2018
[145]

K., Gong, I.-T

Chae, K.-H., Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Gong, I.-T. 2019,The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 18

2019
[146]

M., Oman, K

Brouwer, M. M., Oman, K. A., Valentijn, E. A., et al. 2021,Astronomy&Astro- physics,650, A113

2021
[147]

W., Wadsley, J

Keller, B. W., Wadsley, J. W. 2017,The Astrophysical Journal Letters,835, L17

2017
[148]

A. D. Ludlow, A. Ben´ıtez-Llambay, M. Schaller, T. Theuns, C. S. Frenk, R. Bower, J. Schaye, R. A. Crain, J. F. Navarro, A. Fattahi and K. A. Oman,Physical Review Letters,118(April 2017) 161103

2017
[149]

S.,Physical Review Letters,120, 261301, 2018

Garaldi, E., Romano-D´ıaz, E., Porciani, C., & Pawlowski, M. S.,Physical Review Letters,120, 261301, 2018

2018
[150]

Paranjape, A., & Sheth, R. K. 2021,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,507, 632

2021
[151]

N.,The Astrophysical Jour- nal,896, 70, 2020

Tian, Y., Umetsu, K., Ko, C.-M., Donahue, M., Chiu, I. N.,The Astrophysical Jour- nal,896, 70, 2020

2020
[152]

2021,Physics of the Dark Universe, 31, 100765,

Pradyumna, S., Gupta, S., Seeram, S., Desai, S. 2021,Physics of the Dark Universe, 31, 100765,

2021
[153]

Eckert, D., Ettori, S., Pointecouteau, E., van der Burg, R. F. J., Loubser, S. I., Astronomy & Astrophysics,662, 2022

2022
[154]

Umetsu, A

K. Umetsu, A. Zitrin, D. Gruen, J. Merten, M. Donahue and M. Postman,The Astrophysical Journal,821(April 2016) 116

2016
[155]

Donahue et al.The Astrophysical Journal,794, (October 2014) 136,

M. Donahue et al.The Astrophysical Journal,794, (October 2014) 136,

2014
[156]

Tian, C.-M

Y. Tian, C.-M. Ko, P. Li, S. McGaugh and S. L. Poblete,Astronomy&Astrophysics, 684(April 2024) A180,

2024
[157]

S.-I. Tam, K. Umetsu, A. Robertson and I. G. McCarthy,The Astrophysical Journal 953(August 2023) 169,

2023
[158]

Harvey,Nature Astronomy8(October 2024) 1332,

D. Harvey,Nature Astronomy8(October 2024) 1332,

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Zwicky,Helvetica Phys

F. Zwicky,Helvetica Phys. Acta6(1933) 110–127

1933

[2] [2]

V. C. Rubin, W. K. Ford, Jr. and N. Thonnard,Astrophysical Journal238(June 1980) 471

1980

[3] [3]

Lea, Silk, Kellogg, & Murray,Astrophysical Journal184(September 1973) L105

1973

[4] [4]

Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano,Astronomy and Astrophysics,49, (May 1976), 137 - 144

1976

[5] [5]

Lynds & PetrosianAstrophysical Journal,336, 1989, 1

1989

[6] [6]

Soucail, G., Fort, B., Mellier, Y., Picat, J.-P.,Astronomy and Astrophysics,172, L14 (1987a)

1987

[7] [7]

G. F. Smoot et al. (COBE Collaboration),Astrophysical Journal Letters396(1992) L1

1992

[8] [8]

K. N. Abazajian et al. (SDSS Collaboration),Astrophys. J. Suppl.182(2009) 543

2009