Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Testing warm dark matter with kinematics of the smallest galaxies

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The kinematics of the three faintest Milky Way satellite galaxies require thermal-relic warm dark matter to be heavier than 5.8 keV at 95 percent confidence; Triangulum II and Tucana V are the decisive outliers.

desk verdict A genuinely new and plausible WDM limit from prompt cusps in the faintest dwarfs, but the calibration of the subhalo cusp amplitude is the main thing to stress-test before trusting the number. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.04156 v2 pith:BIA5GELS submitted 2025-12-03 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

M. Sten Delos , Niusha Ahvazi , Andrew Benson This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA PACS 95.35.+d
keywords warmdarkmatterpromptcuspsMilkyWaysatellitegalaxiesdwarfgalaxykinematicsvelocitydispersionthermalreliccusp-halorelationmasslimit
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 argues that the measured orbital speeds of stars in the three faintest known Milky Way satellite galaxies—Segue 1, Triangulum II, and Tucana V—are direct evidence against light warm dark matter. In warm dark matter models, every dark matter halo forms with a dense central cusp whose strength is set by the particle's free-streaming scale; heavier particles produce weaker cusps. Using a semi-analytic galaxy-formation model that implements these 'prompt cusps', the authors generate theoretical counterparts of the three galaxies and compare predicted circular velocities at the half-light radius with observed kinematics. The measured velocities of Triangulum II and Tucana V fall far below the warm-dark-matter predictions, yielding a 95 percent confidence lower bound of 5.8 keV on the thermal-relic particle mass (and 9.4 keV at 90 percent confidence). The result matters because it constrains dark matter using a predicted enhancement of small-scale structure, rather than the usual suppression of galaxy abundance, and it is already competitive with the strongest existing limits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the prompt cusp: a density profile rho(r) = A r^-1.5 that forms in every dark matter halo at the free-streaming scale. The cusp coefficient A is set by the cusp-halo relation, which links A to the halo's mass and formation time; the paper assigns A to each simulated subhalo at the moment its mass crosses the resolution threshold, includes a lognormal scatter calibrated to simulations, and applies a ~20 percent upward bias for subhalos about to fall into a larger host. The density profile is then evolved using a cusp-NFW form with tidal heating, and the key observable is the circular velocity at the half-light radius, v_circ(r_h), estimated from observed line-of-sight ve

What would settle it

Calculate the prompt-cusp coefficients of subhalos at their time of infall in a high-resolution warm-dark-matter cosmological simulation; if the median coefficient exceeds the field-halo value by substantially less than 20 percent at the relevant masses and redshifts, the predicted v_circ(r_h) distributions would be lower and the derived mass limit would be overstated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the central density cusps—'prompt cusps'—that warm dark matter produces in every small halo are massive enough to leave a detectable kinematic signature in the smallest galaxies, and that the measured velocity dispersions of Triangulum II and Tucana V are serious outliers for warm dark matter with particle masses below roughly 6–9 keV. Embedding a cusp-halo relation that ties cusp strength to halo mass and formation time into a full model of Milky Way satellite populations, the paper finds that for a 10 keV thermal-relic particle the predicted circular velocity at the half-light radius is substantially higher than in cold dark matter, and that the observed low value

Load-bearing premise

The limit rests on the calibration that newly infalling subhalos carry prompt cusps about 20 percent denser than typical field halos of the same mass, with a lognormal scatter correctly captured by the model; if this subhalo cusp bias or scatter is overestimated, the predicted circular velocities would be too high and the derived mass limit would be too strong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the limit holds, it joins satellite-abundance and strong-lensing constraints as one of the strongest existing bounds on thermal-relic warm dark matter, while resting on a fundamentally different observable signature.
  • Improving velocity dispersion measurements of Segue 1, Triangulum II, and Tucana V could substantially sharpen the mass bound, because the predicted difference from cold dark matter remains visible even at particle masses around 20 keV for these compact galaxies.
  • Discovering and kinematically characterizing more galaxies as compact and faint as these would allow the constraint to be pushed toward higher masses with a modest number of additional systems.
  • The model predicts that tidal stripping suppresses circular velocities most strongly for low-pericenter systems like Triangulum II, making such galaxies especially discriminating between warm and cold dark matter.
  • Accounting for assembly bias in subhalo concentrations would raise the predicted circular velocities and therefore strengthen the warm-dark-matter limit, as the paper explicitly notes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the same prompt-cusp test could be applied to other dark matter models that suppress small-scale power, such as sterile neutrinos or interacting dark matter, provided the cusp-halo relation can be recalibrated for those models.
  • We infer that the 20 percent assembly-bias correction to subhalo cusp coefficients is the single most important calibration uncertainty; a direct simulation resolving prompt cusps in infalling subhalos would be the most straightforward way to test whether the derived limit is overstated.
  • We infer that the contrast between Segue 1 (orbiting faster than cold-dark-matter predictions) and the other two galaxies could, if the cold-dark-matter baseline is correct, provide a separate probe of tidal disruption and orbital histories of ultrafaint dwarfs.
  • We infer that the statistical power of this method will grow faster than linearly with sample size, since each new compact ultrafaint galaxy adds an independent draw from a distribution that is sharply peaked in warm-dark-matter models.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new test of warm dark matter (WDM) using the central density cusps predicted to form in all dark matter halos. The authors implement the cusp-halo relation of Delos (2025) in the semi-analytic galaxy formation model Galacticus, generate Milky Way-like satellite populations for WDM masses of 3–40 keV and CDM, and compare the predicted circular velocities at the half-light radius with the observed kinematics of the three smallest/faintest confirmed Milky Way satellites: Segue 1, Triangulum II, and Tucana V. They find that Tri II and Tuc V have observed v_circ(r_h) values that are unusually low compared to WDM predictions, while Segue 1 is consistent with WDM. Combining the three systems with a Fisher-type chi^2 statistic, they derive m_chi > 5.8 keV at 95% confidence and m_chi > 9.4 keV at 90% confidence for thermal-relic WDM, competitive with existing limits from satellite abundances and lensing. The central claim is that the prompt-cusp enhancement of small-scale structure provides a new, powerful probe of the dark matter particle mass.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a novel and competitive WDM constraint based on an enhancement (prompt cusps) rather than a suppression of small-scale structure. The method is conceptually distinct from abundance and lensing probes and could be sharpened with better kinematics of the same or additional ultrafaint dwarfs. The paper is unusually transparent: it explicitly acknowledges that Galacticus half-light radii are about half the observed values, that tidal heating is not applied to stars, that concentration assembly bias is omitted, and that the subhalo assembly-bias calibration in Appendix A rests on power-law simulations. These acknowledged limitations are mostly in the conservative direction (they would strengthen the limit), which lends credibility. The code and model version are publicly referenced, and the analysis uses empirical posterior distributions for the key kinematic inputs rather than simple Gaussian approximations. However, the central exclusion depends sensitively on the adopted prompt-cusp amplitude and scatter for subhalos, and the statistical combination needs more justification. With robustness tests, the paper could provide a landmark constraint; in its curr

major comments (2)
  1. [Secs. 3, 4.1, and Appendix A] The central exclusion m_chi > 5.8 keV is driven by the predicted lower tail of v_circ(r_h) for Tri II and Tuc V, which in turn is set by the prompt-cusp amplitude A assigned to subhalos. The model uses a ~20% assembly-bias boost (Fig. 9) and a lognormal scatter with sigma given by Eq. (A2), calibrated on self-similar power-law simulations (n = -2.67, -2, 1) rather than on WDM power spectra. Footnote 9 concedes that assembly bias does not emerge naturally in Galacticus and that the median A 'is not clear' to be physically correct. Because a 20% shift in the median A or a 50% increase in scatter would directly move the predicted v_circ distributions and hence the 95% limit, I ask for a sensitivity analysis (e.g., vary the boost from 0% to 40% and vary the scatter by a factor of 2) or a direct validation on a WDM simulation. Without such a test, the robustness of the headline limit to the m
  2. [Sec. 5, Eq. (3)] The combined probability uses Fisher's method, chi^2 = -2 sum ln p_i with 6 degrees of freedom, which assumes the p_i are independent and uniformly distributed under the null. Here the p_i are posterior predictive p-values computed after conditioning on the observed M_V, r_h, and r_p, and using a model distribution estimated from only 10 Milky Way-like Galacticus realizations with resampling (about 100–2000 unique analogues per galaxy). These p-values are not guaranteed to be uniform: the limited effective sample size and the conditioning on observed properties can produce non-uniformity. Since the 95% and 90% limits are read directly from the combined curve in Fig. 7, the authors should calibrate the null distribution of the combined statistic (e.g., by drawing mock galaxies from the model and repeating the full procedure) or adopt a more conservative combination. This is load-bearing f
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 5] The statement that subhalo cusps are 'about 20 percent higher' is an oversimplification of Fig. 9, where the bias varies substantially with mass and time (roughly 1.0–1.8). Please specify the mass/redshift range relevant to the Segue 1, Tri II, and Tuc V analogues when quoting this number.
  2. [Sec. 6 / Footnote 9] The caveat that assembly bias does not emerge naturally from Galacticus and that the median A 'is not clear' to be physically correct is a significant modeling limitation. This should be stated more prominently in Section 6 rather than in a footnote, given its direct impact on the result.
  3. [Sec. 2, Tuc V] The adopted log-normal distribution for Tuc V's sigma_los is said to closely match Hansen et al. (2024). Please cite the specific figure or table in that work, since different summary statistics (e.g., median vs. mode) can shift the inferred v_circ.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The abstract says 'three faintest Milky Way satellites,' but the selection is based on both faintness and small size; Segue 1, Tri II, and Tuc V are not strictly the three faintest in absolute magnitude. Consider phrasing such as 'three smallest and faintest confirmed satellites' for precision.
  5. [Fig. 3 caption] The label 'P(> sigma_los)' is a survival function; it would be clearer to write 'P(sigma_los > x)' or to state that it is the complementary CDF.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the predicted v_circ(r_h) distributions are generated from simulation-calibrated prompt-cusp inputs, and the observed dwarf kinematics enter only in the final comparison.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. Section 3 sets the prompt-cusp coefficient A from the Delos (2025) cusp-halo relation at the resolution-crossing mass M_res=1e7 M_sun, with lognormal scatter and subhalo assembly-bias corrections calibrated in Appendix A using the Delos & White (2023a) N-body simulations. Those simulations use self-similar power-law spectra and do not use the v_circ(r_h) values of Segue 1, Tri II, or Tuc V. The observed M_V, r_h, and r_p enter only as selection weights for drawing Galacticus analogues (Section 4), and the observed v_circ(r_h) is used only at the end (Section 5) to calculate tail probabilities. No parameter in the prompt-cusp or galaxy-formation model is fit to the three galaxies' kinematics. Although the cusp-halo relation is cited from the lead author's prior work, that relation is an externally testable, simulation-based calibration rather than a theorem invoked to forbid alternatives or an ansatz disguised as first principles. The paper's footnote 9 candidly states that assembly bias does not emerge naturally in Galacticus and that the median A being correct 'is not clear'; this is an honest limitation, not a circular step. Appendix B's r_h mismatch is likewise a model validation caveat, not an input to the constraint. Thus the central limit m_chi>5.8 keV is a genuine forward-model prediction, not an equivalence to the paper's inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the author's simulation-calibrated cusp-halo relation, the SAM's halo-galaxy mapping, and the Wolf estimator; none of these are fit to the target v_circ data, but the prompt-cusp calibration and scatter are not independently verified outside the authors' own simulations.

free parameters (3)
  • Prompt cusp scatter sigma_log10A = sigma_log10 A = 0.195 exp(-1/sigma_0) (Eq. A2)
    Fitted to simulation scatter in Appendix A; used to add lognormal scatter to Galacticus cusp coefficients, broadening the predicted v_circ distribution and affecting the p-values.
  • Subhalo assembly-bias boost in A = A_ifl/A_all ~ 1.2 (Figure 9)
    Derived from the same simulations in Appendix A; used to justify assigning cusps at M_res rather than at infall, raising predicted v_circ in subhalos.
  • Tucana V sigma_los log-normal parameters = center 1.2 km/s, std 0.56 e-fold
    Adopted to match the Hansen et al. (2024) constraints on Tuc V; enters the observational likelihood for v_circ.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Every dark matter halo forms with a rho ~ r^-1.5 prompt cusp on the free-streaming scale; the Delos (2025) cusp-halo relation is valid and applicable to subhalos via (M_res, z_res).
    Invoked in Section 3 and Fig. 5; if the cusp-halo relation overpredicts A in low-mass subhalos, the predicted v_circ is too high.
  • domain assumption Galacticus (with the Ahvazi et al. 2024 galaxy formation model) reliably maps stellar luminosity/half-light radius to halo mass for ultra-faint dwarfs like Segue 1, Tri II, and Tuc V.
    Used to select analogues and predict their v_circ; the model is calibrated to satellite luminosity functions and velocity dispersion-mass relations, but not specifically to these three galaxies.
  • domain assumption The Wolf et al. (2010) estimator v_circ(r_h) = sqrt(3) sigma_los accurately gives the circular velocity at the half-light radius.
    Central observable transformation; assumes isotropy and no rotational support, which may be imperfect for these small systems.
  • domain assumption The WDM power spectra of Vogel & Abazajian (2023) accurately describe thermal-relic warm dark matter for the masses considered.
    Sets the initial conditions and free-streaming scale; different thermal histories could change the prompt cusp amplitudes.
  • domain assumption The tidal heating prescription of Pullen et al. (2014) / Yang et al. (2020), calibrated to N-body simulations, correctly shapes the cusp-NFW density profile of subhalos after infall.
    Used to model the v_circ profiles in Fig. 6; tides are applied to dark matter only, not to stars.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing warm dark matter with kinematics of the smallest galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BIA5GELS

@misc{pith2026251204156,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing warm dark matter with kinematics of the smallest galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BIA5GELS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.04156}
}
abstract

Every dark matter halo forms with a $\rho\propto r^{-1.5}$ density cusp at its center. For warm dark matter (WDM), these prompt cusps can be massive enough to influence the kinematics of dwarf galaxies. By implementing prompt cusps in the Galacticus galaxy formation model, we show that the measured velocity dispersions of Tucana V and Triangulum II are serious outliers for dwarf galaxies arising in WDM models. For thermal-relic dark matter, the three faintest Milky Way satellites together constrain the particle mass to be $m_\chi>5.8$ keV at 95 percent confidence or $m_\chi>9.4$ keV at 90 percent confidence. Improved velocity dispersion measurements for these systems could greatly refine this constraint, as could identification and kinematic characterization of more such galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.04156 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the analysis in this work. In color, we show radial profiles of the circular orbit velocity for satel￾lite galaxies similar to Segue 1, Tri II, and Tuc V produced with Galacticus. We show the median and 68 percent scat￾ter at each radius, and different colors correspond to different dark matter (DM) models. For the same galaxies, the points with error bars mark the observationally inferred circular o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the low-luminosity end of the Milky Way satellite galaxy distribution, drawn from the Local Volume Database (LVDB; A. B. Pace 2025).3 Since the prompt cusp is most relevant at the smallest radii, we are interested in the least spatially extended galax￾3 https://github.com/apace7/local volume database; we use version 1.0.6 and restrict our consideration to systems for which host is "mw" and confirmed_galaxy is … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cumulative posterior distributions of the line-of-sight velocity dispersion of the dwarf galaxies that we analyze. For Segue 1 and Tri II, we take the distributions directly from J. D. Simon et al. (2011) and R. Buttry et al. (2022), respectively. For Tuc V, the points correspond to the values reported by T. T. Hansen et al. (2024), and we adopt a closely matching log-normal distribution (green curve). 3. MODELING P… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the coefficients A of the ρ = Ar−1.5 prompt cusps of these galaxies as determined by Galacticus for 10 keV WDM. Recall from sec￾tion 3 that Galacticus assigns prompt cusps using the cusp-halo relation (M. S. Delos 2025) at the mass Mres = 107 M⊙ and redshift zres…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profiles of the circular orbit velocity vcirc for Galacticus analogues of Segue 1 (left-hand panel), Tri II (middle panel), and Tuc V (right-hand panel). The solid curves show the median value at each radius, while the shading marks the 1σ (68 percent) scatter. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Probability of the circular orbit velocity at the half-light radius, vcirc(rh), being at least as low as the mea￾sured value. We show this probability as a function of the WDM particle mass, with the the narrow panel on the right representing CDM. The three colored cur…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 68 percent scatter in cusp coefficients A at fixed halo mass, shown as a function of time. The solid curves include all field halos, while the dotted curves are restricted to halos that will fall into another halo at least 100 times more massive in the next 3-6 percent…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Similar to figure 9 but showing the bias in halo concentration c instead. Here, due to the need to resolve internal structures, we restrict our consideration to halos of at least 300 simulation particles. properties of these systems. Similarly to in section 4, we samp…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Absolute V -band magnitude MV , half-light radius rh, and pericenter radius rp for Galacticus analogues of Segue 1, Tri II, and Tuc V. The left-hand panel shows the distribution of MV for analogues selected by rh and rp; the middle panel shows the distribution of rh f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Wave-optics imprints of dark matter subhalos on strongly lensed gravitational waves. II. Saddle images and detectability

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Subhalos produce percent-level modulations in saddle and minimum images; matched-filter analysis yields >5σ combined detections in 62% of realizations for fiducial sources near caustics, projecting 10-20 substructure ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abel, T., Anninos, P., Zhang, Y., & Norman, M. L. 1997, NewA, 2, 181, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00010-9

    doi:10.1016/s1384-1076(97)00010-9 1997

  2. [2]

    V., et al

    Ahvazi, N., Benson, A., Sales, L. V., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae761

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae761 2024

  3. [3]

    B., Garling, C

    Ahvazi, N., Pace, A. B., Garling, C. T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.15808, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.15808

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15808 2025

  4. [4]

    B., Evans, N

    Belokurov, V., Zucker, D. B., Evans, N. W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 654, 897, doi: 10.1086/509718

    doi:10.1086/509718 2007

  5. [5]

    2011, Galacticus: A Semi-Analytic Model of Galaxy Formation,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1108.004 http://ascl.net/1108.004

    Benson, A. 2011, Galacticus: A Semi-Analytic Model of Galaxy Formation,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1108.004 http://ascl.net/1108.004

    2011

  6. [6]

    Benson, A. J. 2012, NewA, 17, 175, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2011.07.004

    doi:10.1016/j.newast.2011.07.004 2012

  7. [7]

    Benson, A. J. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1268, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa341

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa341 2020

  8. [8]

    2006, ApJ, 650, 933, doi: 10.1086/505417

    Blitz, L., & Rosolowsky, E. 2006, ApJ, 650, 933, doi: 10.1086/505417

    doi:10.1086/505417 2006

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    L., & Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80, doi: 10.1086/305262

    1998 doi

  2. [10]

    B., Koposov, S

    Buttry, R., Pace, A. B., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1706, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1441

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    L., Sand, D

    Carlin, J. L., Sand, D. J., Mu˜ noz, R. R., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa94d0

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Delos, M. S. 2023, MNRAS, 522, L78, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad043

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Delos, M. S. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae141

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Delos, M. S. 2025, ApJ, 993, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0625

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Bruff, M., & Erickcek, A

    Delos, M. S., Bruff, M., & Erickcek, A. L. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 023523, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023523

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    S., & White, S

    Delos, M. S., & White, S. D. M. 2023a, MNRAS, 518, 3509, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3373

    doi

  9. [17]

    S., & White, S

    Delos, M. S., & White, S. D. M. 2023b, JCAP, 2023, 008, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/008

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    C., et al

    Du, X., Benson, A., Zeng, Z. C., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 023019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023019 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1614, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa302

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    1998, A&A, 335, 403, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9803315

    Galli, D., & Palla, F. 1998, A&A, 335, 403, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9803315

    1998 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    F., Ji, A

    Griffen, B. F., Ji, A. P., Dooley, G. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 10, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/10

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Ferland, G. J. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 246, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0e75

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    T., Simon, J

    Hansen, T. T., Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a52

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    J., & Grin, D

    Johnson, T., Benson, A. J., & Grin, D. 2021, ApJ, 908, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd563

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    E., Nierenberg, A

    Keeley, R. E., Nierenberg, A. M., Gilman, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 1652, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2458

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 5206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2662 11

    Knebe, A., Stoppacher, D., Prada, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2662 11

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, ApJ, 916, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0436

    Li, H., Hammer, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0436

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Bose, S., Angulo, R

    Ludlow, A. D., Bose, S., Angulo, R. E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1046

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Mansfield, P., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4763, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa430

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Manwadkar, V., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2452 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Cˆ ot´ e, P., Santana, F. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac16b

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    O., An, R., Gluscevic, V., Benson, A., & Du, X

    Nadler, E. O., An, R., Gluscevic, V., Benson, A., & Du, X. 2025, ApJ, 986, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adceef

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    O., Wechsler, R

    Nadler, E. O., Wechsler, R. H., Bechtol, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab846a

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563, doi: 10.1086/177173

    1996 doi

  25. [34]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  26. [35]

    R., Frenk, C

    Newton, O., Lovell, M. R., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 3713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1223

    2025 doi

  27. [36]

    White, S. D. M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10802, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3949

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    Pace, A. B. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 142, doi: 10.33232/001c.144859

    2025 doi

  29. [38]

    2008, MNRAS, 383, 557, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12517.x

    Parkinson, H., Cole, S., & Helly, J. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 557, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12517.x

    2008

  30. [40]

    R., Benson, A

    Pullen, A. R., Benson, A. J., & Moustakas, L. A. 2014, ApJ, 792, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/24

    2014 doi

  31. [41]

    D., et al

    Richstein, H., Kallivayalil, N., Simon, J. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad393c

    2024 doi

  32. [42]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.00143, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.00143

    Robertson, A., & Benson, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.00143, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.00143

    2025 doi

  33. [43]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 1159, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21852.x

    Safranek-Shrader, C., Agarwal, M., Federrath, C., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1159, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21852.x

    2012

  34. [44]

    Simon, J. D. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 375, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104453

    2019 doi

  35. [45]

    D., Geha, M., Minor, Q

    Simon, J. D., Geha, M., Minor, Q. E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/46

    2011 doi

  36. [46]

    D., Li, T

    Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., Erkal, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ccb

    2020 doi

  37. [47]

    M., & Abazajian, K

    Vogel, C. M., & Abazajian, K. N. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 043520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043520

    2023 doi

  38. [48]

    S., Benson, A., Musick, A

    Weerasooriya, S., Bovill, M. S., Benson, A., Musick, A. M., & Ricotti, M. 2023, ApJ, 948, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc32b

    2023 doi

  39. [49]

    White, S. D. M., & Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52, doi: 10.1086/170483

    1991 doi

  40. [50]

    D., Bullock, J

    Wolf, J., Martinez, G. D., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1220, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16753.x

    2010

  41. [51]

    J., Pullen, A

    Yang, S., Du, X., Benson, A. J., Pullen, A. R., & Peter, A. H. G. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2496

    2020 doi

  42. [52]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3610

    Zaritsky, D., & Behroozi, P. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3610

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.