Addressing position anomalies in the Strong Gravitational Lensing System HS~0810+2554 through Dark Matter Subhalos

Lei Wu; Qiang Yuan; Tengyuan Zhang; Yuanlin Gong

REVIEW

Addressing position anomalies in the Strong Gravitational Lensing System HS~0810+2554 through Dark Matter Subhalos

Yuanlin Gong, Lei Wu, Qiang Yuan, Tengyuan Zhang

Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics · Submitted 16 Aug 2026 · 90 references

Pith's verdict: Honest and useful application of Aquarius subhalos to HS 0810+2554, but the headline chi-square is a minimum over roughly 41,000 random draws, so the 'naturally explains' claim overreaches without a p-value.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 27, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2608.15554 (version 1)

Pith IDPFGI5LIK, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationLei Wu, Qiang Yuan, Tengyuan Zhang, Yuanlin Gong. "Addressing position anomalies in the Strong Gravitational Lensing System HS~0810+2554 through Dark Matter Subhalos." arXiv:2608.15554 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PFGI5LIK

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Plainly: this is the first explicit test of an Aquarius-style subhalo population against the HS 0810+2554 octuple-image astrometry, and the paper does it cleanly. That fills a real gap, because previous work used FDM granules or angular multipoles. The authors build the subhalo population from an external simulation, rescale by host mass, establish a sensible Mmin = 10^6 Msun from predicted astrometric shifts, and validate with a single-subhalo fit. They also cite Miller and Williams and say honestly that the image pairing and arrival order are not uniquely determined. This is solid modeling work.

The soft spot is the central quantitative claim. The drop from chi^2 = 60.38 to 1.61 is the minimum over 1000 realizations per host mass across a 41-step grid, with a post hoc refit that improves it to 1.18. That is about 41,000 independent draws plus a selected refit. The paper reports the mean chi^2 (6.82 at the best mass) but not the distribution or the fraction of realizations below 1.61. Without that, the headline number could be a selection artifact rather than evidence that typical CDM subhalos explain the data. The existence of one good-fitting realization is plausible and worth reporting, but the abstract's 'naturally' is too strong. The fix is straightforward: give the chi^2 distribution, compute a p-value or Bayes factor accounting for trials, or report how typical the best fit is. A secondary concern is that the subhalo scan fixes the source parameters at the smooth-model best fit; that is acceptable for a first pass, but it means the comparison is not a full joint fit.

The image-pairing issue is real, but the authors flag it themselves, so it is a caveat rather than a hidden flaw.

Who should read it: anyone working on substructure lensing or the FDM-vs-CDM debate for this system. It deserves a serious referee; the modeling is clean and the question is timely, but the statistical presentation needs revision before the central claim is fully convincing.

Referee report

Significance

If the central claim can be supported with a proper trial-corrected statistic, the result would be significant: it provides a CDM-only interpretation of a system previously used to motivate FDM and multipole models, and the framework is directly transferable to other quads. The paper uses a standard and transparent lens-modeling pipeline based on lenstronomy, cleanly separates the smooth, single-subhalo, and population models, and explicitly discusses its limitations, including disc effects, multipoles, line-of-sight halos, and the image-association and arrival-order ambiguity. The main gap between the claim and the analysis is that the headline quantitative evidence is the minimum of a very large number of random realizations, with no reported trial-corrected significance or typicality measure.

Major objections (4)

[Section III, Fig. 4] The headline value chi^2 = 1.61 is the minimum over 1000 realizations at each of roughly 41 host-halo masses, i.e., about 41,000 draws, and the fit is then improved to chi^2 = 1.18 by relaxing host-halo parameters. The paper reports only the mean chi^2 (6.82) and the best value; it does not report the distribution of chi^2 or the fraction of realizations with chi^2 <= 1.61. With tens of thousands of draws, the expected minimum can be far below the mean even if typical realizations are poor fits, so the reported improvement is not yet evidence that typical CDM subhalos explain the anomalies. A p-value or posterior predictive check accounting for the number of trials is required; without it the central claim is not supported.
[Section III, refit to chi^2 = 1.18] The paper does not state which parameters are relaxed in the post hoc refit, over what ranges, or how the final chi^2 = 1.18 is obtained, nor does it account for the post-selection refit in any significance statement. Because the same data were used both to select the best realization and to refit, the final statistic is not a predictive goodness-of-fit. The authors should report the full fitting protocol and a trial-corrected assessment, for example how often the same selection-plus-refit procedure reaches chi^2 <= 1.18 under the same model.
[Section IV, image association and arrival order] The paper acknowledges that the association of the eight radio images into two source components and the arrival ordering are adopted from Hartley et al. (2019), and that no time delays have been measured for HS 0810+2554. Since Miller et al. (2025) found that the preferred image pairing and arrival order depend on the assumed lens model, the subhalo fit could be fitting the wrong data configuration. This ambiguity is independent of the subhalo modeling and is load-bearing for the conclusion. The authors should repeat the population scan for the alternative associations and orderings considered in earlier work, or at least show that the claimed improvement is robust to them.
[Section II C and Section III, source parameters in the scan] The subhalo scan is performed with all macro-lens parameters except theta_E/M_host fixed at the smooth-model best fit, and the source parameters (beta_x1, beta_y1, theta_rel) are not re-optimized in the presence of subhalos. Subhalos shift the image positions and thus change the best-fit source position, so fixing the source parameters can bias the comparison. The later 'relaxing host halo parameters' step is not specified in enough detail to reproduce the chi^2 = 1.18 result. Please specify exactly which parameters were varied in the final refit and re-fit the source parameters within the subhalo model.

Minor objections (5)

[Abstract and Section II C] The statement that subhalos below 10^6 M_sun produce shifts 'smaller than the measurement uncertainties' is based on median and mean astrometric offsets in Figure 3; the boxplot shows outliers above the 1 mas threshold, so the claim should be qualified (e.g., 'typically' or 'in median') unless a more robust criterion is used.
[Equation (13)] The astrometric offset A is defined for four images of a single source component, but the text appears to apply it to the population-level analysis without specifying how the two source components are combined; please clarify whether A is computed per source and how the results are aggregated.
[Section II C and Section III] The relation between the EPL Einstein radius theta_E and the host halo mass M_host is not stated; since the scan varies M_host and theta_E together, please provide the conversion used and its justification.
[Figure 4] The axis labels and legend appear garbled in the manuscript version I read; please ensure all labels (e.g., 'Host Halo Mass', 'chi^2', 'mean +/- 1 sigma') render correctly in the final version.
[Section III] The text uses 'average chi^2' and 'minimal chi^2' without always distinguishing between the normalized statistic in Eq. (7) and any unnormalized sum; please use a consistent notation throughout.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

CDM subhalos can explain the eight-image position puzzle of HS 0810+2554.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the milliarcsecond position anomalies of the eight VLBI radio images in HS 0810+2554 can be explained by the subhalo population that cold dark matter already predicts, without invoking fuzzy dark matter or higher-order angular structure in the lens galaxy. It first optimizes a smooth elliptical power-law lens with external shear, which leaves a positional $\chi^2$ of 60.38, and then adds a realization of dark matter subhalos drawn from a cosmologically calibrated mass function and spatial distribution. The best realization fits all eight image positions with $\chi^2=1.61$, while keeping the macro-lens parameters nearly unchanged and the total subhalo mass fraction inside the predicted range. If this is right, HS 0810+2554 is not evidence against CDM but a direct, testable manifestation of its predicted small-scale structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the subhalo population realization: a set of NFW dark matter subhalos sampled from a power-law mass function $dN/dM \propto M^{-1.9}$, normalized to the host halo mass and positioned according to an Einasto radial profile projected onto the lens plane. Each subhalo contributes a projected NFW convergence added to the elliptical power-law (EPL) macro-lens plus external shear, and the combined deflection field is solved numerically to predict the eight image positions. The population's typical astrometric shift defines the detection threshold: below $10^6 M_\odot$ the induced offsets are smaller than the $\sim$1 mas measurement errors, so only more massive subhalos matter for explaining the anomaly.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a cosmologically motivated subhalo population can reproduce the observed octuple radio-image geometry of HS 0810+2554. Subhalos below roughly $10^6\,M_\odot$ produce astrometric shifts below the $\sim$1 mas VLBI uncertainties, so the authors set this as a lower mass threshold; more massive subhalos generate the needed milliarcsecond perturbations without disturbing the global lens configuration. With the smooth EPL-plus-external-shear macro-lens alone, the average positional $\chi^2$ is 60.38, and the best subhalo realization reduces it to 1.61, with a further improvement to 1.18 when the host-halo parameters are relaxed. The inferred subhalo mass fraction remains below about 11 percent, consistent with the simulation range for a Milky-Way-sized host. The authors adopt the eight images as two lensed source components with a specific pairing and arrival order taken from the earlier analysis, and explicitly state that this association is not unique because no time delays have been measured.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the eight radio images are correctly paired into two source components with the arrival order adopted from the earlier analysis; no time delays have been measured and the pairing is not unique, so if the true association is different the fitted subhalo realization is fitting the wrong data configuration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

HS 0810+2554 does not uniquely demand fuzzy dark matter or angular multipoles; standard CDM substructure is sufficient to fit the eight radio image positions.
The subhalo mass fraction needed to erase the anomaly is consistent with the range predicted by cosmological simulations, so the explanation is not an ad hoc adjustment.
Subhalos below about $10^6 M_\odot$ are invisible in this system at current astrometric precision, implying that deeper astrometry would probe the low-mass end of the CDM subhalo mass function.
The same hierarchical modeling sequence, smooth lens then subhalo population, can be applied directly to other multiply imaged lens systems with comparable astrometric precision.
Residual $\chi^2$ values of 1.18 to 1.61 indicate the framework is consistent with the data but also leave room for refinements such as line-of-sight halos or more flexible macro-lenses.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the macro-lens parameters barely move when subhalos are added, the anomalies appear to trace localized small-scale potential fluctuations rather than a global distortion; high-resolution imaging of individual images might localize a perturbing subhalo.
A statistically stronger test would compare the distribution of achievable $\chi^2$ over many subhalo realizations against a no-subhalo model, turning this single-system fit into a likelihood ratio for CDM substructure abundance.
If future time-delay measurements reverse the adopted arrival order, the best realization would need to be re-fit; the flexibility of the population framework suggests an alternative realization would likely fit, making the overall claim robust but the specific best-fit configuration underdetermined.

Original abstract

Self-bounded dark matter (DM) subhalos are predicted to populate galactic halos in great abundance in the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) scenario. These substructures can leave observable imprints in strong gravitational lensing and have shown the ability to account for flux-ratio and position anomalies in multiply imaged systems. In this paper, we utilize the DM subhalos to address the image position anomalies of the two radio quads of HS 0810+2554 observed with the Very Long Baseline Interferometry. We model the lens using an elliptical power-law macro-lens supplemented by a population of CDM subhalos from numerical simulations and perform a dual-source reconstruction to fit all eight radio images simultaneously. We find that subhalos below $10^{6}M_\odot$ induce astrometric shifts smaller than the measurement uncertainties, whereas more massive subhalos naturally generate the required milliarcsecond perturbations without significantly altering the global lens configuration. Including CDM subhalos improves the fit from $\chi^2=60.38$ for the pure macro-lens to $\chi^2=1.61$. Our results show that the position anomalies of HS~0810+2554 can be explained within the CDM framework and do not by themselves necessarily require non-standard scenarios like fuzzy DM or angular complexity in the macro-lens. Instead, they provide a sharp and testable manifestation of the subhalo population predicted by CDM.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 6,503 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.40 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.74 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.88 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Self-bounded dark matter (DM) subhalos are predicted to populate galactic halos in great abundance in the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) scenario. These substructures can leave observable imprints in strong gravitational lensing and have shown the ability to account for flux-ratio and position anomalies in multiply imaged systems. In this paper, we utilize the DM subhalos to address the image position anomalies of the two radio quads of HS 0810+2554 observed with the Very Long Baseline Interferometry. We model the lens using an elliptical power-law macro-lens supplemented by a population of CDM subhalos from numerical simulations and perform a dual-source reconstruction to fit all eight radio images simultaneously. We find that subhalos below $10^{6}M_\odot$ induce astrometric shifts smaller than the measurement uncertainties, whereas more massive subhalos naturally generate the required milliarcsecond perturbations without significantly altering the global lens configuration. Including CDM subhalos improves the fit from $\chi^2=60.38$ for the pure macro-lens to $\chi^2=1.61$. Our results show that the position anomalies of HS~0810+2554 can be explained within the CDM framework and do not by themselves necessarily require non-standard scenarios like fuzzy DM or angular complexity in the macro-lens. Instead, they provide a sharp and testable manifestation of the subhalo population predicted by CDM.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Self-bounded dark matter (DM) subhalos are predicted to populate galactic halos in great abundance in the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) scenario.	background 1.00	0.03	0.02	asserted 0.82
s1	These substructures can leave observable imprints in strong gravitational lensing and have shown the ability to account for flux-ratio and position anomalies in multiply imaged systems.	background 1.00	0.07	0.04	asserted 0.86
s2	In this paper, we utilize the DM subhalos to address the image position anomalies of the two radio quads of HS 0810+2554 observed with the Very Long Baseline Interferometry.	contribution 0.96	0.92	0.04	asserted 0.94
s3	We model the lens using an elliptical power-law macro-lens supplemented by a population of CDM subhalos from numerical simulations and perform a dual-source reconstruction to fit all eight radio images simultaneously.	method 0.99	0.96	0.03	asserted 0.93
s4	We find that subhalos below $10^{6}M_\odot$ induce astrometric shifts smaller than the measurement uncertainties, whereas more massive subhalos naturally generate the required milliarcsecond perturbations without significantly altering the global lens configuration.	result 1.00	0.95	0.13	asserted 1.00
s5	Including CDM subhalos improves the fit from $\chi^2=60.38$ for the pure macro-lens to $\chi^2=1.61$.	result 1.00	0.96	0.12	asserted 1.00
s6	Our results show that the position anomalies of HS~0810+2554 can be explained within the CDM framework and do not by themselves necessarily require non-standard scenarios like fuzzy DM or angular complexity in the macro-lens.	interpretation 0.98	0.87	0.84	asserted 0.96
s7	Instead, they provide a sharp and testable manifestation of the subhalo population predicted by CDM.	interpretation 1.00	0.55	0.20	asserted 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 0.87 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.59.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Projected spatial distribution of CDM subhalos

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The distribution of the positional offset

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Distributions of the

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5. Image-by-image validation of the best-fit model. Each panel provides a mas-scale view of one of the eight lensed images.

Showing 4 of the paper's 5 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:2608.15554 by the authors.

References

Works cited (90)

[1]

G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Particle dark mat- ter: evidence, candidates and constraints, Physics Re- ports405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[2]

R. Massey, T. Kitching, and J. Richard, The dark matter of gravitational lensing, Rept. Prog. Phys.73, 086901 (2010), arXiv:1001.1739 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[3]

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, Dark Matter (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[4]

N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[5]

S. Alamet al.(BOSS), The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sam- ple, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[6]

J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Small-Scale Chal- lenges to the ΛCDM Paradigm, Annu. Rev. Astron. As- trophys.55, 343 (2017), arXiv:1707.04256 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[7]

A. Del Popolo and M. Le Delliou, Small Scale Problems of the ΛCDM Model: A Short Review, Galaxies5, 17 (2017), arXiv:1606.07790 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[8]

B. Moore, S. Ghigna, F. Governato, G. Lake, T. Quinn, J. Stadel, and P. Tozzi, Dark Matter Substructure within Galactic Halos, Astrophys. J. Lett.524, L19 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9907411 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[9]

A. Klypin, A. V. Kravtsov, O. Valenzuela, and F. Prada, Where Are the Missing Galactic Satellites?, Astrophys. J.522, 82 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9901240 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[10]

M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat, Too big to fail? The puzzling darkness of massive Milky Way subhaloes, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.415, L40 (2011), arXiv:1103.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[11]

W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Cold and fuzzy dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1158 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003365

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[12]

H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Cos- mic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Co- herent Dark Wave, Nature Phys.10, 496 (2014), arXiv:1406.6586 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[13]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[14]

L. Hui, Wave Dark Matter, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 59, 247 (2021), arXiv:2101.11735 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[15]

T. Sawala, C. Scannapieco, and S. D. M. White, For- mation of Isolated Dwarf Galaxies with Feedback, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.402, 1599 (2010), arXiv:0902.1754 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[16]

L. V. Sales, A. Wetzel, and A. Fattahi, Baryonic solutions and challenges for cosmological models of dwarf galaxies, Nature Astron.6, 897 (2022), arXiv:2206.05295 [astro- ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[17]

L. Gao, S. D. M. White, A. Jenkins, F. Stoehr, and V. Springel, The Subhalo populations of lambda-CDM dark halos, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.355, 819 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0404589

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[18]

V. Springel, J. Wang, M. Vogelsberger, A. Ludlow, A. Jenkins, A. Helmi, J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, The Aquarius Project: the subhaloes of galactic haloes, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.391, 1685 (2008), arXiv:0809.0898 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[19]

J. Diemand, M. Kuhlen, and P. Madau, Dark Matter Substructure and Gamma-Ray Annihilation in the Milky Way Halo, Astrophys. J.657, 262 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0611370 [astro-ph]

View on Pith arXiv 2007
[20]

H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, T. Broadhurst, and K.- W. Huang, Contrasting Galaxy Formation from Quan- tum Wave Dark Matter,ψDM, with ΛCDM, using Planck and Hubble Data, Astrophys. J.818, 89 (2016), arXiv:1508.04621 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[21]

S. May and V. Springel, Structure formation in large- volume cosmological simulations of fuzzy dark matter: impact of the non-linear dynamics, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.506, 2603 (2021), arXiv:2101.01828 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[22]

V. Irˇ siˇ c, M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, J. S. Bolton, and G. D. Becker, First constraints on fuzzy dark matter from Lyman-αforest data and hydrodynamical simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 031302 (2017), arXiv:1703.04683 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[23]

E. Armengaud, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, D. J. E. Marsh, and J. Baur, Constraining the mass of light bosonic dark matter using SDSS Lyman-αfor- est, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471, 4606 (2017), arXiv:1703.09126 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[24]

J.-W. Hsueh, W. Enzi, S. Vegetti, M. Auger, C. D. Fass- nacht, G. Despali, L. V. E. Koopmans, and J. P. McKean, SHARP – VII. New constraints on the dark matter free- streaming properties and substructure abundance from gravitationally lensed quasars, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.492, 3047 (2020), arXiv:1905.04182 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[25]

S. Vegettiet al., Strong Gravitational Lensing as a Probe of Dark Matter, Space Sci. Rev.220, 58 (2024), arXiv:2306.11781 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[26]

D. Gilmanet al., The free-streaming length of dark mat- ter from JWST observations of 28 strong gravitational lenses, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2606.05277 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[27]

G. Bertone and T. M. P. Tait, A new era in the search for dark matter, Nature (London)562, 51 (2018), arXiv:1810.01668 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[28]

J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, J. Urrutia, and V. Vaskonen, Con- straints on Dark Matter Models from Supermassive Black Hole Evolution, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 131001 (2026), 11 arXiv:2509.06955 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith arXiv 2026
[29]

J. Urrutia, J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, and V. Vaskonen, Starlight from JWST: Implications for star formation and dark matter models, Astron. Astrophys.702, A109 (2025), arXiv:2504.20043 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[30]

S.-d. Mao and P. Schneider, Evidence for substructure in lens galaxies?, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.295, 587 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9707187

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[31]

M. Chiba, Probing dark matter substructure in lens galaxies, Astrophys. J.565, 17 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0109499

View on Pith arXiv 2002
[32]

N. Dalal and C. S. Kochanek, Direct detection of CDM substructure, Astrophys. J.572, 25 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0111456

View on Pith arXiv 2002
[33]

A. Amara, R. B. Metcalf, T. J. Cox, and O. J. P., Sim- ulations of strong gravitational lensing with substruc- ture, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.367, 1367 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0411587

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[34]

L. V. E. Koopmans, Gravitational-mass imaging of CDM substructure, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.363, 1136 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501324

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[35]

R. Li, C. S. Frenk, S. Cole, Q. Wang, and L. Gao, Projection effects in the strong lensing study of sub- haloes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.468, 1426 (2017), arXiv:1612.06227 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[36]

L. Lei, Y.-Y. Wang, Q. Li, J. Dong, Z.-F. Wang, W.-L. Lin, Y.-P. Shu, X.-Y. Cao, D.-N. Yang, and Y.-Z. Fan, A Dense Dark Matter Core of the Subhalo in the Strong Lensing System JVAS B1938+666, Astrophys. J. Lett. 991, L27 (2025), arXiv:2509.07808 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[37]

P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E. E. Falco,Gravitational Lenses(1992)

View on Pith 1992
[38]

T. Treu, Strong Lensing by Galaxies, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.48, 87 (2010), arXiv:1003.5567 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[39]

M. Bartelmann, TOPICAL REVIEW Gravitational lens- ing, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 233001 (2010), arXiv:1010.3829 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[40]

R. B. Metcalf and P. Madau, Compound gravitational lensing as a probe of dark matter substructure within galaxy halos, Astrophys. J.563, 9 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0108224

View on Pith arXiv 2001
[41]

S. Mao, Y.-P. Jing, J. P. Ostriker, and J. Weller, Anoma- lous flux ratios in gravitational lenses: For or against CDM?, Astrophys. J. Lett.604, L5 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0402149

View on Pith arXiv 2004
[42]

D. D. Xu, S. Mao, J. Wang, V. Springel, L. Gao, S. D. M. White, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, G. Li, and J. F. Navarro, Effects of Dark Matter Substructures on Gravitational Lensing: Results from the Aquarius Simulations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.398, 1235 (2009), arXiv:0903.4559 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[43]

D. Xu, D. Sluse, L. Gao, J. Wang, C. Frenk, S. Mao, P. Schneider, and V. Springel, How well can cold-dark- matter substructures account for the observed radio flux- ratio anomalies?, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.447, 3189 (2015), arXiv:1410.3282 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[44]

C. R. Keeton and L. A. Moustakas, A New Channel for Detecting Dark Matter Substructure in Galaxies: Grav- itational Lens Time Delays, Astrophys. J.699, 1720 (2009), arXiv:0805.0309 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[45]

A. B. Congdon, C. R. Keeton, and C. E. Nordgren, Iden- tifying Anomalies in Gravitational Lens Time Delays, Astrophys. J.709, 552 (2010), arXiv:0911.2456 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[46]

K. Liao, X. Ding, M. Biesiada, X.-L. Fan, and Z.-H. Zhu, Anomalies in Time Delays of Lensed Gravitational Waves and Dark Matter Substructures, Astrophys. J.867, 69 (2018), arXiv:1809.07079 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[47]

L. Vujeva, J. M. Ezquiaga, D. Gilman, S. Goyal, and M. Zumalac´ arregui, Dark Matter Subhalos and Higher Order Catastrophes in Gravitational Wave Lensing, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.14953 (2025), arXiv:2510.14953 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[48]

J. Chen, E. Rozo, N. Dalal, and J. E. Taylor, Astromet- ric Perturbations in Substructure Lensing, Astrophys. J. 659, 52 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0606359

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[49]

J. Chen, Parity Dependence in Strong Lens Systems as a Probe of Dark Matter Substructure, Astron. Astrophys. 498, 49 (2009), arXiv:0810.2036 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[50]

A. M. Nierenberg, T. Treu, S. A. Wright, C. D. Fass- nacht, and M. W. Auger, Detection of substructure with adaptive optics integral field spectroscopy of the gravi- tational lens B1422+231, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 442, 2434 (2014), arXiv:1402.1496 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[51]

K. T. Inoue and R. Takahashi, Weak Lensing by Line- of-sight Halos as the Origin of Flux-ratio Anomalies in Quadruply Lensed QSOs, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 426, 2978 (2012), arXiv:1207.2139 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[52]

D. Gilman, Y.-M. Zhong, and J. Bovy, Constrain- ing resonant dark matter self-interactions with strong gravitational lenses, Phys. Rev. D107, 103008 (2023), arXiv:2207.13111 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[53]

K. T. Abe, H. Kawai, and M. Oguri, Analytic ap- proach to astrometric perturbations of critical curves by substructures, Phys. Rev. D109, 083517 (2024), arXiv:2311.18211 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[54]

J. W. Hsueh, C. D. Fassnacht, S. Vegetti, J. P. McKean, C. Spingola, M. W. Auger, L. V. E. Koopmans, and D. J. Lagattuta, SHARP – II. Mass structure in strong lenses is not necessarily dark matter substructure: a flux ratio anomaly from an edge-on disc in B1555+375, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.463, L51 (2016), arXiv:1601.01671 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[55]

J.-W. Hsueh, G. Despali, S. Vegetti, D. Xu, C. D. Fass- nacht, and R. B. Metcalf, Flux-ratio anomalies from discs and other baryonic structures in the Illustris sim- ulation, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475, 2438 (2018), arXiv:1707.07680 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[56]

J. W. Hsueh, L. Oldham, C. Spingola, S. Vegetti, C. D. Fassnacht, M. W. Auger, L. V. E. Koopmans, J. P. McKean, and D. J. Lagattuta, SHARP – IV. An ap- parent flux-ratio anomaly resolved by the edge-on disc in B0712+472, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.469, 3713 (2017), arXiv:1701.06575 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[57]

D. Gilman, A. Agnello, T. Treu, C. R. Keeton, and A. M. Nierenberg, Strong lensing signatures of luminous struc- ture and substructure in early-type galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.467, 3970 (2017), arXiv:1610.08525 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[58]

C. N. Hao, S. Mao, Z. G. Deng, X. Y. Xia, and H. Wu, Isophotal shapes of elliptical/lenticular galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.370, 1339 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0605319 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[59]

M. R. Gomer and L. L. R. Williams, The impact of ΛCDM substructure and baryon-dark matter transition on the image positions of quad galaxy lenses, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.475, 1987 (2018), arXiv:1712.07665 [astro-ph.GA]. 12

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[60]

D. M. Powell, S. Vegetti, J. P. McKean, C. Spingola, H. R. Stacey, and C. D. Fassnacht, A lensed radio jet at milliarcsecond resolution I: Bayesian comparison of para- metric lens models, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.516, 1808 (2022), arXiv:2207.03375 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[61]

H. R. Stacey, D. M. Powell, S. Vegetti, J. P. McK- ean, C. D. Fassnacht, D. Wen, and C. M. O’Riordan, Complex angular structure of three elliptical galaxies from high-resolution ALMA observations of strong grav- itational lenses, Astron. Astrophys.688, A110 (2024), arXiv:2403.04850 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[62]

J. H. H. Chan, H.-Y. Schive, S.-K. Wong, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Multiple Images and Flux Ratio Anomaly of Fuzzy Gravitational Lenses, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 111102 (2020), arXiv:2002.10473 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[63]

S. Hou, S. Xiang, Y.-L. S. Tsai, D. Yang, Y. Shu, N. Li, J. Dong, Z. He, G. Li, and Y. Fan, Flux-ratio anomalies in cusp quasars reveal dark matter beyond CDM, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2601.16818 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith arXiv 2026
[64]

N. Jackson, A. S. Tagore, C. Roberts, D. Sluse, H. Stacey, H. Vives-Arias, O. Wucknitz, and F. Volino, Observa- tions of radio-quiet quasars at 10-mas resolution by use of gravitational lensing, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.454, 287 (2015), arXiv:1508.05842 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[65]

G. Chartas, F. Hamann, M. Eracleous, T. Misawa, M. Cappi, M. Giustini, J. C. Charlton, and M. Marvin, Magnified Views of the Ultrafast Outflow of the z = 1.51 Active Galactic Nucleus HS 0810+2554, Astrophys. J. 783, 57 (2014), arXiv:1401.4486 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[66]

G. Chartas, M. Cappi, F. Hamann, M. Era- cleous, S. Strickland, M. Giustini, and T. Misawa, The Wide-angle Outflow of the Lensed z = 1.51 AGN HS 0810+2554, Astrophys. J.824, 53 (2016), arXiv:1603.05555 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[67]

P. Hartley, N. Jackson, D. Sluse, H. R. Stacey, and H. Vives-Arias, Strong lensing reveals jets in a sub- microJy radio-quiet quasar, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 485, 3009 (2019), arXiv:1901.05791 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[68]

A. Amruth, T. Broadhurst, J. Lim, M. Oguri, G. F. Smoot, J. M. Diego, E. Leung, R. Emami, J. Li, T. Chi- ueh, H.-Y. Schive, M. C. H. Yeung, and S. K. Li, Einstein rings modulated by wavelike dark matter from anomalies in gravitationally lensed images, Nature Astronomy7, 736 (2023), arXiv:2304.09895 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[69]

S.-R. Chen, H.-Y. Schive, and T. Chiueh, Jeans Analy- sis for Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies in Wave Dark Mat- ter, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.468, 1338 (2017), arXiv:1606.09030 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[70]

M. Safarzadeh and D. N. Spergel, Ultra-light Dark Mat- ter is Incompatible with the Milky Way’s Dwarf Satel- lites, Astrophys. J.893, 21 (2020), arXiv:1906.11848 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[71]

N. Dalal and A. Kravtsov, Excluding fuzzy dark mat- ter with sizes and stellar kinematics of ultrafaint dwarf galaxies, Phys. Rev. D106, 063517 (2022), arXiv:2203.05750 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[72]

N. Banik, J. Bovy, G. Bertone, D. Erkal, and T. J. L. de Boer, Novel constraints on the particle nature of dark matter from stellar streams, JCAP10, 043, arXiv:1911.02663 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1911
[73]

E. O. Nadleret al.(DES), Milky Way Satellite Census. III. Constraints on Dark Matter Properties from Obser- vations of Milky Way Satellite Galaxies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 091101 (2021), arXiv:2008.00022 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[74]

K. K. Rogers and H. V. Peiris, Strong Bound on Canon- ical Ultralight Axion Dark Matter from the Lyman- Alpha Forest, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 071302 (2021), arXiv:2007.12705 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[75]

D. M. Powell, S. Vegetti, J. P. McKean, S. D. M. White, E. G. M. Ferreira, S. May, and C. Spingola, A lensed radio jet at milli-arcsecond resolution – II. Con- straints on fuzzy dark matter from an extended gravita- tional arc, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.524, L84 (2023), arXiv:2302.10941 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[76]

J. H. Miller, Jr. and L. L. R. Williams, A fuzzy situa- tion eased: cold dark matter with multipoles can explain the double radio quad lens HS 0810+2554, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.543, 3952 (2025), arXiv:2506.03132 [astro- ph.GA]

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[77]

D. Reimers, H.-J. Hagen, R. Baade, S. Lopez, and D. Tytler, Discovery of a new quadruply lensed QSO: HS 0810+2554 - A brighter twin to PG 1115+080, Astron. Astrophys.382, L26 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[78]

G. Chartas, E. Davidson, M. Brusa, C. Vignali, M. Cappi, M. Dadina, G. Cresci, R. Paladino, G. Lanzuisi, and A. Comastri, Linking the small-scale relativistic winds and the large-scale molecular outflows in the z = 1.51 lensed quasar HS 0810+2554, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.496, 598 (2020), arXiv:2005.13967 [astro- ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[79]

A. M. Nierenberget al., Double dark matter vision: twice the number of compact-source lenses with narrow-line lensing and the WFC3 grism, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.492, 5314 (2020), arXiv:1908.06344 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[80]

N. Tessore and R. B. Metcalf, The elliptical power law profile lens, Astron. Astrophys.580, A79 (2015), arXiv:1507.01819 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[81]

S. Birrer and A. Amara, lenstronomy: Multi-purpose gravitational lens modelling software package, Physics of the Dark Universe22, 189 (2018), arXiv:1803.09746 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[82]

J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, The Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos, Astrophys. J.462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[83]

G. Golse and J.-P. Kneib, Pseudo elliptical lensing mass model: Application to the NFW mass distribu- tion, Astron. Astrophys.390, 821 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0112138 [astro-ph]

View on Pith arXiv 2002
[84]

S. Vegetti, L. V. E. Koopmans, M. W. Auger, T. Treu, and A. S. Bolton, Inference of the cold dark matter sub- structure mass function at z = 0.2 using strong gravita- tional lenses, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.442, 2017 (2014), arXiv:1405.3666 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[85]

F. Jiang and F. C. van den Bosch, Statistics of dark matter substructure – III. Halo-to-halo variance, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.472, 657 (2017), arXiv:1610.02399 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[86]

J. Wang, S. Bose, C. S. Frenk, L. Gao, A. Jenkins, V. Springel, and S. D. M. White, Universal structure of dark matter haloes over a mass range of 20 or- ders of magnitude, Nature (London)585, 39 (2020), arXiv:1911.09720 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith arXiv 2020
[87]

J. Chen, A. V. Kravtsov, and C. R. Keeton, Lensing opti- cal depth for substructure and isolated dark matter halos, Astrophys. J.592, 24 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302005

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[88]

R. B. Metcalf, The Importance of intergalactic structure to gravitationally lensed quasars, Astrophys. J.629, 673 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0412538. 13

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[89]

D. D. Xu, S. Mao, A. Cooper, L. Gao, C. Frenk, R. An- gulo, and J. Helly, On the Effects of Line-of-Sight Struc- tures on Lensing Flux-ratio Anomalies in a LCDM Uni- verse, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.421, 2553 (2012), arXiv:1110.1185 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[90]

Y. D. Hezaveh, L. Perreault Levasseur, and P. J. Mar- shall, Fast Automated Analysis of Strong Gravitational Lenses with Convolutional Neural Networks, Nature548, 555 (2017), arXiv:1708.08842 [astro-ph.IM]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

How the literature uses it

What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

What it cites · 77 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 5 papers

We first construct a smooth Elliptical Power-Law (EPL) lens model and subsequently investigate the influence of both an individual Navarro–Frenk–White (NFW) subhalo and a cosmologically motivated subhalo population generated according to the Aquarius simulations [ref] .

The Aquarius Project: the subhalos of galactic halos · Introduction · 0.82
Therefore, instead of explicitly solving Eq. ([ref]), we can compute the deflection field using the semi-analytic formalism developed in [ref] , which directly evaluates the EPL deflection angles from the projected surface mass distribution.

The elliptical power law profile lens · Theoretical Framework for Lens Modeling · 0.98
Each generated subhalo is modeled by a NFW density profile [ref] , [equation] where $r_s,i$ and $ρ_s,i$ denote the scale radius and characteristic density that are directly related to the mass $M_i$ of the $i$th subhalo, respectively.

The Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos · Implementation of the Subhalo Population · 0.90

Uses data or values from 1 paper

For the Aq-D-2 halo in the simulations with Level-2 numerical resolution, Springel et al. [ref] obtained a normalization of $a_0,Aq=3.259×10^-5 M_⊙^-1$ and $m_0=2.519×10^7 M_⊙$ corresponding to a host halo mass of $M_Aq=1.774×10^12 M_⊙$.

The Aquarius Project: the subhalos of galactic halos · Implementation of the Subhalo Population · 1.00

Compares with 1 paper

The best-fit Einstein radius is $θ_E=0.4742”$ and the corresponding host halo mass is $M_host= 1.785×10^12 M_⊙$, consistent with the values reported in [ref] .

2506.03132 · Theoretical Framework for Lens Modeling · 0.93

Cites as support 2 papers

This choice preserves the dominant astrometric contribution from DM substructure while avoiding the inclusion of a large number of computationally expensive perturbers whose effects remain observationally negligible [ref] .

Inference of the Cold Dark Matter substructure mass function at z=0.2 using strong gravitational lenses · Implementation of the Subhalo Population · 0.99
This choice preserves the dominant astrometric contribution from DM substructure while avoiding the inclusion of a large number of computationally expensive perturbers whose effects remain observationally negligible [ref] .

Direct Detection of CDM Substructure · Implementation of the Subhalo Population · 0.99

Cites as background 28 papers

The standard Cold Dark Matter (CDM) paradigm has achieved remarkable success in the large-scale structure of the Universe [ref] , while the discrepancies on subgalactic scales [ref] motivate the Fuzzy Dark Matter (FDM) model, an ultralight bosonic particle with a mass of $10^-22$ eV and a de Broglie wave length of order 1 kpc on galactic scales [ref] .

Too big to fail? The puzzling darkness of massive Milky Way subhaloes · Introduction · 0.84
The standard Cold Dark Matter (CDM) paradigm has achieved remarkable success in the large-scale structure of the Universe [ref] , while the discrepancies on subgalactic scales [ref] motivate the Fuzzy Dark Matter (FDM) model, an ultralight bosonic particle with a mass of $10^-22$ eV and a de Broglie wave length of order 1 kpc on galactic scales [ref] .

Cosmic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Coherent Dark Wave · Introduction · 0.84
The standard Cold Dark Matter (CDM) paradigm has achieved remarkable success in the large-scale structure of the Universe [ref] , while the discrepancies on subgalactic scales [ref] motivate the Fuzzy Dark Matter (FDM) model, an ultralight bosonic particle with a mass of $10^-22$ eV and a de Broglie wave length of order 1 kpc on galactic scales [ref] .

The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample · Introduction · 0.84

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Particle dark mat- ter: evidence, candidates and constraints, Physics Re- ports405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[2] [2]

R. Massey, T. Kitching, and J. Richard, The dark matter of gravitational lensing, Rept. Prog. Phys.73, 086901 (2010), arXiv:1001.1739 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[3] [3]

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, Dark Matter (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[5] [5]

S. Alamet al.(BOSS), The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sam- ple, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[6] [6]

J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Small-Scale Chal- lenges to the ΛCDM Paradigm, Annu. Rev. Astron. As- trophys.55, 343 (2017), arXiv:1707.04256 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[7] [7]

A. Del Popolo and M. Le Delliou, Small Scale Problems of the ΛCDM Model: A Short Review, Galaxies5, 17 (2017), arXiv:1606.07790 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[8] [8]

B. Moore, S. Ghigna, F. Governato, G. Lake, T. Quinn, J. Stadel, and P. Tozzi, Dark Matter Substructure within Galactic Halos, Astrophys. J. Lett.524, L19 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9907411 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[9] [9]

A. Klypin, A. V. Kravtsov, O. Valenzuela, and F. Prada, Where Are the Missing Galactic Satellites?, Astrophys. J.522, 82 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9901240 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[10] [10]

M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat, Too big to fail? The puzzling darkness of massive Milky Way subhaloes, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.415, L40 (2011), arXiv:1103.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[11] [11]

W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Cold and fuzzy dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1158 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003365

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[12] [12]

H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Cos- mic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Co- herent Dark Wave, Nature Phys.10, 496 (2014), arXiv:1406.6586 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[13] [13]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[14] [14]

L. Hui, Wave Dark Matter, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 59, 247 (2021), arXiv:2101.11735 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[15] [15]

T. Sawala, C. Scannapieco, and S. D. M. White, For- mation of Isolated Dwarf Galaxies with Feedback, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.402, 1599 (2010), arXiv:0902.1754 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[16] [16]

L. V. Sales, A. Wetzel, and A. Fattahi, Baryonic solutions and challenges for cosmological models of dwarf galaxies, Nature Astron.6, 897 (2022), arXiv:2206.05295 [astro- ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[17] [17]

L. Gao, S. D. M. White, A. Jenkins, F. Stoehr, and V. Springel, The Subhalo populations of lambda-CDM dark halos, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.355, 819 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0404589

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[18] [18]

V. Springel, J. Wang, M. Vogelsberger, A. Ludlow, A. Jenkins, A. Helmi, J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, The Aquarius Project: the subhaloes of galactic haloes, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.391, 1685 (2008), arXiv:0809.0898 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[19] [19]

J. Diemand, M. Kuhlen, and P. Madau, Dark Matter Substructure and Gamma-Ray Annihilation in the Milky Way Halo, Astrophys. J.657, 262 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0611370 [astro-ph]

View on Pith arXiv 2007

[20] [20]

H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, T. Broadhurst, and K.- W. Huang, Contrasting Galaxy Formation from Quan- tum Wave Dark Matter,ψDM, with ΛCDM, using Planck and Hubble Data, Astrophys. J.818, 89 (2016), arXiv:1508.04621 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[21] [21]

S. May and V. Springel, Structure formation in large- volume cosmological simulations of fuzzy dark matter: impact of the non-linear dynamics, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.506, 2603 (2021), arXiv:2101.01828 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[22] [22]

V. Irˇ siˇ c, M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, J. S. Bolton, and G. D. Becker, First constraints on fuzzy dark matter from Lyman-αforest data and hydrodynamical simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 031302 (2017), arXiv:1703.04683 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[23] [23]

E. Armengaud, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, D. J. E. Marsh, and J. Baur, Constraining the mass of light bosonic dark matter using SDSS Lyman-αfor- est, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471, 4606 (2017), arXiv:1703.09126 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[24] [24]

J.-W. Hsueh, W. Enzi, S. Vegetti, M. Auger, C. D. Fass- nacht, G. Despali, L. V. E. Koopmans, and J. P. McKean, SHARP – VII. New constraints on the dark matter free- streaming properties and substructure abundance from gravitationally lensed quasars, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.492, 3047 (2020), arXiv:1905.04182 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[25] [25]

S. Vegettiet al., Strong Gravitational Lensing as a Probe of Dark Matter, Space Sci. Rev.220, 58 (2024), arXiv:2306.11781 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[26] [26]

D. Gilmanet al., The free-streaming length of dark mat- ter from JWST observations of 28 strong gravitational lenses, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2606.05277 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[27] [27]

G. Bertone and T. M. P. Tait, A new era in the search for dark matter, Nature (London)562, 51 (2018), arXiv:1810.01668 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[28] [28]

J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, J. Urrutia, and V. Vaskonen, Con- straints on Dark Matter Models from Supermassive Black Hole Evolution, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 131001 (2026), 11 arXiv:2509.06955 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith arXiv 2026

[29] [29]

J. Urrutia, J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, and V. Vaskonen, Starlight from JWST: Implications for star formation and dark matter models, Astron. Astrophys.702, A109 (2025), arXiv:2504.20043 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[30] [30]

S.-d. Mao and P. Schneider, Evidence for substructure in lens galaxies?, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.295, 587 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9707187

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[31] [31]

M. Chiba, Probing dark matter substructure in lens galaxies, Astrophys. J.565, 17 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0109499

View on Pith arXiv 2002

[32] [32]

N. Dalal and C. S. Kochanek, Direct detection of CDM substructure, Astrophys. J.572, 25 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0111456

View on Pith arXiv 2002

[33] [33]

A. Amara, R. B. Metcalf, T. J. Cox, and O. J. P., Sim- ulations of strong gravitational lensing with substruc- ture, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.367, 1367 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0411587

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[34] [34]

L. V. E. Koopmans, Gravitational-mass imaging of CDM substructure, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.363, 1136 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501324

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[35] [35]

R. Li, C. S. Frenk, S. Cole, Q. Wang, and L. Gao, Projection effects in the strong lensing study of sub- haloes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.468, 1426 (2017), arXiv:1612.06227 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[36] [36]

L. Lei, Y.-Y. Wang, Q. Li, J. Dong, Z.-F. Wang, W.-L. Lin, Y.-P. Shu, X.-Y. Cao, D.-N. Yang, and Y.-Z. Fan, A Dense Dark Matter Core of the Subhalo in the Strong Lensing System JVAS B1938+666, Astrophys. J. Lett. 991, L27 (2025), arXiv:2509.07808 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[37] [37]

P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E. E. Falco,Gravitational Lenses(1992)

View on Pith 1992

[38] [38]

T. Treu, Strong Lensing by Galaxies, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.48, 87 (2010), arXiv:1003.5567 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[39] [39]

M. Bartelmann, TOPICAL REVIEW Gravitational lens- ing, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 233001 (2010), arXiv:1010.3829 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[40] [40]

R. B. Metcalf and P. Madau, Compound gravitational lensing as a probe of dark matter substructure within galaxy halos, Astrophys. J.563, 9 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0108224

View on Pith arXiv 2001

[41] [41]

S. Mao, Y.-P. Jing, J. P. Ostriker, and J. Weller, Anoma- lous flux ratios in gravitational lenses: For or against CDM?, Astrophys. J. Lett.604, L5 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0402149

View on Pith arXiv 2004

[42] [42]

D. D. Xu, S. Mao, J. Wang, V. Springel, L. Gao, S. D. M. White, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, G. Li, and J. F. Navarro, Effects of Dark Matter Substructures on Gravitational Lensing: Results from the Aquarius Simulations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.398, 1235 (2009), arXiv:0903.4559 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[43] [43]

D. Xu, D. Sluse, L. Gao, J. Wang, C. Frenk, S. Mao, P. Schneider, and V. Springel, How well can cold-dark- matter substructures account for the observed radio flux- ratio anomalies?, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.447, 3189 (2015), arXiv:1410.3282 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[44] [44]

C. R. Keeton and L. A. Moustakas, A New Channel for Detecting Dark Matter Substructure in Galaxies: Grav- itational Lens Time Delays, Astrophys. J.699, 1720 (2009), arXiv:0805.0309 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[45] [45]

A. B. Congdon, C. R. Keeton, and C. E. Nordgren, Iden- tifying Anomalies in Gravitational Lens Time Delays, Astrophys. J.709, 552 (2010), arXiv:0911.2456 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[46] [46]

K. Liao, X. Ding, M. Biesiada, X.-L. Fan, and Z.-H. Zhu, Anomalies in Time Delays of Lensed Gravitational Waves and Dark Matter Substructures, Astrophys. J.867, 69 (2018), arXiv:1809.07079 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[47] [47]

L. Vujeva, J. M. Ezquiaga, D. Gilman, S. Goyal, and M. Zumalac´ arregui, Dark Matter Subhalos and Higher Order Catastrophes in Gravitational Wave Lensing, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.14953 (2025), arXiv:2510.14953 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[48] [48]

J. Chen, E. Rozo, N. Dalal, and J. E. Taylor, Astromet- ric Perturbations in Substructure Lensing, Astrophys. J. 659, 52 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0606359

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[49] [49]

J. Chen, Parity Dependence in Strong Lens Systems as a Probe of Dark Matter Substructure, Astron. Astrophys. 498, 49 (2009), arXiv:0810.2036 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[50] [50]

A. M. Nierenberg, T. Treu, S. A. Wright, C. D. Fass- nacht, and M. W. Auger, Detection of substructure with adaptive optics integral field spectroscopy of the gravi- tational lens B1422+231, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 442, 2434 (2014), arXiv:1402.1496 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[51] [51]

K. T. Inoue and R. Takahashi, Weak Lensing by Line- of-sight Halos as the Origin of Flux-ratio Anomalies in Quadruply Lensed QSOs, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 426, 2978 (2012), arXiv:1207.2139 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[52] [52]

D. Gilman, Y.-M. Zhong, and J. Bovy, Constrain- ing resonant dark matter self-interactions with strong gravitational lenses, Phys. Rev. D107, 103008 (2023), arXiv:2207.13111 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[53] [53]

K. T. Abe, H. Kawai, and M. Oguri, Analytic ap- proach to astrometric perturbations of critical curves by substructures, Phys. Rev. D109, 083517 (2024), arXiv:2311.18211 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[54] [54]

J. W. Hsueh, C. D. Fassnacht, S. Vegetti, J. P. McKean, C. Spingola, M. W. Auger, L. V. E. Koopmans, and D. J. Lagattuta, SHARP – II. Mass structure in strong lenses is not necessarily dark matter substructure: a flux ratio anomaly from an edge-on disc in B1555+375, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.463, L51 (2016), arXiv:1601.01671 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[55] [55]

J.-W. Hsueh, G. Despali, S. Vegetti, D. Xu, C. D. Fass- nacht, and R. B. Metcalf, Flux-ratio anomalies from discs and other baryonic structures in the Illustris sim- ulation, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475, 2438 (2018), arXiv:1707.07680 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[56] [56]

J. W. Hsueh, L. Oldham, C. Spingola, S. Vegetti, C. D. Fassnacht, M. W. Auger, L. V. E. Koopmans, J. P. McKean, and D. J. Lagattuta, SHARP – IV. An ap- parent flux-ratio anomaly resolved by the edge-on disc in B0712+472, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.469, 3713 (2017), arXiv:1701.06575 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[57] [57]

D. Gilman, A. Agnello, T. Treu, C. R. Keeton, and A. M. Nierenberg, Strong lensing signatures of luminous struc- ture and substructure in early-type galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.467, 3970 (2017), arXiv:1610.08525 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[58] [58]

C. N. Hao, S. Mao, Z. G. Deng, X. Y. Xia, and H. Wu, Isophotal shapes of elliptical/lenticular galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.370, 1339 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0605319 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[59] [59]

M. R. Gomer and L. L. R. Williams, The impact of ΛCDM substructure and baryon-dark matter transition on the image positions of quad galaxy lenses, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.475, 1987 (2018), arXiv:1712.07665 [astro-ph.GA]. 12

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[60] [60]

D. M. Powell, S. Vegetti, J. P. McKean, C. Spingola, H. R. Stacey, and C. D. Fassnacht, A lensed radio jet at milliarcsecond resolution I: Bayesian comparison of para- metric lens models, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.516, 1808 (2022), arXiv:2207.03375 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[61] [61]

H. R. Stacey, D. M. Powell, S. Vegetti, J. P. McK- ean, C. D. Fassnacht, D. Wen, and C. M. O’Riordan, Complex angular structure of three elliptical galaxies from high-resolution ALMA observations of strong grav- itational lenses, Astron. Astrophys.688, A110 (2024), arXiv:2403.04850 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[62] [62]

J. H. H. Chan, H.-Y. Schive, S.-K. Wong, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Multiple Images and Flux Ratio Anomaly of Fuzzy Gravitational Lenses, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 111102 (2020), arXiv:2002.10473 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[63] [63]

S. Hou, S. Xiang, Y.-L. S. Tsai, D. Yang, Y. Shu, N. Li, J. Dong, Z. He, G. Li, and Y. Fan, Flux-ratio anomalies in cusp quasars reveal dark matter beyond CDM, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2601.16818 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith arXiv 2026

[64] [64]

N. Jackson, A. S. Tagore, C. Roberts, D. Sluse, H. Stacey, H. Vives-Arias, O. Wucknitz, and F. Volino, Observa- tions of radio-quiet quasars at 10-mas resolution by use of gravitational lensing, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.454, 287 (2015), arXiv:1508.05842 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[65] [65]

G. Chartas, F. Hamann, M. Eracleous, T. Misawa, M. Cappi, M. Giustini, J. C. Charlton, and M. Marvin, Magnified Views of the Ultrafast Outflow of the z = 1.51 Active Galactic Nucleus HS 0810+2554, Astrophys. J. 783, 57 (2014), arXiv:1401.4486 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[66] [66]

G. Chartas, M. Cappi, F. Hamann, M. Era- cleous, S. Strickland, M. Giustini, and T. Misawa, The Wide-angle Outflow of the Lensed z = 1.51 AGN HS 0810+2554, Astrophys. J.824, 53 (2016), arXiv:1603.05555 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[67] [67]

P. Hartley, N. Jackson, D. Sluse, H. R. Stacey, and H. Vives-Arias, Strong lensing reveals jets in a sub- microJy radio-quiet quasar, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 485, 3009 (2019), arXiv:1901.05791 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[68] [68]

A. Amruth, T. Broadhurst, J. Lim, M. Oguri, G. F. Smoot, J. M. Diego, E. Leung, R. Emami, J. Li, T. Chi- ueh, H.-Y. Schive, M. C. H. Yeung, and S. K. Li, Einstein rings modulated by wavelike dark matter from anomalies in gravitationally lensed images, Nature Astronomy7, 736 (2023), arXiv:2304.09895 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[69] [69]

S.-R. Chen, H.-Y. Schive, and T. Chiueh, Jeans Analy- sis for Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies in Wave Dark Mat- ter, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.468, 1338 (2017), arXiv:1606.09030 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[70] [70]

M. Safarzadeh and D. N. Spergel, Ultra-light Dark Mat- ter is Incompatible with the Milky Way’s Dwarf Satel- lites, Astrophys. J.893, 21 (2020), arXiv:1906.11848 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[71] [71]

N. Dalal and A. Kravtsov, Excluding fuzzy dark mat- ter with sizes and stellar kinematics of ultrafaint dwarf galaxies, Phys. Rev. D106, 063517 (2022), arXiv:2203.05750 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[72] [72]

N. Banik, J. Bovy, G. Bertone, D. Erkal, and T. J. L. de Boer, Novel constraints on the particle nature of dark matter from stellar streams, JCAP10, 043, arXiv:1911.02663 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1911

[73] [73]

E. O. Nadleret al.(DES), Milky Way Satellite Census. III. Constraints on Dark Matter Properties from Obser- vations of Milky Way Satellite Galaxies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 091101 (2021), arXiv:2008.00022 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[74] [74]

K. K. Rogers and H. V. Peiris, Strong Bound on Canon- ical Ultralight Axion Dark Matter from the Lyman- Alpha Forest, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 071302 (2021), arXiv:2007.12705 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[75] [75]

D. M. Powell, S. Vegetti, J. P. McKean, S. D. M. White, E. G. M. Ferreira, S. May, and C. Spingola, A lensed radio jet at milli-arcsecond resolution – II. Con- straints on fuzzy dark matter from an extended gravita- tional arc, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.524, L84 (2023), arXiv:2302.10941 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[76] [76]

J. H. Miller, Jr. and L. L. R. Williams, A fuzzy situa- tion eased: cold dark matter with multipoles can explain the double radio quad lens HS 0810+2554, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.543, 3952 (2025), arXiv:2506.03132 [astro- ph.GA]

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[77] [77]

D. Reimers, H.-J. Hagen, R. Baade, S. Lopez, and D. Tytler, Discovery of a new quadruply lensed QSO: HS 0810+2554 - A brighter twin to PG 1115+080, Astron. Astrophys.382, L26 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[78] [78]

G. Chartas, E. Davidson, M. Brusa, C. Vignali, M. Cappi, M. Dadina, G. Cresci, R. Paladino, G. Lanzuisi, and A. Comastri, Linking the small-scale relativistic winds and the large-scale molecular outflows in the z = 1.51 lensed quasar HS 0810+2554, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.496, 598 (2020), arXiv:2005.13967 [astro- ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[79] [79]

A. M. Nierenberget al., Double dark matter vision: twice the number of compact-source lenses with narrow-line lensing and the WFC3 grism, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.492, 5314 (2020), arXiv:1908.06344 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[80] [80]

N. Tessore and R. B. Metcalf, The elliptical power law profile lens, Astron. Astrophys.580, A79 (2015), arXiv:1507.01819 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[81] [81]

S. Birrer and A. Amara, lenstronomy: Multi-purpose gravitational lens modelling software package, Physics of the Dark Universe22, 189 (2018), arXiv:1803.09746 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[82] [82]

J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, The Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos, Astrophys. J.462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[83] [83]

G. Golse and J.-P. Kneib, Pseudo elliptical lensing mass model: Application to the NFW mass distribu- tion, Astron. Astrophys.390, 821 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0112138 [astro-ph]

View on Pith arXiv 2002

[84] [84]

S. Vegetti, L. V. E. Koopmans, M. W. Auger, T. Treu, and A. S. Bolton, Inference of the cold dark matter sub- structure mass function at z = 0.2 using strong gravita- tional lenses, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.442, 2017 (2014), arXiv:1405.3666 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[85] [85]

F. Jiang and F. C. van den Bosch, Statistics of dark matter substructure – III. Halo-to-halo variance, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.472, 657 (2017), arXiv:1610.02399 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[86] [86]

J. Wang, S. Bose, C. S. Frenk, L. Gao, A. Jenkins, V. Springel, and S. D. M. White, Universal structure of dark matter haloes over a mass range of 20 or- ders of magnitude, Nature (London)585, 39 (2020), arXiv:1911.09720 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith arXiv 2020

[87] [87]

J. Chen, A. V. Kravtsov, and C. R. Keeton, Lensing opti- cal depth for substructure and isolated dark matter halos, Astrophys. J.592, 24 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302005

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[88] [88]

R. B. Metcalf, The Importance of intergalactic structure to gravitationally lensed quasars, Astrophys. J.629, 673 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0412538. 13

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[89] [89]

D. D. Xu, S. Mao, A. Cooper, L. Gao, C. Frenk, R. An- gulo, and J. Helly, On the Effects of Line-of-Sight Struc- tures on Lensing Flux-ratio Anomalies in a LCDM Uni- verse, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.421, 2553 (2012), arXiv:1110.1185 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[90] [90]

Y. D. Hezaveh, L. Perreault Levasseur, and P. J. Mar- shall, Fast Automated Analysis of Strong Gravitational Lenses with Convolutional Neural Networks, Nature548, 555 (2017), arXiv:1708.08842 [astro-ph.IM]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017