Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 98 references

A Novel Scheme for Dark Matter Annihilation Feedback in Cosmological Simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A donor-based scheme for dark matter annihilation feedback: each dark matter particle deposits annihilation power into nearby gas via tunable weights, matching the receiver-based method in realistic tests while avoiding gas-poor…

desk verdict Useful, clearly-written methods paper for donor-based DMAF in Gizmo; the validation is believable but the timestep-limiter settings and missing convergence tests leave some details unspecified. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05812 v2 pith:64YVRCTH submitted 2019-08-16 astro-ph.CO

Florian List , Nikolas Iwanus , Pascal J. Elahi , Geraint F. Lewis This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords darkmatterannihilationcosmologicalsimulationsGizmofeedbackN-bodyenergyinjectionSedov-Taylorblastwavemeshlesshydrodynamics
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

The paper sets out to give cosmological N-body simulators a self-consistent way to include dark matter annihilation feedback (DMAF) by computing the annihilation power at each dark matter particle and depositing it into surrounding gas with weights that can be tailored to the annihilation channel. Implemented in the Gizmo code, this donor-based scheme is shown to agree well with the receiver-based method of Iwanus et al. (2017) for an isolated halo and a cosmological simulation, while avoiding that method's suppression of energy deposition in gas-poor or steep-density-gradient regions. The paper also introduces a time-step limiter derived from Sedov-Taylor blast-wave propagation to prevent large energy errors when strong feedback turns on. A sympathetic reader would care because the geometry of energy injection can change the predicted gas distribution in halo centres, and this scheme makes that geometry explicit and flexible.

What carries the argument

The central object is the donor-based energy rate of equation (4), a per-DM-particle annihilation power with normalised weights, together with the two weight choices of equation (5) (mass-weighted kernel) and equation (6) (solid-angle-weighted face areas of a convex hull around the donor). These weights set the geometry of energy injection and give the scheme its flexibility. Around this sit a time-binned energy-rate storage keyed to DM time steps, a bidirectional neighbour search, and the Sedov-Taylor time-step limiter of equation (9), which confines any strong shock to the gas smoothing length within one step.

What would settle it

A side-by-side cosmological simulation using ray-based line-of-sight energy deposition for a long-mean-free-path channel (for example, photons) versus the local weights of equations (5) and (6): if the central gas density of the largest halo changes by more than the roughly 50 per cent method-to-method scatter already reported, the locality assumption is falsified for that channel.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that equation (4), $$dE_{i\to j}/dt = \frac{\langle\$\sigma$ v\rangle}{m_\chi}\,\rho_{\chi,i} M_i $c^{2}$\, \frac{w_j}{\sum_k w_k},$$ gives a self-consistent donor-based DMAF rate: each dark matter particle $i$ deposits the annihilation power it generates into its gas neighbours $j$ with weights $w_k$, normalised so that the total injected energy equals the energy produced. With mass-weighted weights $w_k = M_k W(r_{ki}, h_i)$ the injection follows the local gas density; with solid-angle weights it is statistically isotropic. The paper demonstrates, in a contact-discontinuity toy model, that the donor-based total energy rate is independent of gas properties, while the receiver-based method deposits only 17.3 per cent of the donor-based total when steep DM density gradients are present. In the isolated-halo run the three DMAF variants agree to within 2 per cent for DM density, 5-20 per cent for gas density, and 13 per cent for temperature, and in the cosmological run they produce similar halo mass and velocity functions; the paper concludes from this that realistic simulation results are fairly robust to the choice of DMAF implementation, while the donor-based method adds flexibility in the injection geometry.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the annihilation power released by a dark matter particle is deposited instantly and locally into the gas particles within its smoothing radius, with no transport along the line of sight or over distance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simulators can change the energy-injection geometry for a given annihilation channel by swapping the weights in equation (4), without altering the rest of the code.
  • The donor-based total DMAF energy rate is independent of the gas distribution, so annihilation energy is not artificially suppressed in gas-poor haloes or regions with steep DM density gradients.
  • In the isolated-halo test, the three DMAF variants agree to within 2 per cent for DM density, 5-20 per cent for gas density, and 13 per cent for temperature; in the cosmological run they yield similar halo mass and velocity functions, with DMAF cutting the z=0 halo count by about 20 per cent for a 1 MeV c^-2 candidate.
  • The same machinery extends directly to velocity-dependent annihilation cross-sections, dark matter decay, and non-local (line-of-sight) energy injection.
  • The Sedov-Taylor time-step limiter prevents large early energy errors in scenarios with high annihilation rates, at little cost in the realistic tests where it is rarely the dominant criterion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The locality assumption is the point I would press: for photon or neutrino channels the paper's own 100 kpc transport argument does not guarantee that nearest-neighbour deposition is accurate, and a ray-based weight scheme is the natural next test.
  • Because the donor-based total energy rate is independent of gas properties, this scheme is better suited than the receiver-based one for studying DMAF in gas-poor minihalos and at high redshift, where the receiver method would suppress the signal; the paper's toy example already points this way.
  • A resolution test comparing runs with gas spacings below and above the annihilation-product transport horizon would quantify when local injection fails; the paper does not report such a convergence test.
  • The Sedov-Taylor limiter could be repurposed for any feedback process whose power is known at the start of a step, not just DMAF; that generalisation is implicit in the derivation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a donor-based implementation of dark-matter annihilation feedback (DMAF) in the Gizmo code. Annihilation power is computed at each DM particle via Eq. (4) and distributed to neighbouring gas particles using either mass-weighted (Eq. 5) or solid-angle-weighted (Eq. 6) weights. The authors describe the interaction of this scheme with Gizmo's individual time stepping, introduce a Sedov--Taylor-based time step limiter, compare the donor approach with the receiver-based method of Iwanus et al. (2017), and report tests on a density jump, an isolated NFW halo, and a cosmological box. They claim that in realistic tests the donor and receiver methods agree well, while the donor method offers greater flexibility in energy-injection geometry and avoids suppression of energy in gas-poor regions.

Significance. If validated, the scheme is a useful addition to simulation toolkits: it enables channel-dependent energy deposition in a public code, is modular, and is built on straightforward energy-conserving arithmetic. The paper's comparisons to an independent receiver-based implementation and to an analytic homogeneous-universe solution (Appendix B) are appropriate checks and are genuine strengths, as is the explicit discussion of computational cost. The main limitations are the absence of any resolution/convergence study, the lack of statistical error bars on the halo statistics, and incomplete specification of the time-stepping settings used in the validation runs. These gaps, rather than the derivation of Eq. (4), are what prevent the central agreement claim from being fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Appendix B; runs in §5.2–5.3] The manuscript does not state whether the optional Δt_DM ≤ c_Δ Δt_gas limiter of §3.2 was enabled in the isolated-halo or cosmological runs, nor which of the cosmological-expansion variants (I or II) of Appendix B was used. The paper itself notes that Δt_gas > Δt_DM is unlikely, so the stale-neighbour regime is the typical case rather than a corner case. Since Eq. (4) is held constant over the whole DM step in the first-order scheme of Figure 2, the reported agreement with the receiver-based method could depend on this unspecified time-stepping choice. The authors should state the c_Δ value used (or justify why the limiter was disabled) and the expansion variant, and ideally show sensitivity to c_Δ in at least one test.
  2. [§5.2, §5.3, Figs. 7, 9, 10] The central claim that donor and receiver methods 'agree well' is based on single-resolution runs without statistical uncertainties or a convergence study. The paper reports relative differences up to ~20 per cent in gas density within 10 kpc (Section 5.2) and ~50 per cent in the central gas density of the largest cluster (Figure 10), yet no Poisson or bootstrap errors are given on the HMF/HVF points in Figure 9 and no resolution sequence is presented. A reader cannot tell whether the residual method differences are physical or numerical artifacts; a resolution test (for example, rerunning the isolated halo with higher-resolution initial conditions) is needed to support the agreement claim.
  3. [§4.1 and §5] The paper motivates flexible weights by the desire to model channel-dependent energy deposition, but the validation exercises only test local injection with weights (5) and (6). The justification for local injection in §4.1 (relativistic products travel ~100 kpc within a time step) is not turned into a test for channels with different mean free paths or for f ≠ 1; B ≠ 1. At minimum, the authors should state explicitly that the numerical agreement is established only for the local-injection limit, and they should outline how the method would be tested against a known non-local deposition solution before being applied to photon or neutrino channels.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1] In the paragraph following Eq. (12), 'enumerator' should be 'numerator'.
  2. [§5.3] The phrase 'During the phase of linear evolution until z ∼ 100' is confusing because the simulation begins at z = 100; specify 'before the initial redshift' or 'for epochs prior to z = 100'.
  3. [Eq. (6)] The solid-angle weight definition is not self-contained; the properties of A_ki and the convex-hull construction are only described in Hopkins et al. (2018a). A one-sentence summary of the relevant properties would improve readability.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The simulation is two-dimensional, so the black region marking the 3σ contour is a circle rather than a sphere; consider changing 'spherical' to 'circular'.
  5. [Table 1] The layout of Table 1 is difficult to parse because the row labels and column entries are not clearly separated; reformatting would help the reader compare the neighbour-search requirements of the two methods.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DMAF power equation is standard annihilation physics, Eq. (4) is a normalized redistribution of that power, and the analytic and receiver-based checks are independent cross-validations rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Eq. (3) is the standard pair-annihilation luminosity, obtained from the mass-loss rate dM/dt = -<sigma v> rho_chi M_chi / m_chi multiplied by c^2 and the absorption fraction f; Eq. (4) introduces no new physics but distributes that power among gas neighbours using normalized weights (5) or (6). The Sedov-Taylor limiter (9) follows from dimensional analysis in Eq. (7) plus the CFL condition (8), with no parameter fitted to simulation output. The Appendix B analytic solution (B1), attributed to Iwanus et al. (2017), is a parameter-free solution of the same energy-rate ODE in a homogeneous expanding universe, and the paper explicitly compares its numerical integration to that formula in Fig. B1; this is a genuine verification, not a reduction of the prediction to the input. The comparison with the receiver-based method of Iwanus et al. (2017) is a direct run of both implementations in the same code with the same initial conditions, and the two methods are not claimed to be identical: Section 5.1 documents large differences in the density-jump test, and the paper explains the origin of those differences. There is substantial overlap with prior work by the same authors (Iwanus, Elahi, Lewis), and the validation baseline is from that work, so a small self-referential element exists; however, no load-bearing argument invokes a uniqueness theorem or an unverified ansatz from those papers, and the solid-angle weights are credited to Hopkins et al. (2018a), not to the authors' own prior work. A separate, non-circularity concern is that Section 3.2's optional limiter Delta t_DM <= c_Delta Delta t_gas is introduced to prevent stale-neighbour energy injection, but the paper does not state whether it was enabled in the isolated-halo (Section 5.2) or cosmological (Section 5.3) runs; this is an implementation-detail and validation-completeness gap, not a definitional or fitted-input circularity. Score 1 reflects the minor self-citation baseline rather than any reduction of the central claim to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; dark matter annihilation inputs are taken from the literature, and numerical parameters are standard choices. The scheme introduces no new particles or forces. Its main physical assumption is local, instantaneous energy deposition into gas neighbours, supported only heuristically in Section 4.1.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SPH kernel summation over Nngb neighbors gives an adequate estimate of the dark matter density at any particle.
    Used in Eq. (4) for rho_chi,i and Eq. (11) for rho_chi,j; the toy example shows this reconstruction can under-resolve steep gradients, producing a factor-of-about-5.8 difference in total energy.
  • domain assumption Annihilation energy can be injected locally and instantaneously into gas particles within the donor particle's search radius.
    This is the basis of Eq. (4) and the weights in Eqs. (5) and (6); Section 4.1 argues relativistic products travel far relative to particle spacing, but the assumption is channel-dependent and not tested for f less than 1 or B greater than 1 cases.
  • standard math A generalized Sedov-Taylor blast wave with beta about 1 describes the energy-driven shock used for the time-step limiter.
    Eq. (7) follows from dimensional analysis; beta is taken from Dokuchaev (2002) and set to 1. Strong-shock, constant-power, and constant-density assumptions are idealizations.
  • domain assumption DMAF before z=100 and in unresolved microhaloes is negligible for the cosmological test.
    Stated at the start of Section 5.3; Bertschinger (2006) is cited for earth-mass haloes, which are far below the 7.95e8 solar-mass particle mass, so the neglect is reasonable but not quantified with a convergence check.
  • domain assumption The meshless finite mass method in Gizmo transports the injected energy realistically.
    All validation runs use MFMM; no comparison is made with other hydrodynamics solvers, so the donor and receiver agreement could depend on the chosen hydrodynamic scheme.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Novel Scheme for Dark Matter Annihilation Feedback in Cosmological Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64YVRCTH

@misc{pith2026190805812,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Novel Scheme for Dark Matter Annihilation Feedback in Cosmological Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64YVRCTH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05812}
}
read the original abstract

We present a new self-consistent method for incorporating dark matter annihilation feedback (DMAF) in cosmological N-body simulations. The power generated by DMAF is evaluated at each dark matter (DM) particle which allows for flexible energy injection into the surrounding gas based on the specific DM annihilation model under consideration. Adaptive, individual time steps for gas and DM particles are supported and a new time-step limiter, derived from the propagation of a Sedov--Taylor blast wave, is introduced. We compare this donor-based approach with a receiver-based approach used in recent studies and illustrate the differences by means of a toy example. Furthermore, we consider an isolated halo and a cosmological simulation and show that for these realistic cases, both methods agree well with each other. The extension of our implementation to scenarios such as non-local energy injection, velocity-dependent annihilation cross-sections, and DM decay is straightforward.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05812 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Time line of a DM and a neighbouring gas particle: I: DM assigns a DMAF energy rate to gas according to equation (4). II: End of gas time step, gas particle adds the energy set at I. III: End of gas and DM time step, gas adds again the energy set at I. DMAF energy rate is updated and assigned to gas particle. DM reduces its time step, which is now the same as gas time step. IV: End of gas and DM time step, gas adds … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. provides a schematic overview of the DMAF method. Steps unrelated to the DMAF are sketched very roughly only to provide an overview. Note in particular the logic for determining the gas time step: first, ∆t is set for all particles, irrespective of DMAF. Then, the energy rates at the DM particles are computed and energy receivers are determined. If a DM particle has a smaller time step then a receiving gas particle,… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Static mass distribution of the DM particles, following the PDF of a normal distribution with mean (0, 0) kpc and stan￾dard deviation 3 kpc. Shown are particles with mass larger than 5 × 10−6 M . energy deposition will be dominated by a small number of DM particles around the origin. Depending on the injection mechanism, we expect dif￾fering energy fractions and propagation speeds of the em￾anating shock wave in eac… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Internal energy of the gas for the donor-based method with choice of weights a) (left), b) (centre), and receiver-based method (right), at the end time of the simulation. Each filled circle stands for one particle and the size and colour represent the internal energy. …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gas density ρg (top) and temperature Tg (bottom) of the galaxy after 97.8 Myr, averaged over the z-coordinate. The central gas density is depleted due to the DMAF as compared to the fiducial ΛCDM simulation without DMAF. The results for the different methods closely re…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Isolated halo: radial plot of the DM density ρχ (left), gas density ρg (centre), and gas temperature Tg (right) in a logarithmic scale. DMAF reduces the central density of the gas and the DM while increasing the temperature. The lower panels show the relative differenc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results of the cosmological simulation with a light DM candidate of mass mχ = 1 MeV c −2 : DM density ρχ (left), gas density ρg (centre), and specific internal energy of the gas ug (right) at z = 0. The first row shows the fiducial ΛCDM simulation without DMAF, the sec…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Halo mass function (HMF) (red tones, upper-right corner ) and halo velocity function (HVF) (blue tones, lower-left corner ) for the cosmological simulation at z = 0. Inset plots show a zoom with 30-fold magnification. The DMAF quenches the formation of haloes of all si…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Largest galaxy cluster in the cosmological simulation: radial plot of the DM density ρχ (left), gas density ρg (centre), and gas temperature Tg (right) in a logarithmic scale. The lower panels show the relative difference towards the mean of a), b), and the receiver-b…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Hoyle F., 1963, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/126.3.223 , 126, 223

    Aarseth S. J., Hoyle F., 1963, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/126.3.223 , 126, 223

    doi:10.1093/mnras/126.3.223 1963

  2. [2]

    Dark Universe] 10.1016/j.dark.2015.08.001 , 9, 8

    Abdallah J., et al., 2015, @doi [Phys. Dark Universe] 10.1016/j.dark.2015.08.001 , 9, 8

    doi:10.1016/j.dark.2015.08.001 2015

  3. [3]

    Ascasibar Y., 2007, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066880 , 462, L65

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066880 2007

  4. [5]

    Avila S., et al., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu799 , 441, 3488

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu799 2014

  5. [6]

    Bartels R., Krishnamurthy S., Weniger C., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.051102 , 116, 051102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.051102 2016

  6. [8]

    o m L., Edsj \

    Bergstr \" o m L., Edsj \" o J., Gondolo P., Ullio P., 1999, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.043506 , 59, 043506

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.043506 1999

  7. [9]

    Bertschinger E., 2006, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.063509 , 74, 063509

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.063509 2006

  8. [10]

    A., Wilkinson R

    Boehm C., Schewtschenko J. A., Wilkinson R. J., Baugh C. M., Pascoli S., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu115 , 445, L31

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu115 2014

Show all 98 references
  1. [12]

    T., Kersten J., Walia P., 2016, @doi [Phys

    Bringmann T., Ihle H. T., Kersten J., Walia P., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.103529 , 94, 103529

    2016 doi

  2. [13]

    M., Kuhlen M., Zolotov A., Hooper D., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/22 , 765, 22

    Brooks A. M., Kuhlen M., Zolotov A., Hooper D., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/22 , 765, 22

    2013 doi

  3. [14]

    M., Massey R., Lacroix T., Strigari L

    Brown A. M., Massey R., Lacroix T., Strigari L. E., Fattahi A., B hm C., 2019, preprint (arXiv:1907.0

    2019

  4. [15]

    S., Kravtsov A

    Bullock J. S., Kravtsov A. V., Weinberg D. H., 2000, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/309279 , 539, 517

    2000 doi

  5. [16]

    Cholis I., Linden T., Hooper D., 2019, preprint (arXiv:1903.02549)

    2019 arXiv

  6. [17]

    Comparat J., Prada F., Yepes G., Klypin A., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx1183 , 469, 4157

    2017 doi

  7. [18]

    Ann.] 10.1007/BF01448839 , 100, 32

    Courant R., Friedrichs K., Lewy H., 1928, @doi [Math. Ann.] 10.1007/BF01448839 , 100, 32

    1928 doi

  8. [20]

    Cuoco A., Heisig J., Klamt L., Korsmeier M., Kr \" a mer M., 2019, preprint (arXiv:1903.01472)

    2019 arXiv

  9. [21]

    Delahaye T., Lavalle J., Lineros R., Donato F., Fornengo N., 2010, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014225 , 524, A51

    2010 doi

  10. [22]

    E., Tormen G., Sheth R

    Despali G., Giocoli C., Angulo R. E., Tormen G., Sheth R. K., Baso G., Moscardini L., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv2842 , 456, 2486

    2016 doi

  11. [23]

    I., 2002, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021305 , 395, 1023

    Dokuchaev V. I., 2002, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021305 , 395, 1023

    2002 doi

  12. [25]

    J., Ca \ n as R., Poulton R

    Elahi P. J., Ca \ n as R., Poulton R. J. J., Tobar R. J., Willis J. S., Lagos C. d. P., Power C., Robotham A. S. G., 2019, preprint (arxiv:1902.01010)

    2019 arXiv

  13. [26]

    D., Bullock J

    Elbert O. D., Bullock J. S., Garrison-Kimmel S., Rocha M., O \ n orbe J., Peter A. H., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1470 , 453, 29

    2015 doi

  14. [27]

    R., Valdes M., Iocco F., 2013, @doi [Phys

    Galli S., Slatyer T. R., Valdes M., Iocco F., 2013, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.063502 , 88, 063502

    2013 doi

  15. [28]

    G \' a rate M., 2017, @doi [Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/129/975/058010 , 129, 058010

    2017 doi

  16. [30]

    Hiroshima N., Ando S., Ishiyama T., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.123002 , 97, 123002

    2018 doi

  17. [31]

    Holmberg E., 1941, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/144344 , 94, 385

    1941 doi

  18. [32]

    Hoof S., Geringer-Sameth A., Trotta R., 2018, preprint (arxiv:1812.06986)

    2018 arXiv

  19. [33]

    F., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sts210 , 428, 2840

    Hopkins P. F., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sts210 , 428, 2840

    2013 doi

  20. [34]

    F., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv195 , 450, 53

    Hopkins P. F., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv195 , 450, 53

    2015 doi

  21. [35]

    F., Kere s D., O \ n orbe J., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C

    Hopkins P. F., Kere s D., O \ n orbe J., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C. A., Quataert E., Murray N., Bullock J. S., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu1738 , 445, 581

    2014 doi

  22. [36]

    F., et al., 2018a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty674 , 477, 1578

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2018a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty674 , 477, 1578

    doi

  23. [37]

    F., et al., 2018b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 , 480, 800

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2018b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 , 480, 800

    doi

  24. [38]

    A., Bellazzini M., Malhan K., Martin N., Bianchini P., 2019, @doi [Nat

    Ibata R. A., Bellazzini M., Malhan K., Martin N., Bianchini P., 2019, @doi [Nat. Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-019-0751-x , 3, 667

    2019 doi

  25. [39]

    J., Lewis G

    Iwanus N., Elahi P. J., Lewis G. F., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx1974 , 472, 1214

    2017 doi

  26. [40]

    J., List F., Lewis G

    Iwanus N., Elahi P. J., List F., Lewis G. F., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz435 , 485, 1420

    2019 doi

  27. [41]

    A., Kravtsov A

    Klypin A. A., Kravtsov A. V., Valenzuela O., Prada F., 1999, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/307643 , 522, 82

    1999 doi

  28. [42]

    A., Trujillo-Gomez S., Primack J., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/102 , 740, 102

    Klypin A. A., Trujillo-Gomez S., Primack J., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/102 , 740, 102

    2011 doi

  29. [44]

    Knebe A., et al., 2013a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sts173 , 428, 2039

    doi

  30. [45]

    Knebe A., et al., 2013b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt1403 , 435, 1618

    doi

  31. [46]

    D., Bullock J

    Kuzio De Naray R., Martinez G. D., Bullock J. S., Kaplinghat M., 2010, @doi [ApJL] 10.1088/2041-8205/710/2/L161 , 710, 161

    2010 doi

  32. [47]

    LSST Dark Matter Group 2019, preprint (arxiv:1902.01055)

    2019 arXiv

  33. [48]

    K., Slatyer T

    Leane R. K., Slatyer T. R., 2019, preprint (arxiv:1904.08430)

    2019 arXiv

  34. [49]

    K., Slatyer T

    Leane R. K., Slatyer T. R., Beacom J. F., Ng K. C. Y., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023016 , 98, 23016

    2018 doi

  35. [50]

    K., Lisanti M., Safdi B

    Lee S. K., Lisanti M., Safdi B. R., Slatyer T. R., Xue W., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.051103 , 116, 051103

    2016 doi

  36. [51]

    R., et al., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20200.x , 420, 2318

    Lovell M. R., et al., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20200.x , 420, 2318

    2012

  37. [52]

    M., Coleman B., Paterson D., Horiuchi S., Pohl M., 2018, @doi [Nat

    Macias O., Gordon C., Crocker R. M., Coleman B., Paterson D., Horiuchi S., Pohl M., 2018, @doi [Nat. Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-018-0414-3 , 2, 387

    2018 doi

  38. [53]

    S., Sehgal N., Slatyer T

    Madhavacheril M. S., Sehgal N., Slatyer T. R., 2014, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.103508 , 89, 103508

    2014 doi

  39. [54]

    McClintock T., et al., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf568 , 872, 53

    2019 doi

  40. [55]

    S., Schombert J

    McGaugh S. S., Schombert J. M., Bothun G. D., de Blok W. J. G., 2000, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/312628 , 533, L99

    2000 doi

  41. [56]

    Moore B., 1994, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/370629a0 , 370, 629

    1994 doi

  42. [57]

    Moore B., Ghigna S., Governato F., Lake G., Quinn T., Stadel J., Tozzi P., 1999, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/312287 , 524, L19

    1999 doi

  43. [58]

    I., Pearce F

    Muldrew S. I., Pearce F. R., Power C., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17636.x , 410, 2617

    2011

  44. [60]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/304888 , 490, 493

    1997 doi

  45. [62]

    Perret V., 2016, DICE: Disk Initial Conditions Environment , Astrophysics Source Code Library ascl:1607.002

    2016

  46. [63]

    H., Rocha M., Bullock J

    Peter A. H., Rocha M., Bullock J. S., Kaplinghat M., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sts535 , 430, 105

    2013 doi

  47. [64]

    Pieri L., Lavalle J., Bertone G., Branchini E., 2011, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.023518 , 83, 023518

    2011 doi

  48. [65]

    Planck Collaboration 2016, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , 594, A13

    2016 doi

  49. [66]

    Planck Collaboration 2018, preprint (arXiv:1807.06209)

    2018 arXiv

  50. [68]

    Pontzen A., Ro s kar R., Stinson G., Woods R., Reed D., Coles J., Quinn T., 2013, pynbody: Astrophysics Simulation Analysis for Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library ascl:1305.002

    2013

  51. [69]

    F., Jenkins A., Frenk C

    Power C., Navarro J. F., Jenkins A., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., Springel V., Stadel J., Quinn T., 2003, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.05925.x , 338, 14

    2003

  52. [70]

    H., Schechter P., 1974, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/152650 , 187, 425

    Press W. H., Schechter P., 1974, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/152650 , 187, 425

    1974 doi

  53. [71]

    X., Profumo S., Valenzuela O., 2019, preprint (arXiv:1907.06682)

    Reynoso-Cordova J., Burgue \ n o O., Geringer-Sameth A., Gonzalez-Morales A. X., Profumo S., Valenzuela O., 2019, preprint (arXiv:1907.06682)

    2019 arXiv

  54. [72]

    H., Bullock J

    Rocha M., Peter A. H., Bullock J. S., Kaplinghat M., Garrison-Kimmel S., O \ n orbe J., Moustakas L. A., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sts514 , 430, 81

    2013 doi

  55. [73]

    R., Makino J., 2009, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/L99 , 697, L99

    Saitoh T. R., Makino J., 2009, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/L99 , 697, L99

    2009 doi

  56. [74]

    Schaye J., et al., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu2058 , 446, 521

    2015 doi

  57. [75]

    V., Diemand J., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu034 , 441, 6

    Schneider A., Anderhalden D., Macci \` o A. V., Diemand J., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu034 , 441, 6

    2014 doi

  58. [76]

    J., Avram C

    Sch \" o n S., Mack K. J., Avram C. A., Wyithe J. S., Barberio E., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1056 , 451, 2840

    2015 doi

  59. [77]

    J., Wyithe S

    Sch \" o n S., Mack K. J., Wyithe S. B., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx2968 , 474, 3067

    2018 doi

  60. [78]

    Schumann M., 2019, preprint (arxiv:1903.03026)

    2019 arXiv

  61. [79]

    R., Padmanabhan N., Finkbeiner D

    Slatyer T. R., Padmanabhan N., Finkbeiner D. P., 2009, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.043526 , 80, 043526

    2009 doi

  62. [80]

    F., 2019, preprint (arxiv:1904.11503)

    Smirnov J., Beacom J. F., 2019, preprint (arxiv:1904.11503)

    2019 arXiv

  63. [81]

    J., Iocco F., Glover S

    Smith R. J., Iocco F., Glover S. C., Schleicher D. R., Klessen R. S., Hirano S., Yoshida N., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/154 , 761, 154

    2012 doi

  64. [82]

    S., 2002, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/341444 , 572, L23

    Somerville R. S., 2002, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/341444 , 572, L23

    2002 doi

  65. [83]

    Phys.] 10.1002/andp.19314030302 , 403, 257

    Sommerfeld A., 1931, @doi [Ann. Phys.] 10.1002/andp.19314030302 , 403, 257

    1931 doi

  66. [84]

    Springel V., 2005, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x , 364, 1105

    2005

  67. [85]

    Springel V., 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x , 401, 791

    2010

  68. [86]

    Springel V., 2015, N-GenIC: Cosmological structure initial conditions , Astrophysics Source Code Library ascl:1502.003

    2015

  69. [87]

    Springel V., Hernquist L., 2002, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05445.x , 333, 649

    2002

  70. [88]

    D., 2001, @doi [New Astron.] 10.1016/S1384-1076(01)00042-2 , 6, 79

    Springel V., Yoshida N., White S. D., 2001, @doi [New Astron.] 10.1016/S1384-1076(01)00042-2 , 6, 79

    2001 doi

  71. [89]

    Springel V., et al., 2005, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature03597 , 435, 629

    2005 doi

  72. [90]

    Springel V., et al., 2008, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14066.x , 391, 1685

    2008

  73. [91]

    Springel V., et al., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx3304 , 475, 676

    2018 doi

  74. [92]

    Stadel J., Potter D., Moore B., Diemand J., Madau P., Zemp M., Kuhlen M., Quilis V., 2009, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00699.x , 398, L21

    2009

  75. [93]

    F., 2012, @doi [Phys

    Steigman G., Dasgupta B., Beacom J. F., 2012, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.023506 , 86, 023506

    2012 doi

  76. [94]

    Stoehr F., White S. D. M., Springel V., Tormen G., Yoshida N., 2003, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07052.x , 345, 1313

    2003

  77. [95]

    Stref M., Lavalle J., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063003 , 95, 063003

    2017 doi

  78. [96]

    Tram T., Brandbyge J., Dakin J., Hannestad S., 2019, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/022 , 2019, 022

    2019 doi

  79. [97]

    B., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Tulin S., Yu H. B., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rep.] 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004 , 730, 1

    2018 doi

  80. [98]

    B., Fisher J

    Tully R. B., Fisher J. R., 1977, A & A, 54, 661

    1977

  81. [99]

    Vogelsberger M., Zavala J., Loeb A., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21182.x , 423, 3740

    2012

  82. [100]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2014, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature13316 , 509, 177

    2014 doi

  83. [101]

    H., Bullock J

    Weinberg D. H., Bullock J. S., Governato F., de Naray R. K., Peter A. H. G., 2015, @doi [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.] 10.1073/pnas.1308716112 , 112, 12249

    2015 doi

  84. [102]

    White M., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu209 , 439, 3630

    2014 doi

  85. [103]

    P., Faltenbacher A., Yepes G., Hoffman Y., Gottl \" o ber S., Catinella B., 2009, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1779 , 700, 1779

    Zavala J., Jing Y. P., Faltenbacher A., Yepes G., Hoffman Y., Gottl \" o ber S., Catinella B., 2009, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1779 , 700, 1779

    2009 doi

  86. [104]

    G., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnrasl/sls053 , 431, 20

    Zavala J., Vogelsberger M., Walker M. G., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnrasl/sls053 , 431, 20

    2013 doi

  87. [105]

    B., 1970, A & A, 5, 84

    Zel'dovich Y. B., 1970, A & A, 5, 84

    1970

  88. [106]

    Zolotov A., et al., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/71 , 761, 71

    2012 doi

  89. [107]

    de Blok W. J. G., McGaugh S. S., Bosma A., Rubin V. C., 2001, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/320262 , 552, L23

    2001 doi

  90. [108]

    Astrophys., 50, 184

    von Hoerner S., 1960, Z. Astrophys., 50, 184

    1960

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.