Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 8 cited by

The overconcentrated dark halo in the strong lens SDSS J0946+1006 is a subhalo: evidence for self interacting dark matter?

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The dark perturber in J0946+1006 is a subhalo at the lens redshift with a density slope of -1.81, a more than 5 sigma outlier from cold-dark-matter predictions that points toward self-interacting dark matter.

desk verdict A careful re-analysis that credibly constrains the perturber redshift in J0946+1006, but the SIDM steep-slope claim leans on parametric choices the current data may not be able to test. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08565 v1 pith:3VD2JPW4 submitted 2024-11-13 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Wolfgang J. R. Enzi , Coleman M. Krawczyk , Daniel J. Ballard , Thomas E. Collett This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords stronggravitationallensingdarkmattersubstructureself-interactinggravothermalcollapsesubhaloSDSSJ0946+1006multipoleperturbationsBayesianinference
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

This paper asks where the known dark structure in the strong lens J0946+1006 really sits and what its mass profile implies for dark matter. By letting the perturber's redshift be a free parameter and modelling the first two source planes together with multipole perturbations of the main galaxy, the authors find that the perturber is a subhalo at $z_{\rm halo}=0.207^{+0.019}_{-0.019}$, rather than a line-of-sight halo. With the second source included, the inferred subhalo has an average projected density slope $\gamma_{\rm 2D}=-1.81^{+0.15}_{-0.11}$ between 0.75 and 1.25\,kpc and is a more than $5\sigma$ outlier from the $\Lambda$CDM $v_{\rm max}$--$r_{\rm max}$ relation. Because gravothermally collapsed self-interacting dark matter haloes are expected to have $\gamma_{\rm 2D}\approx -2$, the paper presents this steep subhalo as evidence that dark matter may self-interact.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is compound lensing with two source planes and a free-redshift truncated NFW perturber, coupled to multipole perturbations of the main deflector. The recursive multi-plane lens equation propagates image positions through the redshift planes, with the family-ratio factors setting how strongly the perturber deflects each source; this is what lets the redshift of a dark, lightless halo be constrained from its lensing effect alone. The second source plane does the decisive work: because its arcs probe the mass distribution at larger radii, it breaks the degeneracy between the mass, scale radius, and slope of the subhalo and the amplitudes of the multipole perturbations, particularly the first-order lopsided term. The comparison benchmarks are the $\Lambda$CDM $v_{\rm max}$--$r_{\rm max}$ relation from cosmological simulations and the $\gamma_{\rm 2D}\approx -2$ prediction for SIDM gravothermal collapse.

What would settle it

Re-fit the same HST image allowing additional multipole orders (for example $n=2,5,6$) or a non-parametric perturber profile; if the posterior on the projected slope $\gamma_{\rm 2D}$ moves to within about $2\sigma$ of $-1$, or the $v_{\rm max}$--$r_{\rm max}$ tension drops below $5\sigma$, the claimed evidence for a collapsing SIDM subhalo is falsified. Higher-resolution imaging that resolves scales below the current PSF and recovers a slope near $-1$ would directly contradict the steep-profile claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the compact dark mass perturbing J0946+1006 is a genuine subhalo of the main lens galaxy, not a line-of-sight structure, and that once modelling degeneracies are broken it is far too concentrated and steep for a cold dark matter halo. The posterior redshift is $z_{\rm halo}=0.207^{+0.019}_{-0.019}$, consistent with the main deflector at $z_{\rm main}=0.222$, and the evidence ratio corresponds to roughly a 1-in-1000 chance that the perturber is a field halo. Including the second source does not tighten the redshift, but it breaks the degeneracy between the halo parameters and the lopsided first-order multipole of the main galaxy: the single-source model allows a slope $\gamma_{\rm 2D}\approx -1.0$ that is compatible with CDM, while the two-source model gives $\gamma_{\rm 2D}=-1.81^{+0.15}_{-0.11}$. The subhalo's maximum circular velocity and radius, $v_{\rm max}=87.85^{+16.86}_{-9.81}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ and $r_{\rm max}=0.28^{+0.27}_{-0.16}\,\mathrm{kpc}$, place it more than $5\sigma$ from the $\Lambda$CDM relation, and even as a field halo it would be an approximately $4\sigma$ outlier in mass--concentration. The steep slope is close to the $\gamma_{\rm 2D}\approx -2$ signature of gravothermally collapsed SIDM haloes, so the paper concludes that self-interacting dark matter may explain the anomaly, while noting the current HST data cannot make this conclusive.

Load-bearing premise

The main galaxy's mass distribution is assumed to be exactly the chosen smooth power law plus shear plus multipole orders 1, 3 and 4, with the second source breaking the degeneracy completely; if the galaxy has additional angular structure that this model cannot absorb, the inferred steep subhalo could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The system becomes one of the very few dark-matter-only subhaloes detected in strong lensing, making it a single-object benchmark for subgalactic dark matter models.
  • A more than $5\sigma$ outlier in the $v_{\rm max}$--$r_{\rm max}$ plane means this subhalo is very rare in $\Lambda$CDM; if such outliers are common, Euclid's large lens sample will reveal it.
  • A slope near $-2$ is the expected signature of gravothermal collapse, so the result supports self-interacting dark matter over cold dark matter on subgalactic scales.
  • The single-source-only reconstruction, which looks CDM-compatible, is shown to be an artifact of multipole degeneracy, establishing that future substructure searches should include all available source planes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this subhalo is really collapsed, a single strong-lens system may serve as the first direct astrophysical calibration point for the SIDM cross section and for gravothermal collapse timescales.
  • A natural test is to look for similarly steep, compact subhaloes in other compound lens systems and compare their abundance with SIDM-collapse and CDM predictions.
  • Before settling on SIDM, the same data should be re-fit with higher-order multipoles and a more flexible perturber profile, since baryonic contraction or an insufficiently flexible host model could mimic a steep dark slope.
  • The free-redshift technique could be generalised to map dark matter along the line of sight rather than only in the lens plane, turning multi-plane lenses into tomographic probes of halo location.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. Enzi et al. model the double source plane lens J0946+1006 with a compound-lensing forward model, fitting jointly the main deflector (EPL plus external shear plus n = 1, 3, 4 multipoles), a truncated NFW dark perturber with free redshift, a Gaussian-component lens light model, and pixelated GP-regularized sources. With both sources they infer z_halo = 0.207 +/- 0.019, consistent with the main deflector at z = 0.222; an approximate ELBO-based comparison prefers a subhalo over a line-of-sight halo; and they derive vmax = 87.85 km/s, rmax = 0.28 kpc, and a projected slope gamma_2D = -1.81 at 0.75-1.25 kpc, which they interpret as a more than 5-sigma outlier from LambdaCDM expectations and as possible evidence for gravothermal collapse in self-interacting dark matter. The S1-only model yields a shallower gamma_2D = -1.00, which the authors attribute to a degeneracy between the M1 multipole and subhalo mass that the second source breaks.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides one of the first constraints on the redshift of a strong-lens dark perturber, and a rare measurement of an ultra-concentrated sub-kpc dark halo whose properties are in tension with LambdaCDM and consistent with SIDM gravothermal collapse; this would be an important step for the field. The analysis has notable strengths: it is fully forward-modeling, the priors for all parameters are tabulated, the pipeline is built on the public Herculens code, and the authors report their main caveats explicitly (ELBO-based model comparison, skewed posteriors, ignored drizzled noise, and one excluded chain). I do not see internal circularity: vmax, rmax, gamma_2D, and M2D are post-processing of the fitted tNFW parameters, and comparing them with external simulation relations is standard practice. The credibility of the SIDM interpretation, however, is limited by the untested completeness of the multipole expansion and by the assumed profile family.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2 and §4.2] The subhalo-versus-field-halo model comparison in Section 5.2 is based on an ELBO ratio, and the abstract states that 'lower bounds on the evidence strongly prefer a subhalo over a line-of-sight structure.' Because the ELBO is a separate lower bound on each model's log evidence, the difference between two ELBOs is not itself a lower bound on the log Bayes factor, so the quoted preference (log alpha_Bayes about 7; a 1-in-1000 chance of a field halo) is an uncalibrated approximation rather than a rigorous bound. Please compute a proper evidence (e.g., nested sampling or thermodynamic integration), or explicitly re-label the result as an indicative estimate and soften the abstract and conclusion language accordingly.
  2. [§5.2, §3.3.2, §3.3.3] The headline results (gamma_2D = -1.81 and the more than 5-sigma vmax-rmax outlier) depend on the assumptions that the main deflector's complexity is fully described by the n = {1,3,4} multipoles of Eq. (7) with the EPL radial scaling, and that the perturber is a spherical truncated NFW profile of Eq. (10). The paper convincingly shows that the second source breaks the specific M1 degeneracy (A_M1 drops from 0.18 to 0.036 and gamma_2D changes from -1.00 to -1.81), but it does not test whether higher-order multipoles (n >= 5) or multipoles with a different radial scaling can mimic the localized small-r_s perturbation, nor whether an alternative profile shape would yield a different slope. Since log10 r_s = -1.42 (about 0.09 kpc) is below the HST PSF FWHM, the measured steep slope at 0.75-1.25 kpc is largely an extrapolation of the assumed tNFW shape. I recommend adding an explicit robustness test (for example, including n = 5 and 6 multipoles, freeing the multipole radial scaling, or fitting a profile with a free inner slope) before presenting the SIDM gravothermal-collapse interpretation as supported.
  3. [Abstract and §5.2] The abstract claims that the subhalo is a 'more than 5-sigma outlier' from the LambdaCDM vmax-rmax relation, whereas Section 5.2 states that the posterior is 'highly skewed' and that 'a concrete statement on the level of this tension (is) difficult due to a lack of samples close to the relation,' and also notes that the comparison relation does not account for redshift dependence. The significance should be defined precisely (for example, as a posterior probability or a quantile-based equivalent sigma value), and the abstract should carry the same caveats that the body of the paper states; as written, the abstract is stronger than the analysis supports.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.2] The exclusion of one S1-only chain that converged to a solution with an unconstrained r_s needs to be documented more transparently: please report the number of chains, the nature of that solution, and whether any S1 and S2 chains exhibited a similar mode, since 'its inclusion would not significantly change our results' is not a sufficient justification for removing it.
  2. [§3.5, Eq. (14)] The noise model ignores correlations introduced by drizzling; please add a brief statement of the expected direction and size of the effect on the inferred parameter uncertainties, particularly in light of the supersampling sensitivity found by Minor (2024).
  3. [Table 1] Several lens-light amplitude posteriors (for example, A = 1.9^{+3931}_{-1.9}) are effectively unconstrained; please indicate which Gaussian components are identified by the data and report the actual standard-deviation agreement with previous work instead of rounding the agreement column to the next higher integer.
  4. [§5.3, Fig. 7] The green 'S1 & S2 (*)' model, in which the halo does not affect the lens light, is important for the redshift argument but is never defined in the text; please state explicitly how this model was constructed and which prior it assumes for the halo position.
  5. [§6] The closing statement that 'it seems likely that CDM will soon be definitively ruled out' overreaches the evidence from a single system and should be softened to match the caveats in Section 5.2.
  6. [Throughout] Please correct minor typographical issues, including 'ellitpical' in Eq. (6), the missing spaces in the Table 2 caption, and general proofreading of the compiled text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the subhalo parameters and derived slopes are outputs of an independent forward fit, compared against external simulations; the only same-group citation (B24) is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The posterior is defined in Eq. (15) with likelihood Eq. (16); all quantities quoted as results (z_halo, log10 m200, log10 c200, vmax, rmax, M2D, gamma_2D) are outputs of this fit. The 'outlier' and steep-slope statements are comparisons of these outputs to external relations (O'Riordan et al. 2023 ShinUchuu; TNG50/D24), not quantities imposed by the priors. gamma_2D is a deterministic function of the fitted tNFW parameters (rs, ks), so calling it a 'prediction' is loose language, but it is not an input to the likelihood and is not defined in terms of the comparison relation. The only same-author citation is B24, used for the data cutout and for the qualitative expectation that the second source breaks degeneracies; the paper independently re-fits S1 and S1&S2 and explicitly shows the degeneracy-breaking (Fig. 6, Table 1), so the B24 citation does not carry the argument. No uniqueness theorem or SIDM ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper's own caveats (ELBO instead of formal evidence, skewed outlier posterior, unresolved scales below the PSF FWHM) are limitations or systematic risks, not circular steps. Score 2 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All model components are fitted or assumed from prior literature; no new particles or forces are introduced. The central result depends on several ad hoc modeling choices (tNFW profile, multipole orders, zero outside masks, uncorrelated noise) and an external simulation relation, so the ledger is dominated by fitted parameters and domain assumptions rather than invented entities.

free parameters (9)
  • z_halo = 0.207+0.019-0.019 (S1&S2); 0.229+0.018-0.015 (S1-only)
    Redshift of dark perturber, the central fitted parameter; constrained by compound lensing effect on lens light and source arcs.
  • log10 k_s (tNFW normalization) = 0.30+0.52-0.39 (S1&S2)
    Amplitude of truncated NFW convergence for the perturber; fitted to the lensed images.
  • log10 r_s (tNFW scale radius) = -1.42+0.29-0.37 (S1&S2)
    Scale radius of the perturber; strongly affects inferred slope and vmax-rmax.
  • log10 r_t (tNFW truncation radius) = 7.4+5.2-5.2 (S1&S2)
    Truncation radius; posterior is unconstrained, 95% above 3.43 arcsec, indicating data do not constrain it.
  • Multipole amplitudes A_M1, A_M3, A_M4 = 0.036, 0.008, 0.019 (S1&S2 medians)
    First, third, fourth order multipole perturbations of main deflector; their degeneracy with the perturber is central to the inferred steep slope.
  • EPL plus shear parameters of main deflector = see Table 1
    Elliptical power law slope, Einstein radius, ellipticity, center, external shear; fitted nuisance parameters.
  • Source GP hyperparameters for S1 and S2 = see Table 1
    Matern power spectrum parameters (n, zeta, sigma) for pixelated sources S1 and S2.
  • Lens light Gaussian components = 20 Gaussian components, Section 3.4.1
    Parametric lens light model; fitted simultaneously, important for redshift constraint because halo can lens the lens galaxy.
  • Source 1 EPL parameters (S1&S2 model) = theta_E=0.152, q=0.731 (S1&S2 medians)
    Mass model for first source plane used to map source 2; fitted in double source model.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Gravitational lensing follows general relativity with the thin-lens and Born approximations encoded in the lens equation (Eqs. 1-5).
    Standard lensing theory used throughout Section 3.1-3.2.
  • domain assumption Flat LCDM cosmology with Omega_m=0.3103, h=0.6766 (Planck 2020) determines angular diameter distances.
    Section 3.1 states this cosmology; distance ratios enter the compound lens equation and the conversion of halo parameters to physical units.
  • ad hoc to paper The perturber is a single spherically symmetric truncated NFW halo (Eqs. 8-10).
    Section 3.3.3; this parametric form is assumed, not derived, and the steep slope inference depends on it.
  • ad hoc to paper The main deflector mass distribution is an EPL plus external shear plus multipoles of orders 1, 3, and 4 only (Eqs. 6-7).
    Section 3.3; unmodeled higher-order or more complex multipoles could be degenerate with the perturber.
  • ad hoc to paper The lens and source light outside the manually defined masks is zero.
    Section 3.5; masks shown in Figures 3 and 5 are manually created and no overlap allowed.
  • ad hoc to paper Noise is Gaussian and uncorrelated, with variance from background plus source Poisson term (Eq. 14); drizzling correlation is ignored.
    Section 3.5; authors explicitly note they do not account for spatially correlated noise from drizzling.
  • domain assumption The O'Riordan et al. (2023) vmax-rmax relation from ShinUchuu simulations applies to subhalos at z~0.2 with no redshift dependence.
    Section 5.2 and Figure 8; authors note the relation does not account for redshift dependence, yet use it for the >5 sigma statement.
  • domain assumption Gravothermally collapsed SIDM haloes have gamma_2D ~ -2 (Turner et al. 2021; Yang et al. 2024).
    Section 5.2 and conclusions; external simulation-based expectation used to interpret the measured slope.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The overconcentrated dark halo in the strong lens SDSS J0946+1006 is a subhalo: evidence for self interacting dark matter?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3VD2JPW4

@misc{pith2026241108565,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The overconcentrated dark halo in the strong lens SDSS J0946+1006 is a subhalo: evidence for self interacting dark matter?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3VD2JPW4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08565}
}
abstract

The nature of dark matter is poorly constrained on subgalactic scales. Alternative models to cold dark matter, such as warm dark matter or self-interacting dark matter, could produce very different dark haloes on these scales. One of the few known dark haloes smaller than a galaxy was discovered in the triple source plane strong lens system J0946+1006. Previous studies have found that this structure is much more concentrated than expected in $\Lambda$CDM, but have assumed the dark halo is at the same redshift as the main deflector ($z_{\rm main}=0.222$). In this paper, we fit for the redshift of this dark halo. We reconstruct the first two sources in the system using a forward modelling approach, allowing for additional complexity from multipole perturbations. We find that the perturber redshift is $z_{\rm halo} = {0.207}^{+0.019}_{-0.019}$, and lower bounds on the evidence strongly prefer a subhalo over a line-of-sight structure. Whilst modelling both background sources does not improve constraints on the redshift of the subhalo, it breaks important degeneracies affecting the reconstruction of multipole perturbations. We find that the subhalo is a more than $5\sigma$ outlier from the $\Lambda$CDM $v_{\rm max}$-$r_{\rm max}$ relation and has a steep profile with an average slope of $\gamma_{\rm 2D} = {-1.81}^{+0.15}_{-0.11}$ for radii between $0.75-1.25$ kpc. This steep slope might indicate dark matter self-interactions causing the subhalo to undergo gravothermal collapse; such collapsed haloes are expected to have $\gamma_{\rm 2D} \approx -2$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08565 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The model components that we consider throughout this work. We further provide the sections, in which these components are discussed in more detail. For simplicity we only show the Gaussian process (GP) that is used to model the first source in more detail. We use dashed lines to highlight that the second source is not always included. 3.2 Compound lensing The lens system we study in this paper does not only have a … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The effects that the subhalo redshift has on the lensed images of a background source and the main deflector light. We show five mock observations on the diagonal with halo redshifts 𝑧halo ∈ {0.05, 0.202, 0.222, 0.322, 0.55}. All other parameters are fixed to the same values. The upper right triangle shows the differences between each combination of those mocks, considering only the light of the main deflector. The … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The mean posterior S1-only model. Shown are the original data, our model predictions, the noise-weighted residuals (row 1), the effective convergence (row 2), and the reconstructed Source 1 (row 3). The figures reporting the ratio of mean and standard deviations highlight the features most constrained by the data given our model assumptions. We also report the pixel averaged residual with 𝜒 2 𝜈 . Note that we show t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The reconstructed light distribution of the main deflector for our S1-only model (left) and our S1&S2 model (right). In each panel, we show the isophotes of the main deflector (black) to highlight the change in the orientation of the major axis with radius. We further …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 1 and 2𝜎 posterior contours of a subset of model parameters. Blue shows our single plane model, whilst orange is the two source plane fit. The results emphasize how strongly the second source breaks model degeneracies. The top right panel further shows our posterio…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The posterior redshift distribution from our single source (blue) and double source (orange) lens models. The green S1 & S2 (*) shows a model where the light of the main deflector is not affected by the dark halo, even when it is in front of the lens. 10 2 vmax [km/s] …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The first three 𝜎 contours of our posteriors on 𝑣max and 𝑟max in blue and orange. Green shows the best fit 𝑣max-𝑟max relation derived by O’Riordan et al. (2023, O23) using the ShinUchuu simulation (Ishiyama & Ando 2020; Moliné et al. 2023). The light green shows the 2𝜎…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Projected 2D posteriors that show the (lack of) correlation between the redshift and other model parameters. The black line splits samples into those in front or behind the main deflector. The inferred parameters change only slightly with the redshift values allowed b…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Introducing the AIDA-TNG project: galaxy formation in alternative dark matter models

    astro-ph.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new suite of cosmological simulations combines the IllustrisTNG galaxy formation model with warm and self-interacting dark matter, showing that galaxies look similar across models while halo structure and power spec...

  2. A Novel Implementation of Self-Interacting Dark Matter in AREPO

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    A dedicated-tree Monte-Carlo SIDM module in AREPO-2 conserves energy/momentum under multiple scatters, supports velocity-dependent and inelastic models, and runs with only modest overhead versus CDM except in late cor...

  3. Fuzzy dark matter soliton core hosting a supermassive black hole as a dense low-mass perturber in strong gravitational lensing

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A soliton core of fuzzy dark matter, compressed by an embedded supermassive black hole, reproduces the observed mass profile of the ~10^6 Msun perturber in JVAS B1938+666 for FDM mass ~3.6e-21 eV and subhalo mass ~7e6 Msun.

  4. JWST lensed quasar dark matter survey IV: Stringent warm dark matter constraints from the joint reconstruction of extended lensed arcs and quasar flux ratios

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adding extended lensed arcs to quasar flux ratios in 28 JWST lenses tightens the dark-matter free-streaming limit to m_hm < 10^7.4 M⊙ (galacticus prior) and gives the most precise lensing measurement of subhalo abundance.

  5. Strong-lensing Perturber Signatures in Self-interacting Dark Matter Simulations

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Core-collapsed self-interacting dark matter halos in the Concerto simulations reach high enough central densities to match the perturbing masses inferred in J0946, B1938, SDP.81, and SPT2147-50.

  6. Pion dark matter in a $\theta$ vacuum: a thermal relic with sharp velocity-dependent self-interactions

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A QCD-like dark sector with a theta vacuum and a dark photon portal can simultaneously reproduce the dark matter relic abundance and produce the sharply velocity-dependent self-interactions inferred from small-scale s...

  7. Disentangling the dark and stellar mass through precise lens modelling of the JWST observation of lensed quasar WFI2033--4723

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Composite time-delay lens modelling of JWST WFI2033–4723 yields intermediate stellar IMF normalisation and a steep gNFW inner slope γ_in≃1.3 that is robust to the choice of external cosmology.

  8. Prediction of Individual Halo Concentrations Across Cosmic Time Using Neural Networks

    astro-ph.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A neural network fed with halo mass accretion histories predicts individual halo concentrations with RMSE about 0.08 in log10 c, beating Zhao et al. and Giocoli et al. across z = 0 to 2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.2464A 510, 2464

    Amorisco N. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.2464A 510, 2464

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3527 2022

  3. [3]

    Amruth A., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01943-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..736A 7, 736

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01943-9 2023

  4. [4]

    arXiv:2407.12983

    Amvrosiadis A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.12983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240712983A p. arXiv:2407.12983

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.12983 2024

  5. [5]

    J., Enzi W

    Ballard D. J., Enzi W. J. R., Collett T. E., Turner H. C., Smith R. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.7564B 528, 7564

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae514 2024

  6. [6]

    A., Marshall P., Oguri M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2009/01/015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JCAP...01..015B 2009, 015

    Baltz E. A., Marshall P., Oguri M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2009/01/015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JCAP...01..015B 2009, 015

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/01/015 2009

  7. [7]

    Bingham E., et al., 2019, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 20, 28:1

    2019

  8. [8]

    Birrer S., Amara A., 2018, @doi [Physics of the Dark Universe] 10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PDU....22..189B 22, 189

    doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018.11.002 2018

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    P., Turok N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556...93B 556, 93

    Bode P., Ostriker J. P., Turok N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556...93B 556, 93

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    Bradbury J., et al., 2018, JAX : composable transformations of P ython+ N um P y programs, http://github.com/google/jax

    2018

  3. [11]

    Cappellari M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05412.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.333..400C 333, 400

    2002

  4. [12]

    P., Li G

    Chu Z., Lin W. P., Li G. L., Kang X., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765..134C 765, 134

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Fassnacht C

    Cohen J. S., Fassnacht C. D., O'Riordan C. M., Vegetti S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1228 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.3431C 531, 3431

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811...20C 811, 20

    Collett T. E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811...20C 811, 20

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Auger M

    Collett T. E., Auger M. W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443..969C 443, 969

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Bacon D

    Collett T. E., Bacon D. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2791 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2210C 456, 2210

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Smith R

    Collett T. E., Smith R. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.1654C 497, 1654

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Cyr-Racine F.-Y., Sigurdson K., Zavala J., Bringmann T., Vogelsberger M., Pfrommer C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.123527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvD..93l3527C 93, 123527

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    Despali G., Vegetti S., White S. D. M., Giocoli C., van den Bosch F. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.5424D 475, 5424

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Despali G., Sparre M., Vegetti S., Vogelsberger M., Zavala J., Marinacci F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.4563D 484, 4563

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    G., Vegetti S., Sparre M., Vogelsberger M., Zavala J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.4543D 516, 4543

    Despali G., Walls L. G., Vegetti S., Sparre M., Vogelsberger M., Zavala J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.4543D 516, 4543

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Fassnacht C

    Despali G., Heinze F. M., Fassnacht C. D., Vegetti S., Spingola C., Klessen R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.12910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240712910D p. arXiv:2407.12910

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    R., Schaye J., Kay S

    Duffy A. R., Schaye J., Kay S. T., Dalla Vecchia C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00537.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.390L..64D 390, L64

    2008

  16. [24]

    A., Macci \`o A

    Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu742 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3359D 441, 3359

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    Enzi W., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.5848E 506, 5848

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Etherington A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.3684E 531, 3684

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    A., 2021, @doi [Entropy] 10.3390/e23070853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Entrp..23..853F 23, 853

    Frank P., Leike R., En lin T. A., 2021, @doi [Entropy] 10.3390/e23070853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Entrp..23..853F 23, 853

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668A.155G 668, A155

    Galan A., Vernardos G., Peel A., Courbin F., Starck J. L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668A.155G 668, A155

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    arXiv:2406.08484

    Galan A., Vernardos G., Minor Q., Sluse D., Van de Vyvere L., Gomer M., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240608484G p. arXiv:2406.08484

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gavazzi R., Treu T., Koopmans L. V. E., Bolton A. S., Moustakas L. A., Burles S., Marshall P. J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/529541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677.1046G 677, 1046

    2008 doi

  23. [31]

    Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science, CRC Press, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eSHSBQAAQBAJ

    Gelman A., Carlin J., Stern H., Dunson D., Vehtari A., Rubin D., 2013, Bayesian Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science, CRC Press, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eSHSBQAAQBAJ

    2013

  24. [32]

    Gilman D., Birrer S., Nierenberg A., Treu T., Du X., Benson A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.6077G 491, 6077

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Gilman D., Zhong Y.-M., Bovy J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107j3008G 107, 103008

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Grillo C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860...94G 860, 94

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Gu A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6de4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935...49G 935, 49

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    He Q., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1577 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.2441H 532, 2441

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Despali G., Klessen R

    Heinze F. M., Despali G., Klessen R. S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52711996H 527, 11996

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Hern \'a ndez-Aguayo C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.2556H 524, 2556

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    D., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823...37H 823, 37

    Hezaveh Y. D., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823...37H 823, 37

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    D., Gelman A., 2011, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1111.4246 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1111.4246H p

    Hoffman M. D., Gelman A., 2011, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1111.4246 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1111.4246H p. arXiv:1111.4246

    2011 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    Hu W., Barkana R., Gruzinov A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PhRvL..85.1158H 85, 1158

    2000 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Tremaine S., Witten E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvD..95d3541H 95, 043541

    Hui L., Ostriker J. P., Tremaine S., Witten E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvD..95d3541H 95, 043541

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Ishiyama T., Ando S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.3662I 492, 3662

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Jeffreys H., 1946, @doi [Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rspa.1946.0056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1946RSPSA.186..453J 186, 453

    1946

  37. [45]

    R., 2001, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0102341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001astro.ph..2341K pp astro--ph/0102341

    Keeton C. R., 2001, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0102341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001astro.ph..2341K pp astro--ph/0102341

    2001 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kong D., Yang D., Yu H.-B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad394b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965L..19K 965, L19

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Krawczyk C., 2024, CKrawczyk/MultiHMCGibbs: v1.0.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.12167630 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12167630

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.12987 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241012987L p

    Lange S. C., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.12987 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241012987L p. arXiv:2410.12987

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    S., Cole S., Wang Q., Gao L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.1426L 468, 1426

    Li R., Frenk C. S., Cole S., Wang Q., Gao L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.1426L 468, 1426

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab982a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897..147L 897, 147

    Lovell M. R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab982a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897..147L 897, 147

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Frenk C

    Lovell M. R., Frenk C. S., Eke V. R., Jenkins A., Gao L., Theuns T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439..300L 439, 300

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    D., Bose S., Angulo R

    Ludlow A. D., Bose S., Angulo R. E., Wang L., Hellwing W. A., Navarro J. F., Cole S., Frenk C. S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.1214L 460, 1214

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    P., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/191.3.483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980MNRAS.191..483L 191, 483

    Lynden-Bell D., Eggleton P. P., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/191.3.483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980MNRAS.191..483L 191, 483

    1980 doi

  46. [54]

    E., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.11090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240811090M p

    Minor Q. E., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.11090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240811090M p. arXiv:2408.11090

    2024 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    Minor Q., Gad-Nasr S., Kaplinghat M., Vegetti S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2247 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.1662M 507, 1662

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Palomares-Ruiz S., Prada F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.4974M 466, 4974

    Molin \'e \'A ., S \'a nchez-Conde M. A., Palomares-Ruiz S., Prada F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.4974M 466, 4974

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    Molin \'e \'A ., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518..157M 518, 157

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    O., Birrer S., Gilman D., Wechsler R

    Nadler E. O., Birrer S., Gilman D., Wechsler R. H., Du X., Benson A., Nierenberg A. M., Treu T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf9a3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...917....7N 917, 7

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490..493N 490, 493

    1997 doi

  52. [60]

    M., 2000, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.physics/0009028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000physics...9028N p

    Neal R. M., 2000, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.physics/0009028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000physics...9028N p. physics/0009028

    2000 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    Neal R., 2011, MCMC Using Hamiltonian Dynamics , @doi 10.1201/b10905

    2011 doi

  54. [62]

    Nelson D., et al., 2019, @doi [Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology] 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ComAC...6....2N 6, 2

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    M., Treu T., Wright S

    Nierenberg A. M., Treu T., Wright S. A., Fassnacht C. D., Auger M. W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.2434N 442, 2434

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52710480N 527, 10480

    Nightingale J. W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52710480N 527, 10480

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    M., Vegetti S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1757O 528, 1757

    O'Riordan C. M., Vegetti S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1757O 528, 1757

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Despali G., Vegetti S., Lovell M

    O'Riordan C. M., Despali G., Vegetti S., Lovell M. R., Molin \'e \'A ., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.2342O 521, 2342

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    Oguri M., Hamana T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18481.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414.1851O 414, 1851

    2011

  60. [68]

    Phan D., Pradhan N., Jankowiak M., 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4077P 473, 4077

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...6P 641, A6

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    M., Vegetti S., McKean J

    Powell D. M., Vegetti S., McKean J. P., Spingola C., Stacey H. R., Fassnacht C. D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.1808P 516, 1808

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    M., Vegetti S., McKean J

    Powell D. M., Vegetti S., McKean J. P., White S. D. M., Ferreira E. G. M., May S., Spingola C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524L..84P 524, L84

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    W., Koopmans L

    Ritondale E., Vegetti S., Despali G., Auger M. W., Koopmans L. V. E., McKean J. P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.2179R 485, 2179

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    R \"u stig J., Guardiani M., Roth J., Frank P., En lin T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348256 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A.146R 682, A146

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    Schaye J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446..521S 446, 521

    2015 doi

  68. [76]

    Schneider P., Sluse D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A.103S 564, A103

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    Shah N., Adhikari S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.4611S 529, 4611

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1796 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.1387S 488, 1387

    Shajib A. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1796 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.1387S 488, 1387

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

    J., Collett T

    Smith R. J., Collett T. E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.2136S 505, 2136

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    arXiv:2409.01758

    Sorini D., Bose S., Pakmor R., Hernquist L., Springel V., Hadzhiyska B., Hern \'a ndez-Aguayo C., Kannan R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.01758 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240901758S p. arXiv:2409.01758

    2024 doi arXiv

  73. [81]

    N., Steinhardt P

    Spergel D. N., Steinhardt P. J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.3760 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PhRvL..84.3760S 84, 3760

    2000 doi

  74. [82]

    Springer Series in Statistics, Springer New York, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aZXwBwAAQBAJ

    Stein M., 2012, Interpolation of Spatial Data: Some Theory for Kriging. Springer Series in Statistics, Springer New York, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aZXwBwAAQBAJ

    2012

  75. [83]

    H., Marshall P

    Suyu S. H., Marshall P. J., Hobson M. P., Blandford R. D., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10733.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.371..983S 371, 983

    2006

  76. [84]

    C., Lovell M

    Turner H. C., Lovell M. R., Zavala J., Vogelsberger M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.5327T 505, 5327

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    C., Smith R

    Turner H. C., Smith R. J., Collett T. E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae263 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.3559T 528, 3559

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    Vegetti S., Koopmans L. V. E., Bolton A., Treu T., Gavazzi R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16865.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.1969V 408, 1969

    2010

  79. [87]

    J., McKean J

    Vegetti S., Lagattuta D. J., McKean J. P., Auger M. W., Fassnacht C. D., Koopmans L. V. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.481..341V 481, 341

    2012 doi

  80. [88]

    R., Enzi W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2393 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.3661V 481, 3661

    Vegetti S., Despali G., Lovell M. R., Enzi W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2393 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.3661V 481, 3661

    2018 doi

  81. [89]

    arXiv:2306.11781

    Vegetti S., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2306.11781 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230611781V p. arXiv:2306.11781

    2023 doi arXiv

  82. [90]

    Vernardos G., Koopmans L. V. E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1924 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.1347V 516, 1347

    2022 doi

  83. [91]

    Vernardos G., Tsagkatakis G., Pantazis Y., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.5641V 499, 5641

    2020 doi

  84. [92]

    Vogelsberger M., Zavala J., Loeb A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21182.x10.1002/asna.19141991009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.3740V 423, 3740

    2012

  85. [93]

    Vogelsberger M., Zavala J., Cyr-Racine F.-Y., Pfrommer C., Bringmann T., Sigurdson K., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.1399V 460, 1399

    2016 doi

  86. [94]

    S., Gao L., Jenkins A., Springel V., White S

    Wang J., Bose S., Frenk C. S., Gao L., Jenkins A., Springel V., White S. D. M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2642-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.585...39W 585, 39

    2020 doi

  87. [95]

    arXiv:1301.1299

    Wingate D., Weber T., 2013, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1301.1299 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1301.1299W p. arXiv:1301.1299

    2013 doi arXiv

  88. [96]

    O., Yu H.-B., Zhong Y.-M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/02/032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JCAP...02..032Y 2024, 032

    Yang D., Nadler E. O., Yu H.-B., Zhong Y.-M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/02/032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JCAP...02..032Y 2024, 032

    2024 doi

  89. [97]

    G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sls053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431L..20Z 431, L20

    Zavala J., Vogelsberger M., Walker M. G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sls053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431L..20Z 431, L20

    2013 doi

  90. [98]

    S., 2020, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2010.07468 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv201007468Z p

    Zhuang J., Tang T., Ding Y., Tatikonda S., Dvornek N., Papademetris X., Duncan J. S., 2020, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2010.07468 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv201007468Z p. arXiv:2010.07468

    2020 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.