Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Interpreting the Extremely Diffuse Stellar Distribution of the Nube Galaxy through Fuzzy Dark Matter

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fuzzy dark matter's wave-like heating can explain Nube's ultra-diffuse stars when the particle mass is around $10^{-23}$ eV.

desk verdict A careful FDM interpretation of Nube that deserves refereeing, but the match rests on a stellar mass twice the observed value and an unvalidated fluctuation spectrum. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01307 v2 pith:SE2UE3FW submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.GA hep-ph

Yu-Ming Yang , Zhao-Chen Zhang , Xiao-Jun Bi , Peng-Fei Yin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAhep-ph PACS 95.35.+d
keywords fuzzydarkmatterdynamicalheatingNubegalaxyalmostdwarfgalaxiesSchrödinger-Poissonequationsnumericalsimulationlowsurfacebrightness
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 Nube galaxy's unusually flat and extremely diffuse stellar distribution, which is hard to reproduce in standard cold dark matter, can be explained if dark matter is fuzzy and made of ultralight bosons near $10^{-23}$ eV. The authors simulate a fuzzy dark matter halo matched to Nube's dynamical mass and follow 100,000 star particles for the galaxy's 10.2 Gyr lifetime. In the best-fitting model, wave-like density fluctuations heat the stars enough to reproduce the observed radial stellar density profile, including the low central surface density. The result makes Nube a potential piece of evidence for ultralight dark matter and predicts a population of stars beyond 13 kpc that current observations cannot yet detect.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is FDM dynamical heating: interference between excited states creates a fluctuating gravitational potential that gradually transfers energy to stars. The simulations use an eigenstate decomposition to construct the initial wave function, solving the time-independent Schrödinger equation in the target halo potential, binning eigenstate amplitudes in 60 energy bins, and fitting the squared amplitudes by nonnegative least squares so the random-phase-averaged density matches the target profile. The Schrödinger-Poisson system is then evolved with a pseudospectral method, while stars are treated as massless test particles initialized from a Plummer profile and an Eddington distribution function, with their orbits integrated by a fourth-order Runge-Kutta scheme.

What would settle it

A future deep-imaging campaign sensitive to the low-surface-brightness region beyond $R=13$ kpc would test the central prediction of a substantial unseen stellar component; if the stellar density instead drops steeply and no such extended stars appear, the FDM heating explanation for Nube would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that the extremely diffuse, flat stellar distribution of Nube can be produced by the dynamical heating effect of fuzzy dark matter. In the FDM picture, dark matter is an ultralight boson whose wave-like interference creates fluctuating density granules in the halo; these fluctuations jostle the stars and gradually expand their distribution over gigayears. Simulating a halo with a solitonic core and an NFW-like envelope matched to Nube's dynamical mass within 20.7 kpc, and adopting a particle mass $m_a \sim 10^{-23}$ eV, the authors find that after 10.2 Gyr the projected 2D stellar density profile closely matches the observed profile. Models with heavier particles or a more soliton-dominated inner profile heat the stars less efficiently and do not match Nube, placing the effect in a narrow, low-mass window.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated heating rate depends on the amplitude and coherence of density fluctuations in the constructed FDM halo, which is built as a superposition of eigenstates with random phases and amplitudes binned uniformly in energy, and this realization is assumed to faithfully represent the fluctuation spectrum of a real cosmological FDM halo.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, FDM with particle mass around $10^{-23}$ eV becomes a viable explanation for Nube, and the galaxy's anomalous stellar distribution no longer forces a radical departure from dark matter models that produce cored halos.
  • A direct corollary is a population of stars at $R \gtrsim 13$ kpc, too faint for current observations but detectable with deeper imaging; its existence or absence is a concrete test of the model.
  • The same mechanism should heat stars in other old, isolated, HI-poor dwarf galaxies, producing a predicted relation between galaxy age, isolation, and stellar diffuseness.
  • The result adds to the debate over constraints that favor heavier FDM particles, showing that the low-mass regime can survive once heating is modeled with a realistic halo construction and dynamical treatment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A cleaner test would measure the fluctuation spectrum of a realistic cosmological FDM halo and compare its heating rate with the eigenstate-construction used here; if the construction overestimates granule amplitudes, the required particle mass would shift upward.
  • If deep observations detect the predicted stellar outskirts, the FDM interpretation would be strongly supported over alternatives such as self-interacting dark matter cores, which would predict a different radial distribution of the outer stars.
  • The framework implies a mass-dependent scaling: galaxies with older stellar populations and lower halo concentrations should appear systematically more diffuse, which could be checked in a sample of isolated dwarf galaxies.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents numerical simulations of a fuzzy dark matter (FDM) halo with a soliton-plus-NFW profile matched to the dynamical mass estimation of the nearly dark dwarf galaxy Nube. Stars are initialized as a Plummer sphere and evolved as massless test particles in the time-dependent FDM potential. After 10.2 Gyr of evolution, one of three models, with particle mass ma = 1e-23 eV and total stellar mass 8.9e8 solar masses, yields a projected stellar density profile that the authors state closely matches the observed profile of Nube. The authors conclude that FDM dynamical heating can explain the extremely diffuse stellar distribution of Nube.

Significance. If the input fluctuation statistics and stellar mass normalization are accepted, the paper provides a concrete demonstration that FDM dynamical heating can produce a Nube-like stellar distribution, and it makes a falsifiable prediction of a faint stellar population beyond 13 kpc. The simulation methodology is standard and described in reasonable detail, including a stability check of the stellar initial conditions in a static potential and numerical convergence checks. However, the central match to observations is qualitative, the successful model adopts an input stellar mass more than twice the reported value, and the constructed FDM halo's fluctuation spectrum is unvalidated, so the significance of the claimed 'close match' is currently limited.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A6)] The initial wave function is constructed as a random-phase superposition of eigenstates, with amplitudes fitted only to reproduce the spherically averaged density profile. This construction does not constrain the two-point statistics of the density fluctuations, which are the quantity that sets the dynamical heating rate in the Bar-Or et al. (2019) picture. If the fluctuation amplitude or coherence time differs from that of a cosmological FDM halo, the simulated stellar heating would be overestimated and the match to Nube would be spurious. Please validate the fluctuation spectrum against cosmological FDM simulations (e.g., Schive et al. 2014; Mocz et al. 2017) or analytic predictions, or at least quantify the sensitivity of the stellar distribution to this construction.
  2. [Table 1 and Fig. 3] Model-1, the only model claimed to match the observations, adopts a total stellar mass of 8.9e8 solar masses, whereas the reported stellar mass of Nube is 3.9e8 solar masses. Model-1'', which uses the observed stellar mass with the same ma and k, lies below the data at all radii. The surface density normalization is therefore partly set by the input stellar mass, and the statement that Model-1 'closely matches' the data requires either a justification for the higher stellar mass or a quantitative goodness-of-fit that treats the stellar mass as a constrained parameter.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The simulated FDM halo is not stationary: the spherically averaged density profile shows a gradual central increase over time, which the authors attribute to collapse from excited states. This non-stationarity contributes to the stellar response and is not part of the quasi-particle granulation heating expected in a virialized cosmological halo. Please separate the transient relaxation contribution from the granulation heating, for example by comparing with a run in a potential that is periodically refreshed or with a halo initialized closer to equilibrium.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The agreement between Model-1 and the Nube data is assessed visually; no residual, chi-square, or likelihood measure is provided, and the observational error bars are not propagated. Given that the model grid is small and the stellar mass is a free input, a quantitative comparison is needed to establish that the match is meaningful rather than a consequence of the chosen normalization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'F uzzy' should be 'Fuzzy'.
  2. [Table 1] The column headers in Table 1 would be clearer if the units were included directly in the header row, rather than only in the table note.
  3. [Appendix A] The notation eΦin = maT Φin/hbar is introduced without defining all variables; please state explicitly that tildes denote dimensionless quantities and define each symbol in one place.
  4. [Fig. 3] The left and right panels of Fig. 3 use different radial-axis scalings (linear versus logarithmic), which makes direct comparison of the same models across panels difficult; consider using a consistent scale.
  5. [Sec. 3.1] The term 'halo mass center' is used in the description of Fig. 2 but is not defined; please specify how it is computed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the vertical normalization of the claimed match is set by the input stellar mass (Model-1 uses Mstar = 8.9e8 Msun, not the observed 3.9e8), while the diffuse shape is an emergent simulation output.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2 (Table 1) and Section 3.2, Model-1′/Model-1′′ discussion]
    "The result of Model-1′′ is obtained from rescaling the simulation result of Model-1′ using the ratio of initial stellar masses. This approach is equivalent to conducting a new simulation separately, as the only difference between these two models lies in the mass assigned to individual stellar particles, while adopting the same number of stellar particles. This difference only influences the normalization of the final stellar density profile, but it does not impact the simulation procedure, where stellar particles are treated as massless."

    The final 2D stellar density is compared to Nube's observed surface density in absolute units (M_sun/pc^2). Because the stellar particles are massless test particles, the predicted surface density profile is exactly proportional to the input total stellar mass Mstar, as the quoted rescaling admits. The model presented as matching the data (Model-1) adopts Mstar = 8.9e8 M_sun, whereas the paper quotes Nube's observed total stellar mass as about 3.9e8 M_sun (and the gray comparison region is for 1-5e8 M_sun). Thus the vertical normalization of the claimed match is imposed by the chosen input Mstar, not derived from the FDM heating calculation; only the shape (flatness and radial extent) is an emergent prediction.

full rationale

The central dynamical mechanism is a genuine forward simulation: the FDM halo profile is fixed by the dynamical mass within 20.7 kpc and the parameters ma and k, the stellar particles are evolved as massless test particles in the Schroedinger-Poisson potential, and the resulting diffuse, flat stellar distribution is not present by construction in the initial conditions. The paper verifies that the stellar component remains stable when evolved in the static potential, so the expansion is attributable to the time-varying FDM fluctuations rather than to initial non-equilibrium. The self-citations to Yang et al. (2024a,b) are used for parameter choices and consistency arguments, but they are not the load-bearing step: the rstar-insensitivity is also demonstrated in this paper via Model-1 vs Model-1′, and the heating mechanism is independently cited to Bar-Or et al. (2019). The main partial circularity is the normalization: because the stellar particles are massless, the final surface density amplitude is simply proportional to the input Mstar, and the successful Model-1 uses Mstar = 8.9e8 M_sun, which is not the quoted observed value of 3.9e8 M_sun. Therefore the absolute amplitude match is enforced by an input choice rather than predicted. The remaining concerns about the initial wave function's fluctuation spectrum being unvalidated against cosmological FDM halos are physical uncertainties about the input, not circular reductions of the output to the input. Overall, the shape result has independent content, so the circularity is partial and modest.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the standard FDM model, the assumed soliton-plus-envelope halo structure, the isolation and age of Nube, the initial stellar conditions, and the representativeness of the eigenstate-constructed halo. Most are established in the subfield; the most ad hoc input is the stellar mass used in the successful model, which exceeds the observed value by more than a factor of two. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • FDM particle mass ma = 1e-23 eV (Model-1) and 3e-23 eV (Model-2)
    The particle mass sets the de Broglie wavelength and heating efficiency; it is varied across models and the successful value is selected to match Nube's stellar distribution.
  • Transition radius parameter k = 2 (Model-1) and 3 (Model-3)
    Controls the soliton fraction and hence the heating efficiency; k=2 in the successful model. Chosen from a range used in prior studies.
  • NFW scale radius rs = 10 kpc
    Fixed at 10 kpc based on prior work (Yang et al. 2024a); the paper states its impact is negligible.
  • Initial stellar effective radius rstar = 1.5 or 3.0 kpc
    Chosen within the scatter of the dwarf galaxy mass-size relation; the paper shows the final distribution is insensitive to this choice.
  • Total stellar mass Mstar in Model-1 = 8.9e8 Msun (observed Nube value is about 3.9e8 Msun)
    The successful model uses a stellar mass 2.3 times the reported observed value, effectively normalizing the predicted surface density to the observed profile. This is a free parameter that adjusts the amplitude of the match and is not discussed as a limitation.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Fuzzy dark matter obeys the Schrodinger-Poisson equations in the nonrelativistic limit.
    Invoked in Equation (1) as the governing equations for the field.
  • domain assumption FDM halos from cosmological simulations consist of a solitonic core plus an NFW-like envelope.
    Referenced to Schive et al. 2014a,b; used to set the target density profile in Equation (2).
  • domain assumption Nube has been isolated and has not experienced strong tidal interactions for its estimated age of 10.2 Gyr.
    Based on the projected distance of 435 kpc from UGC 929 (Montes et al. 2024); used to justify the secular heating scenario.
  • domain assumption Stars can be treated as massless test particles and baryonic feedback is negligible.
    Stated in Sections 2.1 and 2.3; the stellar mass is a few percent of the total mass, and the paper acknowledges feedback omission as a limitation.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial stellar distribution was a Plummer profile with parameters typical of dwarf galaxies.
    The Plummer profile and the chosen Mstar, rstar values (Table 1) are assumed inputs; the large Mstar in Model-1 is not tied to the observed value.
  • domain assumption The eigenstate decomposition with binned amplitudes and random phases gives a representative realization of a cosmological FDM halo and its fluctuation spectrum.
    Based on Yavetz et al. 2022 and the authors' prior work; the heating rate depends on this realization's fluctuation statistics.
  • domain assumption The dynamical mass estimate of Nube (2.6e10 Msun within 20.7 kpc) accurately constrains the halo profile.
    Taken from Montes et al. 2024 and used to fix the normalization of the target density profile.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interpreting the Extremely Diffuse Stellar Distribution of the Nube Galaxy through Fuzzy Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SE2UE3FW

@misc{pith2026241201307,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interpreting the Extremely Diffuse Stellar Distribution of the Nube Galaxy through Fuzzy Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SE2UE3FW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01307}
}
abstract

Recent observations have uncovered a remarkably flat and extremely diffuse stellar distribution within the almost dark dwarf galaxy Nube, posing a challenge to the standard cold dark matter scenario. In this study, we employ numerical simulations to explore the possibility that this anomalous stellar distribution can be attributed to the dynamical heating effect of fuzzy dark matter (FDM). The relatively isolated location and low baryon fraction of Nube make it an ideal system for investigating this effect. Our findings indicate that by adopting a halo profile consistent with the dynamical mass estimation of Nube and an FDM particle mass on the order of $10^{-23}$ eV, the final 2D stellar distribution derived from simulation closely matches observational data. These results suggest that FDM could provide an explanation for the extremely diffuse stellar distribution of Nube.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01307 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radial FDM profiles for the three models under consideration are shown. The blue, green, and red solid lines represent the target FDM profiles ρin(r) used as input for generating the initial wave functions. The squares represent the reproduced density profiles ρout(r) obtained from the de￾rived initial wave functions. The dashed lines represent the initial stellar density profiles. Note that the lines represent￾ing … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: FDM density field ρ = ma|ψ| 2 in the z = 0 plane (top row) and the projected positions of the star particles onto the x-y plane (bottom row) at four snapshots throughout the entire simulation duration. The red dots and circles in the bottom row represent the position of the stellar mass center and the locations at a distance of R = 13 kpc from the mass center, corresponding to the maximum observational r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: initial (dashed lines) and final (solid lines) 2D stellar density profiles of three models under consideration. The color scheme aligns with the colors used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

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. Tidal Suppression of Fuzzy Dark Matter Heating in Milky Way Satellite Galaxies

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Tidal stripping by the Milky Way and LMC suppresses fuzzy dark matter heating in Fornax, removing the strongest dwarf-galaxy constraint against m_a ~ 10^-22 eV.

  2. Construction of fuzzy dark matter halos with arbitrary initial velocities

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Random-phase eigenstate constructions of fuzzy dark matter halos carry a computable nonzero initial global velocity, which can be removed or set to any value by a Galilean boost.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2020, Astronomy amp; Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astronomy amp; Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  2. [2]

    Alvarez-Rios, I., Bernal, T., Chavanis, P.-H., & Guzman, F. S. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 063502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063502

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.063502 2024

  3. [3]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf28c Ba˜ nares-Hern´ andez, A., Castillo, A., Martin Camalich, J., & Iorio, G

    Bar-Or, B., Fouvry, J.-B., & Tremaine, S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf28c Ba˜ nares-Hern´ andez, A., Castillo, A., Martin Camalich, J., & Iorio, G. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 676, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346686

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf28c 2019

  4. [4]

    Chamba, N., Trujillo, I., & Knapen, J. H. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 633, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936821

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936821 2020

  5. [5]

    T., Ostriker, J

    Chiang, B. T., Ostriker, J. P., & Schive, H.-Y. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 4045–4063, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3358 9

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3358 2022

  6. [6]

    T., Schive, H.-Y., & Chiueh, T

    Chiang, B. T., Schive, H.-Y., & Chiueh, T. 2021, Physical Review D, 103, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.103.103019

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.103019 2021

  7. [7]

    2022, PhRvD, 106, 063517, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.063517 Dutta Chowdhury, D., van den Bosch, F

    Dalal, N., & Kravtsov, A. 2022, PhRvD, 106, 063517, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.063517 Dutta Chowdhury, D., van den Bosch, F. C., Robles, V. H., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac043f Dutta Chowdhury, D., van den Bosch, F. C., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc73d

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.063517 2022

  8. [8]

    Eddington, A. S. 1916, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 76, 572, doi: 10.1093/mnras/76.7.572

    doi:10.1093/mnras/76.7.572 1916

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    2018, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018, 027–027, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/027

    Edwards, F., Kendall, E., Hotchkiss, S., & Easther, R. 2018, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018, 027–027, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/027

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 1359–1373, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2686 Gonz´ alez-Morales, A

    Fliri, J., & Trujillo, I. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 1359–1373, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2686 Gonz´ alez-Morales, A. X., Marsh, D. J. E., Pe˜ narrubia, J., & Ure˜ na-L´ opez, L. A. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 13...

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2010, Nature, 463, 203, doi: 10.1038/nature08640

    Governato, F., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 203, doi: 10.1038/nature08640

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    S., & Urena-Lopez, L

    Guzman, F. S., & Urena-Lopez, L. A. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 645, 814–819, doi: 10.1086/504508

    2006 doi

  5. [13]

    2000, Physical Review Letters, 85, 1158–1161, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.85.1158

    Hu, W., Barkana, R., & Gruzinov, A. 2000, Physical Review Letters, 85, 1158–1161, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.85.1158

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 247–289, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120920-010024

    Hui, L. 2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 247–289, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120920-010024

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Tremaine, S., & Witten, E

    Hui, L., Ostriker, J. P., Tremaine, S., & Witten, E. 2017, Physical Review D, 95, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.95.043541

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Li, X., Hui, L., & Yavetz, T. D. 2021, Physical Review D, 103, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.103.023508

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    P., & Rigopoulos, G

    Liu, I.-K., Proukakis, N. P., & Rigopoulos, G. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 3625–3647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad591

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2012, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2012, 011–011, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/02/011 Mancera Pi˜ na, P

    Grebel, E. 2012, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2012, 011–011, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/02/011 Mancera Pi˜ na, P. E., Golini, G., Trujillo, I., & Montes, M. 2024, Astron. Astrophys., 689, A344, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450230

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Marsh, D. J. E., & Niemeyer, J. C. 2019, Physical Review Letters, 123, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.123.051103

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    H., et al

    Mocz, P., Vogelsberger, M., Robles, V. H., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 4559–4570, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1887

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 681, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347667

    Montes, M., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 681, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347667

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    O., Gluscevic, V., Boddy, K

    Nadler, E. O., Gluscevic, V., Boddy, K. K., & Wechsler, R. H. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 878, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1eb2

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 793, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/46

    Ogiya, G., & Mori, M. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 793, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/46

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 2000, ApJ, 534, L127, doi: 10.1086/312677

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    Plummer, H. C. 1911, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 71, 460, doi: 10.1093/mnras/71.5.460

    1911 doi

  18. [26]

    J., van der Burg, R

    Prole, D. J., van der Burg, R. F. J., Hilker, M., & Davies, J. I. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 2143–2157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1843

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    K., & Peiris, H

    Rogers, K. K., & Peiris, H. V. 2021, Physical Review Letters, 126, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.126.071302

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    2014a, Nature Physics, 10, 496–499, doi: 10.1038/nphys2996 —

    Schive, H.-Y., Chiueh, T., & Broadhurst, T. 2014a, Nature Physics, 10, 496–499, doi: 10.1038/nphys2996 —. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 124, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.124.201301

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2014b, Physical Review Letters, 113, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.113.261302

    Schive, H.-Y., Liao, M.-H., Woo, T.-P., et al. 2014b, Physical Review Letters, 113, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.113.261302

    doi

  22. [30]

    2006, JHEP, 06, 051, doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/06/051

    Svrcek, P., & Witten, E. 2006, JHEP, 06, 051, doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/06/051

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    2018, Physics Reports, 730, 1–57, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004

    Tulin, S., & Yu, H.-B. 2018, Physics Reports, 730, 1–57, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    C., & Schwabe, B

    Veltmaat, J., Niemeyer, J. C., & Schwabe, B. 2018, Physical Review D, 98, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.98.043509

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Bi, X

    Yang, Y. M., Bi, X. J., & Yin, P. F. 2024a, JCAP, 07, 054, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/054 —. 2024b. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.08372

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    D., Li, X., & Hui, L

    Yavetz, T. D., Li, X., & Hui, L. 2022, Physical Review D, 105, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.105.023512

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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