Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The effect of fluctuating fuzzy axion haloes on stellar dynamics: a stochastic model

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that fuzzy dark matter axions lighter than about $2\times10^{-22}$ eV would overheat the Milky Way disk, placing a lower bound on the axion mass from galactic dynamics.

desk verdict A careful stochastic re-derivation of FDM diffusion that recovers Bar-Or et al., with a real but order-unity approximation in the white-noise step and a disk bound worth taking seriously but not paradigm-shifting. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09061 v2 pith:XL2QUMZP submitted 2019-08-24 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Amr El-Zant , Jonathan Freundlich , Francoise Combes , Anaelle Halle This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords fuzzydarkmatterultralightaxionsdensityfluctuationsstochasticdynamicsdiffusioncoefficientsdiskheatingdeBrogliewavelengthEridanusII
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

Fuzzy dark matter made of ultralight axions is not smooth: interference between axion waves creates density granules that jostle ordinary stars. The paper argues that in the diffusion limit those fluctuations act on a classical test particle exactly like a population of quasi-particles with effective mass $m_{\rm eff}=8\pi^{3/2}\rho_0/(m_\hbar^3\sigma^3)$ (with $m_\hbar=2m/\hbar$) and an effective velocity distribution, recovering the diffusion coefficients of a complementary kinetic derivation. Because the axion density fluctuations are white noise on scales larger than the de Broglie wavelength, the familiar two-body relaxation machinery applies, but the quantum dispersion relation $\omega=\hbar k^2/2m$ ties mode velocities to wavenumbers. Applied to the Milky Way disk, the model predicts that vertical and radial velocity dispersions grow diffusively, $\sigma\sim t^{1/2}$; requiring the FDM contribution to the radial dispersion to stay within the scatter of the observed $\sim t^{1/3}$ age-velocity relation yields $m\gtrsim 2\times10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}$. This gives a lower bound on the axion mass from galactic disk dynamics, complementing constraints from stellar streams and from Lyman-$\alpha$ and 21 cm observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the sweeping ansatz from turbulence theory, extended so that each Fourier mode of the density fluctuation is advected by a velocity tied to its wavenumber through the Schrödinger dispersion relation. Mass conservation forces $\rho_k(t)=\rho_k(0)e^{-ik\cdot vt}$; for a free axion field the wavefunction evolves with $\omega=\hbar k^2/2m$, so a mode's phase velocity is $\hbar k/2m$ while the group velocity is $\hbar k/m$. With wavefunction modes drawn from a complex Gaussian random field, this yields a two-time density power spectrum, then a force correlation function, and finally, in the diffusion limit, the effective mass $m_{\rm eff}=8\pi^{3/2}\rho_0/(m_\hbar^3\sigma^3)$ and effective distribution $f_{\rm eff}\propto f^2$. A Coulomb logarithm $\Lambda=v_{dx}/v_{dm}$ sets the range of white-noise modes contributing to heating; the paper evaluates $\ln\Lambda\simeq 3.6$ at the solar neighbourhood.

What would settle it

A self-consistent simulation of a Milky Way-like stellar disk in a fuzzy dark matter halo with $m<2\times10^{-22}$ eV could test the predicted heating rate $\sigma_R\simeq 4.5\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}\,(10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}/m)^{3/2}(8\,\mathrm{kpc}/r)^2(T/10\,\mathrm{Gyr})^{1/2}\sqrt{\ln\Lambda}$; if the measured growth is much slower, the constraint fails. A measurement of the density power spectrum on scales larger than the de Broglie wavelength that is not white noise would also break the quasi-particle equivalence at the core of the argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the gravitational effect of fuzzy dark matter fluctuations on a classical test particle is equivalent, in the diffusion limit, to relaxation by classical quasi-particles of mass $m_{\rm eff}$ and velocity distribution $f_{\rm eff}$, defined through integrals of the squared axion velocity distribution. The equivalence holds because the axion density field, treated as a stationary Gaussian random field under the Jeans-Chandrasekhar swindle, has a white-noise spatial power spectrum on scales larger than the de Broglie wavelength and a cutoff on smaller scales, while the quantum dispersion relation fixes the sweeping velocity of each mode. The resulting density power spectra and correlation functions match published numerical simulations outside the solitonic core. The paper then uses the equivalence to compute disk heating: the vertical and radial velocity dispersions grow as $\sigma_z\simeq 2.4\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}\,(10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}/m)^{3/2}(8\,\mathrm{kpc}/r)^2(T/10\,\mathrm{Gyr})^{1/2}\sqrt{\ln\Lambda}$ and $\sigma_R=\sigma_z/0.53$. Because this diffusive growth is $\sim t^{1/2}$ while the observed radial dispersion grows as $\sim t^{1/3}$, the FDM contribution must be small, and requiring it to lie within the observational scatter gives $m\gtrsim 2\times10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}$.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the axion field is free and statistically homogeneous, neglecting the self-gravity of the density fluctuations, so the de Broglie wavelength must be much shorter than the Jeans length (effectively the system size); if that fails, the diffusion picture and the disk constraint do not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $m\lesssim 2\times10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}$, fuzzy dark matter fluctuations alone would heat the solar-neighbourhood radial velocity dispersion beyond the scatter of the observed age-velocity relation, so such masses are disfavoured by disk dynamics.
  • The predicted disk heating scales as $r^{-4}m^{-3}$ and is independent of the circular speed, so the constraint is strongest at small galactocentric radii and for light axions.
  • Because the model predicts $\sigma_R\sim t^{1/2}$ whereas the observed radial dispersion grows roughly as $t^{1/3}$, fuzzy dark matter fluctuations cannot be the dominant source of disk thickening unless the observed relation is wrong.
  • Attributing all vertical heating to fuzzy dark matter gives only the weaker constraint $m\gtrsim 0.3\times10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}$, showing that the radial age-velocity relation carries most of the constraining power.
  • For Eridanus II, the model reproduces a strong constraint around $m\gtrsim 8.8\times10^{-20}\,\mathrm{eV}$ under the same assumptions as the earlier cluster-expansion analysis, but the limitation that the cluster lies inside the solitonic core for smaller masses keeps the excluded range narrow.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the white-noise equivalence holds, the same effective-mass diffusion coefficients should apply to any classical tracer, so combining stellar streams, globular clusters, and satellite dwarf galaxies could sharpen the lower bound on $m$ beyond the disk alone.
  • A testable extension is to include the disk's self-gravitating response; if that response amplifies stochastic forcing the way halo breathing modes do in the gaseous case, the effective heating could be larger than computed, strengthening the bound.
  • The long spatial correlation tail seen in some simulated haloes could indicate large-scale coherence beyond the de Broglie wavelength; if real, that would enhance low-frequency forcing and could push the disk constraint to higher masses.
  • For Eridanus II at $m\sim10^{-20}\,\mathrm{eV}$, the effective axion granule mass exceeds the cluster mass, so the cluster should be kicked as a whole rather than heated internally; measuring its centre-of-mass offset from the galaxy centre could constrain low masses, a possibility the authors note is beyond this paper's scope.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a stochastic model for the dynamical effect of density fluctuations in fuzzy dark matter (FDM) haloes on classical test particles. It first generalizes the sweeping ansatz of El-Zant et al. (2016) to a distribution of mode velocities, showing that white-noise density fluctuations in a classical particle system reproduce the standard two-body relaxation time. It then applies the same framework to a free Schrödinger field with Gaussian random modes, deriving the equal-time power spectrum, two-time correlation function, and force correlation function of the density fluctuations. In the diffusion limit, the FDM force fluctuations are argued to be equivalent to those of classical quasi-particles with effective mass m_eff and effective distribution f_eff, recovering the diffusion coefficients of Bar-Or et al. (2019). The model's power spectra and correlation functions are compared with Chan et al. and Veltmaat et al. simulations, a Coulomb logarithm is evaluated, and the model is applied to disk heating in the Milky Way, yielding a nominal constraint m ≳ 2×10^-22 eV, and to Eridanus II, confirming a stronger but restricted constraint. The central mathematical steps in Sections 2 and 3 are internally consistent, but the quantitative accuracy of a key approximation in going from Eq. (40) to Eq. (43) is not demonstrated.

Significance. If the central derivation holds, the paper provides an independent and conceptually transparent route to the FDM diffusion coefficients previously derived by Bar-Or et al. (2019), and it makes a concrete, falsifiable prediction for the axion mass from disk heating. The analytic treatment of the force correlation function and the explicit connection between the quantum interference spectrum and classical relaxation are valuable. The comparisons to published simulations support the shape of the density-fluctuation spectrum, and the paper is honest about the limitations of the Eridanus II application. However, the headline mass bound is not parameter-free: it depends on an arbitrary tolerable radial-velocity-dispersion threshold, and the derivation of the diffusion coefficient relies on an approximation whose accuracy is not quantified. These issues affect the central astrophysical claim and need to be addressed before the result can be considered robust.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (40)–(43)] The replacement f(v1)f(v2) ≈ f^2(vc) in going from Eq. (40) to Eq. (41) is not quantitatively justified for a Maxwellian distribution. The exact product is f^2(vc) exp(-vd^2/σ^2), and the Gaussian cutoff is not negligible over the range that contributes to the Coulomb logarithm. With the Appendix E parameters, vdx is several σ while vdm ≈ 0.16σ, so the contribution to lnΛ from vd ≳ σ is comparable to the full lnΛ ≈ 3.6. The diffusion coefficient in Eq. (43) is therefore overestimated by an order-unity factor, and the mass bound in Section 4.2 shifts correspondingly. Because the same white-noise approximation is used in Appendix E to define both m_eff and Λ, this is not a small correction absorbed into lnΛ. I recommend that the authors evaluate the time-integrated form of Eq. (40) numerically for a Maxwellian f and report the resulting diffusion coefficient and constraint on m.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (71)–(72)] The headline constraint m ≳ 2×10^-22 eV rests on the judgement that FDM-induced radial heating cannot exceed the observational scatter of roughly 3 km/s in the Mackereth et al. age–velocity data, and that any significant t^{1/2} component would have been detected. Since the predicted σ_R scales as m^{-3/2}, the derived mass bound scales approximately as (3 km/s / σ_R)^{2/3}; choosing σ_R = 1 or 5 km/s changes the bound by a factor of about four. The paper should state this sensitivity explicitly and ideally fit a model with an FDM t^{1/2} component plus the observed secular and formation contributions, rather than impose a hard cap at the data scatter.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, before Eq. (66)] The sentence preceding Eq. (66) contains a duplicated 'for for'; please correct the typo.
  2. [Appendix E, Eq. (E3)] The text says 'we therefore just set Tp = vcirc/2πR', which is dimensionally a frequency, not a period. The subsequent derivation appears to use the period 2πR/vcirc, so the text should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figs. 1–3] The comparisons to simulations are shape-only: the Chan et al. power spectra are arbitrarily normalized, and the Veltmaat et al. correlation functions are normalized by construction, since Eq. (50) gives ⟨δ²(0,0)⟩ = 1. The text should state clearly that these fits do not test the absolute amplitude that enters the force fluctuations and the diffusion coefficient.
  4. [Appendix E, Eq. (E1)] The derivation of λmin from m_eff = (4π/3)ρ0 λmin^3 would benefit from showing the intermediate algebra, since the factor (3/4)^{1/3}π^{1/6} is otherwise not immediately traceable to Eq. (59).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FDM diffusion derivation is an explicit calculation from stated assumptions, benchmarked against external simulations and Bar-Or et al. (2019).

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (43), is obtained by explicit computation: Eq. (37) gives the Gaussian-random-field density power spectrum from the free Schroedinger dispersion relation; Eq. (40) gives the force correlation; Eq. (41) takes the stated vd << vc white-noise limit; and the diffusion limit then gives Eq. (43). Each step is a stated approximation, not an identity with the output. The effective mass in Eq. (45) is defined to express Eq. (43) in the classical relaxation form, so the 'quasi-particle' mapping is a bookkeeping device, not a fitted parameter. The model is tested against Chan et al. (2018) power spectra and Veltmaat et al. (2018) correlation functions, and the diffusion coefficients reproduce the independent Bar-Or et al. (2019) result. Self-citations to El-Zant et al. (2016) supply the sweeping ansatz, but the present paper re-derives the relevant equations rather than importing an unverified theorem. The paper also states its own validity limits, including the requirement that the de Broglie wavelength be much smaller than the Jeans length, the strict validity outside solitonic cores, and the Eridanus II caveats, so the load-bearing assumptions are transparent. The Eq. (40) to Eq. (41) approximation and the Appendix E Coulomb-logarithm calibration are accuracy and modeling concerns, not circular reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central derivation rests on a small set of explicitly stated physical assumptions: the Jeans-Chandrasekhar swindle, Gaussian random wave modes, Maxwellian isothermal haloes, and the diffusion limit with adiabatic cutoffs. The free parameters are mostly fitting parameters for simulation comparisons and the chosen tolerance for the disk radial dispersion; the Coulomb logarithm is derived from physical scale choices rather than fitted to data. No genuinely new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Power-spectrum width and normalization in fits to Chan et al. simulations = not quoted; least-squares fits in Fig. 1
    The simulated power spectra are arbitrarily normalized, so the comparison tests shape rather than amplitude, and the width parameter is fit to the simulation curves.
  • Effective correlation wavelength lambda_sigma in fits to Veltmaat et al. correlation functions = 0.3 to 0.81 lambda_vir depending on radial bin and background subtraction
    Single-parameter least-squares fits using Eq. (50); agreement is good only up to about one effective wavelength, with a long tail not captured by the model.
  • Coulomb logarithm argument lambda = lambda = 36.9 for solar neighborhood parameters; lambda = 3.57 for Eridanus II
    Not fitted to data, but derived from chosen scale identifications: lambda_min set by the effective mass scale and lambda_max by an adiabatic locality condition. Different physically plausible choices would shift the disk constraint logarithmically.
  • Tolerable FDM-induced radial velocity dispersion sigma_R = approximately 3 km/s
    The headline bound m above ~2 x 10^-22 eV is obtained by requiring that FDM fluctuations do not exceed the observational errors in the radial velocity dispersion data of Mackereth et al. This threshold is an assumption about the fraction of the observed dispersion caused by other processes.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Jeans-Chandrasekhar swindle: the potential affecting the test particle comes only from fluctuations around a subtracted mean field, and the self-gravity of the fluctuations is neglected.
    Invoked in Section 3 after Eqs. (27)-(28) and in Appendix C; requires the de Broglie wavelength to be much smaller than the Jeans length and the system size.
  • domain assumption The axion wavefunction modes phi_k form a complex Gaussian random field with ensemble averages <phi_k> = 0 and <phi_k phi*_k'> = f_k(k) delta(k-k').
    Appendix C, Eq. (C3); this makes the density field a stationary homogeneous Gaussian random field and justifies applying Wick's theorem.
  • domain assumption The FDM axion velocity distribution is Maxwellian and the halo is isothermal with rho_0 proportional to 1/r^2 outside the solitonic core.
    Section 3.2, Eq. (47) and surrounding text; this shapes the power spectrum Eq. (48) and the correlation function Eq. (50).
  • domain assumption The long-wavelength white-noise approximation that replaces f(v1) f(v2) with f^2(v_c) when passing from Eq. (40) to Eq. (41).
    Section 3.1; this justifies the effective mass description and the Coulomb logarithm, and the paper notes the approximation can be partially corrected by the choice of lambda.
  • domain assumption The diffusion limit applies only to fluctuations whose timescales are shorter than the test particle's orbital period, fixing the maximal wavelength in Appendix E.
    Appendix E, Eq. (E3); if this condition fails, fluctuations affect particles adiabatically and non-locally rather than as a stochastic diffusion process.
  • domain assumption The disk response is modeled with a vertical virial relation E_z = 1.5 sigma_z^2, and the self-gravitating response of the disk is neglected.
    Section 4.2 and Eq. (70)-(72); the paper explicitly notes that a self-gravitating disk response could amplify the effect.
  • domain assumption For Eridanus II, the cluster expands in virial equilibrium while preserving a cored Sersic profile with alpha = 0.4 and beta = 10, with all fluctuation energy going into expansion.
    Appendix F, Eq. (F1); this is inherited from Brandt (2016) and Marsh and Niemeyer (2018), and the paper explains why it may fail for small axion masses.
invented entities (1)
  • Effective quasi-particles of mass m_eff and distribution f_eff
    purpose: Maps FDM wave-interference fluctuations onto the familiar classical two-body relaxation form in the diffusion limit.
    This is a derived bookkeeping device, not a new fundamental entity. It has no independent falsifiable handle beyond the model itself; the paper uses the language of quasi-particles in Section 3.1, Eqs. (45)-(46).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The effect of fluctuating fuzzy axion haloes on stellar dynamics: a stochastic model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XL2QUMZP

@misc{pith2026190809061,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The effect of fluctuating fuzzy axion haloes on stellar dynamics: a stochastic model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XL2QUMZP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09061}
}
abstract

Fuzzy dark matter of ultra-light axions has gained attention, largely in light of the galactic scale problems associated with cold dark matter. But the large de Broglie wavelength, believed to possibly alleviate these problems, also leads to fluctuations that place constraints on ultra-light axions. We adapt and extend a method, previously devised to describe the effect of gaseous fluctuations on cold dark matter cusps, in order to determine the imprints of ultra-light axion haloes on the motion of classical test particles. We first evaluate the effect of fluctuations in a statistically homogeneous medium of classical particles, then in a similar system of ultra light axions. In the first case, one recovers the classical two body relaxation time (and diffusion coefficients) from white noise density fluctuations. In the second situation, the fluctuations are not born of discreteness noise but from the finite de Broglie wavelength; correlation therefore exists over this scale, while white noise is retained on larger scales, elucidating the correspondence with classical relaxation. The resulting density power spectra and correlation functions are compared with those inferred from numerical simulations, and the relaxation time arising from the associated potential fluctuations is evaluated. We then apply our results to estimate the heating of disks embedded in axion dark haloes. We find that this implies an axion mass $m \ga 2 \times 10^{-22} {\rm eV}$. We finally apply our model to the case of the central cluster of Eridanus II, confirming that far stronger constraints on $m$ may in principle be obtained, and discussing the limitations associated with the assumptions leading to these.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09061 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Equal time dimensionless power spectra of density fluctuations. The dotted lines represent (arbitrarily normalized) power spectra inferred from numerical simulation, as presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatial correlation functions of simulated haloes, eval￾uated inside the virial radius and half that radius, with and with￾out subtracting the radially averaged halo background density (simulation results kindly made available by Jan Veltmaat). The corresponding best fits using equation (50) are also shown (dotted lines). These are good up to the scales of order of the effective fluctuation scales, and are better in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Correlation functions of density fluctuations. The dot￾ted lines show correlation functions inferred from numerical sim￾ulations of Veltmaat et al. (2018) (their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.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. Fuzzy Axions and Associated Relics

    hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    In explicit string theory compactifications, fuzzy axion dark matter is rare and typically requires fine-tuning of initial axion displacements or a non-standard reheating epoch to avoid overproducing heavier axions.

  2. Lensed fast radio bursts as a probe of time-varying gravitational potential induced by wave dark matter

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Wave dark matter halo fluctuations would stretch lensed FRB signals by about 10^-10, a drift that one year of monitoring lensed repeating bursts could detect.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    C., Loeb A., 2018, arXiv e-prints, p

    Amorisco N. C., Loeb A., 2018, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1808.00464

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    S., 2018, @doi [European Physical Journal C] 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5662-y , 78, 203

    Arcadi G., Dutra M., Ghosh P., Lindner M., Mambrini Y., Pierre M., Profumo S., Queiroz F. S., 2018, @doi [European Physical Journal C] 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5662-y , 78, 203

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5662-y 2018

  3. [3]

    Bar-Or B., Fouvry J.-B., Tremaine S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf28c , 871, 28

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf28c 2019

  4. [4]

    arXiv:1905.11745

    Bar N., Blum K., Lacroix T., Panci P., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1905.11745

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Binney J., Tremaine S., 2008, Galactic dynamics

    2008

  6. [6]

    P., Turok N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321541 , 556, 93

    Bode P., Ostriker J. P., Turok N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321541 , 556, 93

    doi:10.1086/321541 2001

  7. [7]

    Bottema R., 1993, , 275, 16

    1993

  8. [8]

    G., Martig M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/L1 , 707, L1

    Bournaud F., Elmegreen B. G., Martig M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/L1 , 707, L1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/l1 2009

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    Boveia A., Doglioni C., 2018, @doi [Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science] 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021008 , 68, annurev

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L31 , 824, L31

    Brandt T. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L31 , 824, L31

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2017, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 , 55, 343

    Bullock J. S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2017, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 , 55, 343

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Burkert A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312674 , 534, L143

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    Chan J. H. H., Schive H.-Y., Woo T.-P., Chiueh T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty900 , 478, 2686

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Chavanis P.-H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.043531 , 84, 043531

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    Chavanis P.-H., 2012, @doi [Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications] 10.1016/j.physa.2012.02.019 , 391, 3680

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220607 , 556, A93

    Chavanis P. H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220607 , 556, A93

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Chavanis P.-H., 2018, arXiv e-prints

    2018

  10. [18]

    V., Ostriker J

    Church B. V., Ostriker J. P., Mocz P., 2018, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1809.04744

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    69, Dynamics of the Solar Systems

    Cohen L., 1975, in Hayli A., ed., IAU Symposium Vol. 69, Dynamics of the Solar Systems. p. 33

    1975

  12. [20]

    R., Dehnen W., Wilkinson M

    Cole D. R., Dehnen W., Wilkinson M. I., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19110.x , 416, 1118

    2011

  13. [21]

    Col \' n P., Avila-Reese V., Valenzuela O., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317057 , 542, 622

    2000 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Zaritsky D., Spekkens K., Willman B., Hargis J

    Crnojevi \'c D., Sand D. J., Zaritsky D., Spekkens K., Willman B., Hargis J. R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L14 , 824, L14

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Y., Mocz P., 2019, arXiv:1908.04790

    Davies E. Y., Mocz P., 2019, arXiv:1908.04790

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    B., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p

    Davoudiasl H., Denton P. B., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1904.09242

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Del Popolo A., Le Delliou M., 2017, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies5010017 , 5, 17

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Del Popolo A., Lima J. A. S., Fabris J. C., Rodrigues D. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/04/021 , 4, 21

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Namjoo M

    Deng H., Hertzberg M. P., Namjoo M. H., Masoumi A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023513 , 98, 023513

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    arXiv:1905.03450

    Desjacques V., Nusser A., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1905.03450

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    El-Zant A., Shlosman I., Hoffman Y., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322516 , 560, 636

    2001 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Hoffman Y., Primack J., Combes F., Shlosman I., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421938 , 607, L75

    El-Zant A. A., Hoffman Y., Primack J., Combes F., Shlosman I., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421938 , 607, L75

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    El-Zant A., Khalil S., Sil A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.035030 , 91, 035030

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Freundlich J., Combes F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1398 , 461, 1745

    El-Zant A. A., Freundlich J., Combes F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1398 , 461, 1745

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Bullock J

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

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    S., White S

    Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 2012, @doi [Annalen der Physik] 10.1002/andp.201200212 , 524, 507

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Maccio A

    Freundlich J., Dekel A., Jiang F., Ishai G., Cornuault N., Lapiner S., Dutton A. A., Maccio A. V., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1907.11726

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    I., Stadel J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1707 , 725, 1707

    Goerdt T., Moore B., Read J. I., Stadel J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1707 , 725, 1707

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    Goodman J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S1384-1076(00)00015-4 , 5, 103

    2000 doi

  30. [39]

    E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118116 , 112, 1487

    Harris W. E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118116 , 112, 1487

    1996 doi

  31. [40]

    Heyvaerts J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16899.x , 407, 355

    2010

  32. [41]

    Hu W., Barkana R., Gruzinov A., 2000, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1158 , 85, 1158

    2000 doi

  33. [42]

    P., Tremaine S., Witten E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043541 , 95, 043541

    Hui L., Ostriker J. P., Tremaine S., Witten E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043541 , 95, 043541

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    V., Piskunov A

    Kharchenko N. V., Piskunov A. E., R \"o ser S., Schilbach E., Scholz R. D., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042523 , 438, 1163

    2005 doi

  35. [44]

    Kobayashi T., Murgia R., De Simone A., Ir s i c V., Viel M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123514 , 96, 123514

    2017 doi

  36. [45]

    S., White M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317149 , 543, 514

    Kochanek C. S., White M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317149 , 543, 514

    2000 doi

  37. [46]

    H., 1964, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.2746572 , 7, 1723

    Kraichnan R. H., 1964, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.2746572 , 7, 1723

    1964 doi

  38. [48]

    C., Freeman K

    Kregel M., van der Kruit P. C., Freeman K. C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08855.x , 358, 503

    2005

  39. [49]

    Kubo R., 1966, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/29/1/306 , 29, 255

    1966 doi

  40. [50]

    G., Ostriker J

    Lacey C. G., Ostriker J. P., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163729 , 299, 633

    1985 doi

  41. [51]

    Lee J.-W., 2018, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences. p. 06005 ( @eprint arXiv 1704.05057 ), @doi 10.1051/epjconf/201816806005

    2018 arXiv

  42. [52]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6113 , 838, 8

    Li T. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6113 , 838, 8

    2017 doi

  43. [53]

    Lidz A., Hui L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023011 , 98, 023011

    2018 doi

  44. [54]

    Lin S.-C., Schive H.-Y., Wong S.-K., Chiueh T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103523 , 97, 103523

    2018 doi

  45. [55]

    R., Frenk C

    Lovell M. R., Frenk C. S., Eke V. R., Jenkins A., Gao L., Theuns T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2431 , 439, 300

    2014 doi

  46. [57]

    T., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p

    Mackereth J. T., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1901.04502

    2019 arXiv

  47. [58]

    Madau P., Shen S., Governato F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L17 , 789, L17

    2014 doi

  48. [59]

    Marsh D. J. E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.005 , 643, 1

    2016 doi

  49. [60]

    Marsh D. J. E., 2017, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1712.03018

    2017 arXiv

  50. [61]

    Marsh D. J. E., Niemeyer J. C., 2018, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1810.08543

    2018 arXiv

  51. [62]

    Marsh D. J. E., Silk J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2079 , 437, 2652

    2014 doi

  52. [63]

    J., Saar E., 2002, Statistics of the Galaxy Distribution

    Mart \' nez V. J., Saar E., 2002, Statistics of the Galaxy Distribution . Chapman

    2002

  53. [64]

    Martizzi D., Teyssier R., Moore B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt297 , 432, 1947

    2013 doi

  54. [65]

    Mashchenko S., Couchman H. M. P., Wadsley J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature04944 , 442, 539

    2006 doi

  55. [66]

    Mashchenko S., Wadsley J., Couchman H. M. P., 2008, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1148666 , 319, 174

    2008 doi

  56. [67]

    Miralda-Escud \'e J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324138 , 564, 60

    2002 doi

  57. [68]

    C., White S., 2010, ``Galaxy Formation and Evolution''

    Mo H., van den Bosch F. C., White S., 2010, ``Galaxy Formation and Evolution''

    2010

  58. [69]

    Mocz P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.141301 , 123, 141301

    2019 doi

  59. [70]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177173 , 462, 563

    1996 doi

  60. [71]

    arXiv:1812.09760

    Nebrin O., Ghara R., Mellema G., 2018, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1812.09760

    2018 arXiv

  61. [72]

    Nipoti C., Binney J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2217 , 446, 1820

    2015 doi

  62. [73]

    Nori M., Murgia R., Ir s i c V., Baldi M., Viel M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2888 , 482, 3227

    2019 doi

  63. [74]

    E., 1952, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145600 , 116, 164

    Osterbrock D. E., 1952, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145600 , 116, 164

    1952 doi

  64. [75]

    Peebles P. J. E., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312677 , 534, L127

    2000 doi

  65. [76]

    Peirani S., Kay S., Silk J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077956 , 479, 123

    2008 doi

  66. [77]

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

    2013 doi

  67. [79]

    Pontzen A., Governato F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12953 , 506, 171

    2014 doi

  68. [80]

    I., Gilmore G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08424.x , 356, 107

    Read J. I., Gilmore G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08424.x , 356, 107

    2005

  69. [81]

    H., Bullock J

    Robles V. H., Bullock J. S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3190 , 483, 289

    2019 doi

  70. [82]

    Romano-D \' az E., Shlosman I., Hoffman Y., Heller C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592687 , 685, L105

    2008 doi

  71. [83]

    M., Trojanowski S., 2018, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/1361-6633/aab913 , 81, 066201

    Roszkowski L., Sessolo E. M., Trojanowski S., 2018, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/1361-6633/aab913 , 81, 066201

    2018 doi

  72. [84]

    Ruffini R., Bonazzola S., 1969, @doi [Physical Review] 10.1103/PhysRev.187.1767 , 187, 1767

    1969 doi

  73. [85]

    N., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p

    Safarzadeh M., Spergel D. N., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1906.11848

    2019 arXiv

  74. [86]

    Schive H.-Y., Chiueh T., Broadhurst T., 2014a, @doi [Nature Physics] 10.1038/nphys2996 , 10, 496

    doi

  75. [87]

    P., 2014b, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.261302 , 113, 261302

    Schive H.-Y., Liao M.-H., Woo T.-P., Wong S.-K., Chiueh T., Broadhurst T., Hwang W.-Y. P., 2014b, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.261302 , 113, 261302

    doi

  76. [88]

    E., Macci \`o A

    Schneider A., Smith R. E., Macci \`o A. V., Moore B., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21252.x , 424, 684

    2012

  77. [89]

    S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt053 , 430, 2346

    Shao S., Gao L., Theuns T., Frenk C. S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt053 , 430, 2346

    2013 doi

  78. [90]

    N., Steinhardt P

    Spergel D. N., Steinhardt P. J., 2000, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.3760 , 84, 3760

    2000 doi

  79. [91]

    I., 1938, @doi [Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences] 10.1098/rspa.1938.0032 , 164, 476

    Taylor G. I., 1938, @doi [Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences] 10.1098/rspa.1938.0032 , 164, 476

    1938

  80. [92]

    Tennekes H., 1975, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/S0022112075000468 , 67, 561

    1975 doi

  81. [93]

    I., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts563 , 429, 3068

    Teyssier R., Pontzen A., Dubois Y., Read J. I., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts563 , 429, 3068

    2013 doi

  82. [94]

    Tonini C., Lapi A., Salucci P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506431 , 649, 591

    2006 doi

  83. [95]

    C., Schwabe B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043509 , 98, 043509

    Veltmaat J., Niemeyer J. C., Schwabe B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043509 , 98, 043509

    2018 doi

  84. [96]

    Vincenzo F., Kobayashi C., Yuan T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2065 , 488, 4674

    2019 doi

  85. [97]

    arXiv:1905.10373

    Wasserman A., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1905.10373

    2019 arXiv

  86. [98]

    D., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172773 , 410, 543

    Weinberg M. D., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172773 , 410, 543

    1993 doi

  87. [99]

    Wilczek M., Narita Y., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevE.86.066308 , 86, 066308

    2012 doi

  88. [100]

    Wilczek M., Xu H., Narita Y., 2014, @doi [Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics] 10.5194/npg-21-645-2014 , 21, 645

    2014 doi

  89. [101]

    G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sls053 , 431, L20

    Zavala J., Vogelsberger M., Walker M. G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sls053 , 431, L20

    2013 doi

  90. [102]

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

    2012 doi

Pith tools

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