Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

COZMIC. III. Cosmological Zoom-in Simulations of Self-interacting Dark Matter with Suppressed Initial Conditions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Suppressing the initial power spectrum in a self-interacting dark matter model cuts the predicted fraction of core-collapsed dwarf-mass halos from 18% to as low as 2%, with the strongest suppression almost erasing core collapse in…

desk verdict First simulations showing P(k) suppression can weaken or erase SIDM core collapse; the qualitative result is solid, but the headline collapse fractions lean on a parametric model the paper itself flags as untested for this regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13065 v2 pith:QITHNXIL submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Ethan O. Nadler , Rui An , Daneng Yang , Hai-Bo Yu , Andrew Benson , Vera Gluscevic This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords self-interactingdarkmatterwarmpowerspectrumsuppressiongravothermalcorecollapsecosmologicalzoom-insimulationsMilkyWaydwarfsatellitesacousticoscillationssubhalomassfunction
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 show that self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) models must include the power-spectrum suppression that naturally accompanies the same dark-sector physics, because that suppression removes much of SIDM's most distinctive signature. Using zoom-in simulations of a Milky Way–like halo, it finds that the fraction of core-collapsed subhalos above $10^8\,M_\odot$ drops from 18% when SIDM is added to cold initial conditions to 2%, 8%, and 17% when the initial power spectrum is suppressed at three warm-dark-matter-like levels; isolated halos drop from 13% to 2%, 2%, and 4%. The strongest suppression, which saturates current warm dark matter constraints, almost entirely erases core collapse in isolated halos. A sympathetic reader would care because core collapse in low-mass halos is a leading SIDM explanation for the dense and diverse inner densities of Milky Way dwarf satellites, and these results say that explanation can vanish when the model's early-Universe physics is included consistently.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a parametric gravothermal model developed in earlier work, which predicts SIDM density-profile evolution from a halo's CDM $V_{\max}$ and $R_{\max}$ histories. The paper applies it to matched CDM and $T_{\rm kd}$-only simulations to compute the collapse timescale parameter $\tau_0=\int_{t_f}^{t_0} dt/t_c(t)$, with $\tau_0<0.15$ meaning core formation and $\tau_0>0.75$ meaning core collapse; systems are clipped at $\tau_0=1.1$ because the model is validated only to that point. The same machinery, weighted by effective warm-dark-matter mass functions, separates the two causes of reduced collapse: low-mass halos that never form versus halos whose delayed, suppressed growth leaves them in the core-forming stage. The underlying WSIDM model is a 0.1 GeV dark-matter particle interacting through an 8.11 keV dark photon that also couples to a dark fermion, which sets the $P(k)$ cutoff through the kinetic decoupling temperature $T_{\rm kd}$.

What would settle it

Run direct SIDM simulations of the same $T_{\rm kd}=0.72$ keV initial conditions using the full scattering implementation rather than the analytical collapse recipe, and count halos above $10^8\,M_\odot$ that reach central densities exceeding their initial values; a fraction far above the predicted 2% would refute the claim that strong power-spectrum suppression erases core collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that warm self-interacting dark matter (WSIDM) — a model with velocity-dependent SIDM plus a linear power-spectrum cutoff — changes both the abundances and the internal structure of dwarf-mass halos, and that the two effects are coupled through halo growth histories. The (sub)halo mass function suppression is set almost entirely by the $P(k)$ cutoff, while self-interactions set the density-profile evolution; however, the collapse driven by self-interactions is throttled by the same cutoff, because halos that form late and grow slowly have lower concentrations and longer gravothermal collapse timescales. Quantitatively, the core-collapsed fraction above $10^8\,M_\odot$ falls from 18% (subhalos) and 13% (isolated halos) in SIDM with CDM initial conditions to 2%/8%/17% and 2%/2%/4% in WSIDM with kinetic decoupling temperatures $T_{\rm kd}=0.72$, 1.46, and 2.32 keV. In the most suppressed model the core-collapse signature in isolated halos is almost entirely erased, and in milder models the surviving collapse is accompanied by an increased number of extremely low-concentration isolated halos. These are the first WSIDM simulations to capture the full range of gravothermal evolution, including core collapse.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction of specific collapsed fractions depends on a fast analytical recipe for gravothermal collapse, which was tested on ordinary cold SIDM but not on the suppressed-initial-condition runs it is here applied to, and on one Milky Way-like host standing in for all such systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In WSIDM, (sub)halo mass-function suppression relative to CDM is set by the $P(k)$ cutoff, not by self-interactions, so abundance measurements directly probe the early-Universe side of the model.
  • Core-collapsed fractions among resolved dwarf-mass halos are a sensitive probe of the cutoff: even the mildest simulated cutoff ($T_{\rm kd}=2.32$ keV) reduces the isolated-halo collapse fraction by roughly a factor of three.
  • Because stronger self-interactions in this model imply stronger $P(k)$ suppression, the core-collapse signature self-regulates; observations of both abundances and density profiles are needed to break the degeneracy.
  • WSIDM with mild suppression preserves a sizable collapsed subhalo population while adding low-concentration isolated halos, giving a discovery signature for upcoming strong-lensing and satellite-population data.
  • The central density–pericenter anticorrelation seen among Milky Way satellites is reproduced by the $T_{\rm kd}=0.72$ and 1.46 keV WSIDM runs, which contain both cored and collapsing subhalos, while a velocity-independent SIDM that never collapses cannot.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence left implicit is that the collapse fraction may be a more sensitive small-scale-structure observable than the halo mass function: even the mildest cutoff here changes the isolated-halo collapse fraction by a factor of three while suppressing abundances by only a few percent at $10^8\,M_\odot$.
  • The paper's three cutoffs bracket the transition; one could interpolate collapse fraction versus $T_{\rm kd}$ and use it as a likelihood for future dwarf surveys, which the paper motivates but does not construct.
  • The paper mentions low-concentration isolated halos as potential dark-matter-only counterparts of gas-rich ultradiffuse galaxies; testing that link requires baryonic simulations that include gas and star formation, which are not part of this work.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents eight new cosmological DM-only zoom-in simulations of a Milky Way-like host (Halo004) exploring the combined effects of a velocity-dependent SIDM cross section (MilkyWaySIDM) and suppressed linear matter power spectra motivated by a dark-photon-mediated WSIDM model. Three kinetic-decoupling temperatures (T_kd = 0.72, 1.46, 2.32 keV) are simulated both with and without self-interactions, along with CDM, SIDM, and WDM reference runs. The main result is that P(k) suppression reduces the fraction of core-collapsed (sub)halos relative to SIDM with CDM initial conditions, with the effect strongest for isolated halos and for the most suppressed P(k). The authors quantify this via the parametric gravothermal model of Yang et al. (2024, 2025) applied to CDM and T_kd-only simulations, and also show direct R_max-V_max relations and matched subhalo evolution histories from the WSIDM simulations. Additional results include (S)HMF suppression, subhalo density profile predictions matched to dwarf galaxies, and a central density-pericenter anticorrelation in some WSIDM models.

Significance. If the central qualitative claim holds, this is the first study to simulate gravothermal evolution, including core collapse, in SIDM models with WDM-like suppressed initial conditions. The paper identifies a physically important degeneracy: the same dark-sector physics that produces strong SIDM also suppresses dwarf-scale structure, partially erasing the core-collapse signature. This is directly relevant for interpreting upcoming dwarf galaxy, strong-lensing, and satellite-population data. The qualitative result is supported by direct simulation outputs, namely the R_max-V_max relations and matched V_max histories, which do not rely on the parametric model. The public release of halo catalogs, merger trees, and particle snapshots is a concrete strength. However, the headline quantitative fractions of core-collapsed halos in Table 1 and the abstract are not measured directly from the WSIDM snapshots; they are derived from a parametric model that the paper itself flags as untested in WSIDM.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Table 1, Section 4.4] The core-collapsed fractions in Table 1 and quoted in Sections 4.4 and 7.1 are not obtained by classifying core collapse in the actual SIDM/WSIDM simulation snapshots. Instead, they are computed by applying the parametric model of Yang et al. (2024, 2025) to the CDM and T_kd-only simulations. This is stated in Section 3.3, and Section 3.3 explicitly says 'We leave detailed testing of the parametric model in WSIDM for future work.' Given that the abstract and summary list exact percentages such as 18% dropping to 2% and 13% dropping to 2%, the headline quantitative claim rests on an extrapolation beyond the model's validated regime. The manuscript should either classify core collapse directly in the WSIDM runs (e.g., using the simulated density or V_max evolution) or clearly present Table 1 as parametric-model predictions with this caveat. The internal check in Appendix C for T_kd = 2.32 keV makes this concern concrete: the actual WSIDM subhalos show slightly enhanced V_max histories relative to SIDM, while the parametric-model tau_0 distribution shifts to lower values, and the authors state that nonlinear effects not captured by the parametric model may be at play.
  2. [Section 4.4, Table 1, Appendix A] The core-collapsed fractions are quoted as single numbers without statistical uncertainties, despite being derived from a single zoom-in host. Table 1 reports 100 subhalos and 759 isolated halos above 10^8 M_sun in the CDM run; the SIDM and WSIDM runs have similar or smaller samples. Poisson errors on the quoted fractions are therefore non-negligible (e.g., for 18% of 100 subhalos the 1-sigma error is roughly 4 percentage points, and for 2% it is roughly 1.4 percentage points). Some differences between models, particularly between T_kd = 1.46 and 2.32 keV for subhalos (8% vs. 17%), may be statistically marginal. Additionally, the convergence test in Appendix A validates R_max and V_max distributions only for isolated halos with M_vir > 8 x 10^8 M_sun and does not quantify convergence for subhalos or for the 10^8 M_sun regime used for the core-collapsed fractions. The paper should provide uncertainties and either extend the convergence test to the relevant mass range or soften the precision of the reported fractions.
  3. [Section 5, Appendix C] The matched-subhalo analysis in Section 5 and Appendix C reveals a qualitative tension for the T_kd = 2.32 keV model. The actual WSIDM V_max histories for the three matched subhalos are slightly enhanced relative to SIDM, yet the parametric model applied to the T_kd-only run predicts tau_0 distributions shifted to lower values. The paper acknowledges this in Appendix C, noting that nonlinear effects not captured by the parametric model may affect gravothermal evolution. This tension directly affects the reliability of the T_kd = 2.32 keV core-collapsed fraction in Table 1 (17% for subhalos). At minimum, the paper should quantify how much of the quoted fraction is robust to the parametric model's failure in this regime, or restrict the quantitative claim to models where the parametric model is validated against the direct WSIDM evolution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 12] The legend in the right panel of Figure 12 lists 'Tkd + SIDM' even though the panel compares T_kd-only and WDM subhalo mass functions; this appears to be a labeling error that should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.2] The statement that the authors present 'eight new high-resolution simulations' is correct, but it is easy to misread because Section 3.2 first lists eleven total simulations; consider adding an explicit enumeration of which are new.
  3. [Section 3.3] The definition of the core-collapsed threshold tau_0 > 0.75 is given with a reference to Roberts et al. (2024) in parentheses, but the text would benefit from a sentence explaining how sensitive the quoted fractions are to this threshold, since another threshold (e.g., 0.7 or 0.8) could change the absolute percentages.
  4. [Section 4.4] The sentence 'The core-collapsed fraction is expected to peak at roughly 10^8 M_sun' is presented without a direct citation or derivation; if this is from Ando et al. (2025), please make the citation explicit at that point.
  5. [Appendix A] The convergence discussion in Appendix A.2 states that K-S tests yield p > 0.99 for V_max and p ~ 0.3 for R_max, but no p-values are shown for the subhalo distributions; if subhalo R_max-V_max convergence cannot be tested, this should be stated more prominently because the main core-collapse fractions include subhalos.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the qualitative suppression of core collapse is directly simulated, and the quantitative fractions come from an externally validated parametric model that is not defined in terms of the reported outputs.

full rationale

The central qualitative claim, that P(k) suppression erases or delays SIDM core collapse, is directly supported by the actual WSIDM simulations: the Rmax-Vmax distributions (Figures 4 and 5) and the matched-subhalo Vmax histories (Figures 7, 13, and 14) are taken from the SIDM and WSIDM runs themselves, not from the parametric model. The quantitative f_cc values in Table 1 are indeed produced by applying the Yang et al. (2024, 2025) parametric model to the CDM and T_kd-only runs, rather than by classifying collapse in the direct WSIDM snapshots. However, this is an extrapolation and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the parametric model was developed and validated in prior work against cosmological CDM-initial-condition SIDM simulations, its stated assumptions do not include the WSIDM core-collapsed fractions reported here, and it is not fitted to those fractions in this paper. The paper also performs an internal check, stating that 'the parametric model's accuracy is similar when applied to our simulations with P(k) suppression and compared to our WSIDM results.' The manuscript explicitly flags the remaining limitation: 'We leave detailed testing of the parametric model in WSIDM for future work,' and Appendix C notes that 'it is possible that nonlinear effects that are not captured by the parametric model affect (sub)halos' gravothermal evolution.' These are honest caveats about model validity, not evidence that a prediction is equivalent to its input by construction. The 'effective WDM' weighting in Section 5 is also an explicit fit-and-reweight exercise, and the paper does not present it as a first-principles prediction. No load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation chain or to a quantity defined in terms of itself. The self-citations to Yang et al. are real external evidence under the review rules. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim depends on a small set of benchmark particle-physics parameters chosen from prior work, a linear-theory toolkit for P(k), and a parametric SIDM model that is extrapolated to the WSIDM regime. The dark sector particles are not new to this paper but are introduced as the physical basis for the simulations. The most fragile entry is the parametric model extrapolation, since the quantitative core-collapse fractions rest on it.

free parameters (5)
  • m_chi = 0.1 GeV
    Dark matter particle mass fixed by hand; it determines the relic abundance relation and the mediator properties for a chosen cross section.
  • sigma_0 = 147.1 cm^2 g^-1
    Amplitude of the velocity-dependent SIDM cross section (MilkyWaySIDM), taken from Yang et al. (2023) to address small-scale structure anomalies; it is an input, not derived in this paper.
  • w = 24.33 km s^-1
    Velocity scale in the differential cross section, taken from Yang et al. (2023); it sets the velocity at which the cross section turns over.
  • T_kd = 0.72, 1.46, 2.32 keV
    Kinetic decoupling temperatures chosen so the half-mode scale matches m_WDM = 3.5, 6.5, and 10 keV benchmarks; these define the P(k) suppression scenarios.
  • tau_0 collapse thresholds = 0.15 and 0.75
    Chosen thresholds separating core-forming from core-collapsed regimes in the parametric gravothermal model; they set the reported collapse fractions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Huo et al. (2018) dark sector Lagrangian with g_chi = g_f and relic abundance set by chi chi -> phi phi correctly describes early-Universe cosmology and late-time SIDM phenomenology.
    The paper adopts this model without derivation; all P(k) and cross-section predictions follow from it.
  • domain assumption The modified CAMB and CLASS transfer functions accurately capture P(k) suppression and dark acoustic oscillations for the WSIDM model.
    The initial conditions and all suppression predictions depend on these linear-theory calculations.
  • ad hoc to paper The parametric SIDM model from Yang et al. (2024, 2025) remains accurate for WSIDM halos with suppressed P(k).
    Applied to CDM and T_kd-only simulations to predict tau_0 and core-collapsed fractions; the paper flags this as future work in Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption Halo004 is representative of Milky Way-mass hosts for the (sub)halo abundance and core-collapse statistics.
    All results come from a single zoom-in host; host-to-host variance is acknowledged but not quantified.
  • domain assumption The abundance-matching model of Nadler et al. (2020b) remains valid for SIDM and WSIDM subhalos.
    Used to assign luminosities to subhalos when predicting dwarf galaxy observables in Section 6.
invented entities (2)
  • Dark photon mediator phi with m_phi = 8.11 keV independent evidence
    purpose: Mediates DM self-interactions and couples to the dark fermion; its mass sets the velocity dependence of the SIDM cross section.
    Adopted from Huo et al. (2018); no direct detection, but the model yields testable predictions for the matter power spectrum, halo abundances, and dwarf density profiles.
  • Massless dark fermion f independent evidence
    purpose: Contributes to N_eff and controls kinetic decoupling, setting the P(k) cutoff scale.
    Adopted from Huo et al. (2018); its existence is probed through the predicted suppression of small-scale structure and dark acoustic oscillations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of COZMIC. III. Cosmological Zoom-in Simulations of Self-interacting Dark Matter with Suppressed Initial Conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QITHNXIL

@misc{pith2026241213065,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: COZMIC. III. Cosmological Zoom-in Simulations of Self-interacting Dark Matter with Suppressed Initial Conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QITHNXIL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13065}
}
abstract

We present eight cosmological dark matter (DM)--only zoom-in simulations of a Milky Way--like system that include suppression of the linear matter power spectrum $P(k)$, and/or velocity-dependent DM self-interactions, as the third installment of the COZMIC suite. We consider a model featuring a massive dark photon that mediates DM self-interactions and decays into massless dark fermions. The dark photon and dark fermions suppress linear matter perturbations, resulting in dark acoustic oscillations in $P(k)$, which ultimately affect dwarf galaxy scales. The model also features a velocity-dependent elastic self-interaction between DM particles (SIDM), with a cross section that can alleviate small-scale structure anomalies. For the first time, our simulations test the impact of $P(k)$ suppression on gravothermal evolution in an SIDM scenario that leads to core collapse in (sub)halos with present-day virial masses below $\approx 10^9~M_{\mathrm{\odot}}$. In simulations with $P(k)$ suppression and self-interactions, the lack of low-mass (sub)halos and the delayed growth of structure reduce the fraction of core-collapsed systems relative to SIDM simulations without $P(k)$ suppression. In particular, $P(k)$ suppression that saturates current warm DM constraints almost entirely erases core collapse in isolated halos. Models with less extreme $P(k)$ suppression produce core collapse in $\approx 20\%$ of subhalos and $\approx 5\%$ of isolated halos above $10^8~M_{\mathrm{\odot}}$, and also increase the abundance of extremely low-concentration isolated low-mass halos relative to SIDM. These results reveal a complex interplay between early and late-Universe DM physics, revealing new discovery scenarios in the context of upcoming small-scale structure measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13065 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: viscosity (solid) and momentum-transfer (dashed) self-interaction cross sections, which define our MilkyWaySIDM model (Yang et al. 2023). Note that our SIDM implementation captures the velocity and angular dependence of the differential cross section (see Section 3.2). Vertical dotted lines show maximum circular velocities of our MW–like host (Mvir = 1012 M⊙), LMC analog (Mvir = 1011 M⊙), and halos expec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Projected DM density maps for a subset of our simulations: CDM (top left), SIDM only (top right), Tkd = 0.72 keV P(k) suppression only (bottom left), and Tkd = 0.72 keV WSIDM (bottom right). Each visualization is centered on the host halo and spans 1.5 times its virial radius. Visualizations were created using MESHOID (https://github.com/mikegrudic/meshoid). WSIDM results. Thus, we use the parametric model to com￾pa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cumulative isolated (left) and subhalo (right) mass functions, measured using the (sub)halo peak virial mass and subject to a cut on the present-day virial mass of Mvir > 1.5×107 M⊙. We compare our CDM simulation result (black) to SIDM (magenta), WSIDM (light to dark solid blue), and corresponding Tkd–only simulations (light to dark dashed blue). Bottom panels show ratios of cumulative subhalo abundances relative to… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The relation between maximum circular velocity, Vmax, and the radius at which Vmax is achieved, Rmax, for isolated halos (left column) and subhalos (right column). Results are shown for our CDM simulation (gray), our SIDM simulation with CDM ICs (magenta), and our SIDM…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized cumulative distributions of the gravothermal evolution timescale, τ0, for isolated halos (left) and subhalos (right) with Mvir > 108 M⊙ in our SIDM (magenta) and Tkd = 0.72, 1.46, and 2.32 keV WSIDM simulations (thick solid lines). The gravothermal evolution…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of maximum circular velocity Vmax (left), virial mass Mvir (middle), and distance from the host center r (right) vs. scale factor a for matched subhalos. Results for a high (top), medium (middle), and low-mass (bottom) subhalo are shown for CDM (black), SIDM …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Density profiles (left) and circular velocity profiles (right) of the 30 highest-Vpeak subhalos with Mvir > 1.2 × 108 M⊙ in our CDM (top), SIDM (middle), and Tkd = 1.46 keV WSIDM (bottom) simulations. Faint gray lines in the top, middle, and bottom rows respectively sh…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of central density evaluated at 150 pc, ρ150, vs. pericentric distance, rperi, for the 30 highest-Vpeak subhalos with Msub > 1.2 × 108 M⊙ in our CDM (top left), SIDM (top right), Tkd = 1.46 keV–only (bottom left), and Tkd = 1.46 keV WSIDM (bottom right) si…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalized distributions of Rmax (left) and Vmax (right) for isolated halos with Mvir > 8 × 108 M⊙ in our CDM (black), SIDM (magenta), and Tkd = 0.72, 1.46, and 2.32 keV WSIDM simulations (light to dark blue). Solid (dashed) lines show the fiducial-resolution LR resul…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Density profile of our MW–like host halo in CDM (black), SIDM (magenta), and WSIDM models with Tkd = 0.72, 1.46, and 2.32 keV (lightest to darkest blue). Corresponding Tkd– only simulations are shown by dashed lines. Dark (light) gray bands show 1σ (2σ) Poisson uncert…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. MARVELously Dark: the density profile evolution of dwarf halos in velocity-dependent SIDM

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

    In a new SIDM simulation of isolated dwarf halos, nine low-mass halos are core-collapsed, and inner density slope—rather than central density—best tracks collapse onset and matches analytic collapse-time predictions.

  2. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    602C `\.=

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    K., et al

    Adhikari , S., Banerjee , A., Boddy , K. K., et al. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.10638 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2207.10638

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.10638 2022

  3. [3]

    O., Benson , A., & Gluscevic , V

    An , R., Nadler , E. O., Benson , A., & Gluscevic , V. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.03431 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.03431

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.03431 2024

  4. [4]

    O., Yang , D., & Yu , H.-B

    Ando , S., Horigome , S., Nadler , E. O., Yang , D., & Yu , H.-B. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/053 , 2025, 053

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/053 2025

  5. [5]

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

    Andrade , K. E., Fuson , J., Gad-Nasr , S., et al. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab3241 , 510, 54

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3241 2022

  6. [6]

    E., Kaplinghat , M., & Valli , M

    Andrade , K. E., Kaplinghat , M., & Valli , M. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1716 , 532, 4157

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1716 2024

  7. [7]

    2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/11/010 , 2017, 010

    Archidiacono , M., Bohr , S., Hannestad , S., Helboe J rgensen , J., & Lesgourgues , J. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2017/11/010 , 2017, 010

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/11/010 2017

  8. [8]

    & Davidson , S

    Atrio-Barandela , F. & Davidson , S. 1997, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.5886 , 55, 5886

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.55.5886 1997

Show all 135 references
  1. [9]

    & Davidson , S

    Atrio-Barandela , F. & Davidson , S. 2001, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.088301 , 64, 088301

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    L., & Inagaki , S

    Balberg , S., Shapiro , S. L., & Inagaki , S. 2002, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/339038 , 568, 475

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Wechsler , R

    Behroozi , P. S., Wechsler , R. H., & Wu , H.-Y. 2013 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109 , 762, 109

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Wechsler , R

    Behroozi , P. S., Wechsler , R. H., Wu , H.-Y., et al. 2013 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/18 , 763, 18

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    P., & Turok , N

    Bode , P., Ostriker , J. P., & Turok , N. 2001, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/321541 , 556, 93

    2001 doi

  6. [14]

    2001, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01060-7 Phys.\ Lett.\ B , 518, 8

    Boehm , C., Fayet , P., & Schaeffer , R. 2001, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01060-7 Phys.\ Lett.\ B , 518, 8

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    H., & Schaeffer , R

    B hm , C., Riazuelo , A., Hansen , S. H., & Schaeffer , R. 2002, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.083505 , 66, 083505

    2002 doi

  8. [16]

    & Schaeffer , R

    Boehm , C. & Schaeffer , R. 2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20042238 , 438, 419

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    Bond , J. R. & Szalay , A. S. 1983, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/161460 , 274, 443

    1983 doi

  10. [18]

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

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    O., Wechsler , R

    Buch , D., Nadler , E. O., Wechsler , R. H., & Mao , Y.-Y. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad554c , 971, 79

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Buckley , M. R. & Peter , A. H. G. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2018.07.003 , 761, 1

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Zavala , J., Cyr-Racine , F.-Y., Sigurdson , K., & Vogelsberger , M

    Buckley , M. R., Zavala , J., Cyr-Racine , F.-Y., Sigurdson , K., & Vogelsberger , M. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.043524 , 90, 043524

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1138 , 522, 3058

    Cardona-Barrero , S., Battaglia , G., Nipoti , C., & Di Cintio , A. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1138 , 522, 3058

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    G., Hoffman , Y., et al

    Carlesi , E., Sorce , J. G., Hoffman , Y., et al. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw357 , 458, 900

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    S., et al

    Chakrabarti , S., Drlica-Wagner , A., Li , T. S., et al. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.06200 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2203.06200

    2022 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Correa , C. A. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab506 , 503, 920

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Schaller , M., Schaye , J., et al

    Correa , C. A., Schaller , M., Schaye , J., et al. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae2811 , 536, 3338

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.123527 , 93, 123527

    Cyr-Racine , F.-Y., Sigurdson , K., Zavala , J., et al. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.123527 , 93, 123527

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Fassnacht , C

    Despali , G., Heinze , F. M., Fassnacht , C. D., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.12910 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2407.12910

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.12439 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2501.12439

    Despali , G., Moscardini , L., Nelson , D., et al. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.12439 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2501.12439

    2025 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1902.01055 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1902.01055

    Drlica-Wagner , A., Mao , Y.-Y., Adhikari , S., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1902.01055 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1902.01055

    2019 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eb9 , 893, 47

    Drlica-Wagner , A., Bechtol , K., Mau , S., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eb9 , 893, 47

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023016 , 105, 023016

    Ebisu , T., Ishiyama , T., & Hayashi , K. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023016 , 105, 023016

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/013 , 2021, 013

    Egana-Ugrinovic , D., Essig , R., Gift , D., & LoVerde , M. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/013 , 2021, 013

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    F., Pe \ n arrubia , J., Famaey , B., & Ibata , R

    Errani , R., Navarro , J. F., Pe \ n arrubia , J., Famaey , B., & Ibata , R. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3499 , 519, 384

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    D., Yu , H.-B., & Zhong , Y.-M

    Essig , R., McDermott , S. D., Yu , H.-B., & Zhong , Y.-M. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.121102 , 123, 121102

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Kaplinghat , M., Tu , H., & Yu , H.-B

    Feng , J. L., Kaplinghat , M., Tu , H., & Yu , H.-B. 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2009/07/004 , 2009, 004

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    L., Kaplinghat , M., & Yu , H.-B

    Feng , J. L., Kaplinghat , M., & Yu , H.-B. 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.151301 , 104, 151301

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    L., Tu , H., & Yu , H.-B

    Feng , J. L., Tu , H., & Yu , H.-B. 2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2008/10/043 , 2008, 043

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac04b0 , 914, L26

    Feng , W.-X., Yu , H.-B., & Zhong , Y.-M. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac04b0 , 914, L26

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    S., Dolag , K., & Yu , H.-B

    Fischer , M. S., Dolag , K., & Yu , H.-B. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202449849 , 689, A300

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/07/012 , 2022, 012

    Garani , R., Redi , M., & Tesi , A. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/07/012 , 2022, 012

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2335 , 507, 2432

    Gilman , D., Bovy , J., Treu , T., et al. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2335 , 507, 2432

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103008 , 107, 103008

    Gilman , D., Zhong , Y.-M., & Bovy , J. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103008 , 107, 103008

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1903.05140 , 51, 134

    Gluscevic , V., Ali-Haimoud , Y., Bechtol , K., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1903.05140 , 51, 134

    2019 doi arXiv

  37. [46]

    & Scherrer , R

    Hannestad , S. & Scherrer , R. J. 2000, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.043522 , 62, 043522

    2000 doi

  38. [47]

    2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 , 208, 19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 , 208, 19

    2013 doi

  39. [48]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Computing in Science Engineering , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  40. [49]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135251 Physics Letters B , 802, 135251

    Huo , R. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135251 Physics Letters B , 802, 135251

    2020

  41. [50]

    2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.06.024 Physics Letters B , 783, 76

    Huo , R., Kaplinghat , M., Pan , Z., & Yu , H.-B. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.06.024 Physics Letters B , 783, 76

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    G., et al

    Ir s i c , V., Viel, M., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023522 , 96, 023522

    2017 doi

  43. [52]

    G., et al

    Ir s i c , V., Viel , M., Haehnelt , M. G., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043511 , 109, 043511

    2024 doi

  44. [53]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , 873, 111

    2008 doi

  45. [54]

    2001, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python , [Online; scipy.org http://www.scipy.org/]

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python , [Online; scipy.org http://www.scipy.org/]

    2001

  46. [55]

    R., & Wu , C.-L

    Kahlhoefer , F., Kaplinghat , M., Slatyer , T. R., & Wu , C.-L. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2019/12/010 , 2019, 010

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    E., Linden , T., & Yu , H.-B

    Kaplinghat , M., Keeley , R. E., Linden , T., & Yu , H.-B. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.021302 , 113, 021302

    2014 doi

  48. [57]

    2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.041302 , 116, 041302

    Kaplinghat , M., Tulin , S., & Yu , H.-B. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.041302 , 116, 041302

    2016 doi

  49. [58]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2511 , 490, 231

    Kaplinghat , M., Valli , M., & Yu , H.-B. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2511 , 490, 231

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    Kim , S. Y. & Peter , A. H. G. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.09050 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2106.09050

    2021 doi arXiv

  51. [60]

    & Shapiro , P

    Koda , J. & Shapiro , P. R. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18684.x , 415, 1125

    2011

  52. [61]

    Kong , D., Kaplinghat , M., Yu , H.-B., Fraternali , F., & Mancera Pi \ n a , P. E. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8875 , 936, 166

    2022 doi

  53. [62]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad394b , 965, L19

    Kong , D., Yang , D., & Yu , H.-B. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad394b , 965, L19

    2024 doi

  54. [63]

    S., Boylan-Kolchin , M., et al

    Lazar , A., Bullock , J. S., Boylan-Kolchin , M., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa2101 , 497, 2393

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1104.2932 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1104.2932

    Lesgourgues , J. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1104.2932 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1104.2932

    2011 doi arXiv

  56. [65]

    & Bridle , S

    Lewis , A. & Bridle , S. 2002, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.103511 , 66, 103511

    2002 doi

  57. [66]

    Lovell , M. R. & Zavala , J. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad216 , 520, 1567

    2023 doi

  58. [67]

    D., Schaye , J., & Bower , R

    Ludlow , A. D., Schaye , J., & Bower , R. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz1821 , 488, 3663

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    C., Peter , A

    Mace , C., Zeng , Z. C., Peter , A. H. G., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123024 , 110, 123024

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    E., Fraternali , F., Oosterloo , T., et al

    Mancera Pi \ n a , P. E., Fraternali , F., Oosterloo , T., et al. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab3491 , 512, 3230

    2022 doi

  61. [70]

    E., Fraternali , F., Adams , E

    Mancera Pi \ n a , P. E., Fraternali , F., Adams , E. A. K., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab40c7 , 883, L33

    2019 doi

  62. [71]

    E., Fraternali , F., Oman , K

    Mancera Pi \ n a , P. E., Fraternali , F., Oman , K. A., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1256 , 495, 3636

    2020 doi

  63. [72]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad4e33 , 970, 178

    Mansfield , P., Darragh-Ford , E., Wang , Y., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad4e33 , 970, 178

    2024 doi

  64. [73]

    C., Schaller , M., et al

    McAlpine , S., Helly , J. C., Schaller , M., et al. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac295 , 512, 5823

    2022 doi

  65. [74]

    R., Crain , R

    Meshveliani , T., Lovell , M. R., Crain , R. A., & Pfeffer , J. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1519 , 532, 1296

    2024 doi

  66. [75]

    2021 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2247 , 507, 1662

    Minor , Q., Gad-Nasr , S., Kaplinghat , M., & Vegetti , S. 2021 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2247 , 507, 1662

    2021 doi

  67. [76]

    H., & Simon , E

    Minor , Q., Kaplinghat , M., Chan , T. H., & Simon , E. 2021 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2209 , 507, 1202

    2021 doi

  68. [77]

    J., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al

    Mutlu-Pakdil , B., Sand , D. J., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac0db8 , 918, 88

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

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

    Nadler , E. O., An , R., Gluscevic , V., Benson , A., & Du , X. 2024 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.03635 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.03635

    2024 doi arXiv

  70. [79]

    O., Banerjee , A., Adhikari , S., Mao , Y.-Y., & Wechsler , R

    Nadler , E. O., Banerjee , A., Adhikari , S., Mao , Y.-Y., & Wechsler , R. H. 2020 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab94b0 , 896, 112

    2020 doi

  71. [80]

    O., Birrer , S., Gilman , D., et al

    Nadler , E. O., Birrer , S., Gilman , D., et al. 2021 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abf9a3 , 917, 7

    2021 doi

  72. [81]

    O., Gluscevic , V., Boddy , K

    Nadler , E. O., Gluscevic , V., Boddy , K. K., & Wechsler , R. H. 2019 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab1eb2 , 878, L32

    2019 doi

  73. [82]

    O., Gluscevic , V., Driskell , T., et al

    Nadler , E. O., Gluscevic , V., Driskell , T., et al. 2024 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad3bb1 , 967, 61

    2024 doi

  74. [83]

    O., Mao , Y.-Y., Green , G

    Nadler , E. O., Mao , Y.-Y., Green , G. M., & Wechsler , R. H. 2019 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab040e , 873, 34

    2019 doi

  75. [84]

    O., Yang , D., & Yu , H.-B

    Nadler , E. O., Yang , D., & Yu , H.-B. 2023 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e09 , 958, L39

    2023 doi

  76. [85]

    O., Wechsler , R

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

    2020 doi

  77. [86]

    O., Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., et al

    Nadler , E. O., Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., et al. 2021 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.091101 , 126, 091101

    2021 doi

  78. [87]

    O., Mansfield , P., Wang , Y., et al

    Nadler , E. O., Mansfield , P., Wang , Y., et al. 2023 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acb68c , 945, 159

    2023 doi

  79. [88]

    F., Frenk , C

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

    1997 doi

  80. [89]

    K., & Kaplinghat , M

    Nishikawa , H., Boddy , K. K., & Kaplinghat , M. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063009 , 101, 063009

    2020 doi

  81. [90]

    B., Erkal , D., & Li , T

    Pace , A. B., Erkal , D., & Li , T. S. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac997b , 940, 136

    2022 doi

  82. [91]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.12452 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2402.12452

    Palubski , I., Slone , O., Kaplinghat , M., Lisanti , M., & Jiang , F. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.12452 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2402.12452

    2024 doi arXiv

  83. [93]

    2013, pynbody: N-Body/SPH analysis for python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1305.002

    Pontzen , A., Ro s kar , R., Stinson , G., & Woods , R. 2013, pynbody: N-Body/SPH analysis for python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1305.002

    2013

  84. [94]

    I., Walker , M

    Read , J. I., Walker , M. G., & Steger , P. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty2286 , 481, 860

    2018 doi

  85. [95]

    I., Walker , M

    Read , J. I., Walker , M. G., & Steger , P. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty3404 , 484, 1401

    2019 doi

  86. [96]

    G., Kaplinghat , M., Valli , M., & Yu , H.-B

    Roberts , M. G., Kaplinghat , M., Valli , M., & Yu , H.-B. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.15005 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2407.15005

    2024 doi arXiv

  87. [97]

    H., Kelley , T., Bullock , J

    Robles , V. H., Kelley , T., Bullock , J. S., & Kaplinghat , M. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2345 , 490, 2117

    2019 doi

  88. [98]

    Rocha , M., Peter , A. H. G., Bullock , J. S., et al. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sts514 , 430, 81

    2013 doi

  89. [99]

    C., Torrey , P., Vogelsberger , M., & O'Neil , S

    Rose , J. C., Torrey , P., Vogelsberger , M., & O'Neil , S. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3634 , 519, 5623

    2023 doi

  90. [100]

    2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/01/024 , 2021, 024

    Sagunski , L., Gad-Nasr , S., Colquhoun , B., Robertson , A., & Tulin , S. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/01/024 , 2021, 024

    2021 doi

  91. [101]

    J., Sales , L

    Sameie , O., Benson , A. J., Sales , L. V., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab0824 , 874, 101

    2019 doi

  92. [102]

    2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1516 , 479, 359

    Sameie , O., Creasey , P., Yu , H.-B., et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1516 , 479, 359

    2018 doi

  93. [103]

    V., Vogelsberger , M., & Zavala , J

    Sameie , O., Yu , H.-B., Sales , L. V., Vogelsberger , M., & Zavala , J. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.141102 , 124, 141102

    2020 doi

  94. [104]

    S., Kaplinghat , M., Robles , V

    Silverman , M., Bullock , J. S., Kaplinghat , M., Robles , V. H., & Valli , M. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3232 , 518, 2418

    2023 doi

  95. [105]

    2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043014 , 107, 043014

    Slone , O., Jiang , F., Lisanti , M., & Kaplinghat , M. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043014 , 107, 043014

    2023 doi

  96. [106]

    Spergel , D. N. & Steinhardt , P. J. 2000, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.3760 , 84, 3760

    2000 doi

  97. [107]

    2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x , 364, 1105

    Springel , V. 2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x , 364, 1105

    2005

  98. [108]

    V., Dutton , A

    Tollet , E., Macci \`o , A. V., Dutton , A. A., et al. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv2856 , 456, 3542

    2016 doi

  99. [109]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.043048 , 110, 043048

    Tran , V., Gilman , D., Vogelsberger , M., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.043048 , 110, 043048

    2024 doi

  100. [110]

    2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.16203 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2504.16203

    Tsiane , K., Mau , S., Drlica-Wagner , A., et al. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.16203 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2504.16203

    2025 doi arXiv

  101. [111]

    & Yu , H.-B

    Tulin , S. & Yu , H.-B. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004 , 730, 1

    2018 doi

  102. [112]

    Tulin , S., Yu , H.-B., & Zurek , K. M. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.115007 , 87, 115007

    2013 doi

  103. [113]

    C., Lovell , M

    Turner , H. C., Lovell , M. R., Zavala , J., & Vogelsberger , M. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1725 , 505, 5327

    2021 doi

  104. [114]

    & Yu , H.-B

    Valli , M. & Yu , H.-B. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-018-0560-7 Nature Astronomy , 2, 907

    2018 doi

  105. [115]

    G., Bringmann , T., & Pfrommer , C

    van den Aarssen , L. G., Bringmann , T., & Pfrommer , C. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.231301 , 109, 231301

    2012 doi

  106. [116]

    C., & Varoquaux, G

    van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 Computing in Science Engineering , 13, 22

    2011 doi

  107. [117]

    D., Bolton, J

    Viel, M., Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043502 , 88, 043502

    2013 doi

  108. [118]

    2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1076 , 460, 1399

    Vogelsberger , M., Zavala , J., Cyr-Racine , F.-Y., et al. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1076 , 460, 1399

    2016 doi

  109. [119]

    2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21182.x10.1002/asna.19141991009 , 423, 3740

    Vogelsberger , M., Zavala , J., & Loeb , A. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21182.x10.1002/asna.19141991009 , 423, 3740

    2012

  110. [120]

    O., et al

    Wang , Y., Mansfield , P., Nadler , E. O., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.01487 arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2408.01487

    2024 doi arXiv

  111. [121]

    Wempe , E., Lavaux , G., White , S. D. M., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202450975 , 691, A348

    2024 doi

  112. [122]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103044 , 110, 103044

    Yang , D. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103044 , 110, 103044

    2024 doi

  113. [123]

    O., & Yu , H.-B

    Yang , D., Nadler , E. O., & Yu , H.-B. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acc73e , 949, 67

    2023 doi

  114. [124]

    O., & Yu , H.-B

    Yang , D., Nadler , E. O., & Yu , H.-B. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2025.101807 Physics of the Dark Universe , 47, 101807

    2025

  115. [125]

    O., Yu , H.-B., & Zhong , Y.-M

    Yang , D., Nadler , E. O., Yu , H.-B., & Zhong , Y.-M. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/02/032 , 2024, 032

    2024 doi

  116. [126]

    & Yu , H.-B

    Yang , D. & Yu , H.-B. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.103031 , 104, 103031

    2021 doi

  117. [127]

    & Yu , H.-B

    Yang , D. & Yu , H.-B. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/077 , 2022, 077

    2022 doi

  118. [128]

    R., & L \'o pez Nacir , D

    Yunis , R., Arg \"u elles , C. R., & L \'o pez Nacir , D. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/041 , 2020, 041

    2020 doi

  119. [129]

    R., Sc \'o ccola , C

    Yunis , R., Arg \"u elles , C. R., Sc \'o ccola , C. G., L \'o pez Nacir , D., & Giordano , G. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/02/024 , 2022, 024

    2022 doi

  120. [130]

    R., Vogelsberger , M., & Burger , J

    Zavala , J., Lovell , M. R., Vogelsberger , M., & Burger , J. D. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.063007 , 100, 063007

    2019 doi

  121. [131]

    C., Peter , A

    Zeng , Z. C., Peter , A. H. G., Du , X., et al. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1094 , 513, 4845

    2022 doi

  122. [132]

    C., Peter , A

    Zeng , Z. C., Peter , A. H. G., Du , X., et al. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063001 , 111, 063001

    2025 doi

  123. [133]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad50cd , 968, L13

    Zhang , X., Yu , H.-B., Yang , D., & An , H. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad50cd , 968, L13

    2024 doi

  124. [134]

    Zhang , X., Yu , H.-B., Yang , D., & Nadler , E. O. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ada02b , 978, L23

    2025 doi

  125. [135]

    2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad2765 , 526, 758

    Zhong , Y.-M., Yang , D., & Yu , H.-B. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad2765 , 526, 758

    2023 doi

  126. [136]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "]" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty pages empty not booktitle empty not or or ""...

  127. [137]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "]" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty pages empty not booktitle empty not or or ""...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.