Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Fuzzy Gasoline: Cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of dwarf galaxy formation with Fuzzy Dark Matter

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 quantum pressure creates cores in every dwarf dark matter halo, earlier and at lower masses than baryonic feedback can, while leaving stellar observables almost indistinguishable from cold dark matter predictions.

desk verdict New FDM+baryon simulation tool, but the core-forming result rests on an unvalidated SPH quantum-pressure term; deserves review with mandatory convergence tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09733 v1 pith:T4VYZ3WQ submitted 2024-11-14 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM

Matteo Nori , Shubhan Bhatia , Andrea V. Macciò This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords fuzzydarkmatterdwarfgalaxiesgalaxyformationhydrodynamicalsimulationsquantumpotentialcoreNIHAOsoliton
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

Using a new smoothed-particle hydrodynamics code that combines the fuzzy dark matter quantum potential with full baryonic physics, the paper simulates thirty dwarf galaxies with halo masses $10^9$ to $10^{11}$ solar masses under two FDM boson masses and under CDM. It claims that cores in dark matter density profiles can form in two distinct ways: FDM's quantum pressure makes a core in every halo, most prominently in low-mass systems at high redshift, while baryonic feedback makes cores later, only in haloes near $10^{10}$ to $10^{11}$ solar masses. When both mechanisms operate, the final profile follows the strongest of the two suppressions rather than adding them. Despite large differences in the dark sector, star formation histories and stellar velocity dispersion profiles remain very close to CDM, so FDM can alter dark matter structure without betraying itself in stellar observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing piece is the quantum potential $Q = \frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_\chi^2} \frac{\nabla^2 \sqrt{\rho}}{\sqrt{\rho}}$, which appears in the Madelung-transformed Euler equation as an extra repulsive force. The code FUZZY-GASOLINE evaluates this potential with SPH density and its first and second derivatives (Eqs. 13–15), and it symmetrizes the two-particle acceleration so energy is conserved by construction. This machinery turns wave mechanics into a force law for N-body particles, letting baryonic cooling, star formation, and feedback run alongside the FDM dynamics.

What would settle it

Run the same dwarf halo with the same initial conditions in FUZZY-GASOLINE and in a direct Schrödinger–Poisson grid solver and compare the dark matter density profile at $z=0$; if the core radius differs by more than the run-to-run scatter, the SPH quantum potential is not faithful. Alternatively, search for dark matter cores in dwarf galaxies at $z \gtrsim 2$, where baryonic feedback is too slow to make cores; finding no cores at that epoch would contradict the paper's claim that FDM cores exist at all redshifts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that baryons and low-mass fuzzy dark matter are each independently capable of turning a cuspy halo into a cored one, and in different regimes: FDM-induced cores appear in all haloes, especially low-mass ones at high redshift, whereas baryon-driven cores appear only in a mass range around $10^{10}$–$10^{11}\,M_\odot$ and at low redshift. The combined simulation shows the dark matter profile is set by whichever effect suppresses the central density more strongly, not by a sum of the two. The authors also find the velocity dispersion profiles flatten and lower in similar ways under both effects, though for different reasons. Stellar observables—star formation histories and velocity dispersion—are only mildly affected even when the dark matter structure differs substantially, which makes FDM with boson masses $m_{22}=2$ and $8$ difficult to reject using stellar data alone.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation's cores and stellar similarities rest on the assumption that the SPH representation of the quantum potential faithfully reproduces true wave mechanics at the resolution used; if the smoothing length or the single-fluid Madelung approximation hides interference and vorticity, the cores and the CDM-like stellar properties would be numerical artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • High-redshift cores in dwarf galaxies, if observed, would be a direct FDM signature, because baryons cannot produce cores early enough.
  • FDM and baryonic core formation are not additive: in systems where both operate, the final dark matter profile matches the stronger of the two single effects, guiding how future simulations and analytic models combine them.
  • Stellar observables like star formation histories and velocity dispersions cannot cleanly tell FDM from CDM, so distinguishing the models requires measuring the dark matter distribution itself—e.g., through inner density slopes or kinematics of dark-matter-dominated systems.
  • In the smallest haloes, a heavier FDM boson ($m_{22}=8$) can actually increase the halo's virial mass and boost star formation compared to CDM because mass from unresolved substructures is redistributed into the main halo, whereas $m_{22}=2$ delays or quenches star formation entirely.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the SPH quantum-potential scheme holds up, the same Madelung machinery could be ported to other wave-like dark matter models (e.g., repulsive self-interactions), but the single-valued velocity field assumption will need direct comparison with full Schrödinger–Poisson solvers before those extensions are trusted.
  • The threshold effect—$m_{22}=8$ raising the virial mass of small haloes—implies a potentially observable signature in the abundance of dwarf satellites around Milky Way–like hosts: a systematic excess relative to CDM at the low-mass end, which would be a clean test independent of stellar profiles.
  • Because stellar observables are degenerate between FDM and CDM, constraints on the boson mass from stellar kinematics alone may be systematically biased; combining core sizes with the requirement that stars form at all could break the degeneracy.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents fuzzy-gasoline, a modified version of the gasoline2 smooth-particle-hydrodynamics code that adds the Fuzzy Dark Matter (FDM) quantum potential to cosmological hydrodynamical simulations. It applies the code to three NIHAO dwarf galaxies of different masses, runs each as CDM, FDM with m22=8, and FDM with m22=2, in both hydrodynamic and dark-matter-only versions, and adds one massive halo as a control. The main scientific claims are that baryons and FDM both create cored dark-matter profiles through distinct mechanisms, that FDM cores appear in all simulated haloes especially at low mass and high redshift, and that stellar observables such as star formation histories and stellar velocity dispersions remain close to CDM predictions. The paper is explicitly a pilot study and emphasizes the code-development aspect.

Significance. If the numerical method is valid, this would be an important step: it is the first cosmological hydrodynamical simulation suite that combines FDM quantum-pressure effects with a full baryonic model including cooling, star formation, and supernova feedback. The design of comparing hydrodynamical and dark-matter-only runs for the same initial conditions is clean, and the massive-halo control run provides a useful falsification check against a naive 'FDM always cores' interpretation. However, the central results currently rely on an unvalidated SPH discretization of the quantum potential and on only three dwarf haloes, with no convergence tests, no error bars, and no comparison to a Schrödinger-Poisson reference. The significance is therefore conditional on additional validation and on tempering the statistical claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eqs. (13)–(15)] The SPH estimate of the quantum potential is the only FDM microphysics in the code, and every new physical result follows from it. The paper provides no convergence test in mass resolution or in the neighbor number N_N(i), no comparison with a direct Schrödinger-Poisson solver, and no demonstration that the smoothing length h_i resolves the de Broglie wavelength at the radii where cores are claimed. In low-density regions h_i can exceed the de Broglie scale, while in the central region the discrete Laplacian of a noisy particle density may bias or oscillate, either suppressing or exaggerating quantum pressure. Because the same quantum-pressure term shapes the DM density profiles, the DM velocity dispersions, and the 'strongest effect wins' combination with baryonic core formation, the central claims are not yet decoupled from this discretization. Please add (i) convergence runs with different mass resolutions and N_N(i), (ii) a validation of at least one halo against a Schrödinger-Poisson solver or a semi-analytic soliton solution, and (iii) a quantitative comparison of h_i with the local de Broglie wavelength in the core region for m22=2 and m22=8.
  2. [§3.2 and Tables 1, A1–A5] The abstract and Section 3.2 state that the work uses 'more than 30 zoom-in simulations', but the paper actually describes three unique dwarf haloes (L, M, S) plus one massive control halo, each run in several model variants; the tables list 22 run entries in total. More importantly, all conclusions about 'all haloes' and about stellar observables being 'remarkably similar' to CDM rest on a single halo per mass bin, with no halo-to-halo scatter or error bars. This is a load-bearing limitation for the statistical wording of the central claims. Either the sample should be expanded or the conclusions and abstract should be reworded to state explicitly that these are pilot results based on one halo per mass.
  3. [Abstract and Fig. 3] The abstract claims that 'FDM-induced cores emerge in all haloes', but the massive control system in Fig. 3 shows no noticeable core induced by either FDM model or by baryons. The text later qualifies this by noting the massive system does not feature relevant deviations, but the abstract and conclusions do not carry that qualifier. The claim should be restricted to the simulated dwarf mass range, or the wording should otherwise be reconciled with Fig. 3.
  4. [§4.2, S system] In the lowest-mass system S, the m22=2 run forms zero stars and the text attributes this partly to the stellar component lying 'below resolution'. This makes the statement that FDM generally delays and suppresses star formation not fully decoupled from resolution effects at the low-mass end. Similarly, the 'remarkable similarity' of stellar observables to CDM is asserted for systems where star formation is near the resolution threshold. The paper should either show that the S_2 result is converged (for example, with a higher-resolution rerun) or explicitly state in the conclusions that this part of the result is tentative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (11)] There is a typo in the kernel argument: W(|r_j - r_j|, h_i) should presumably be W(|r_j - r_i|, h_i).
  2. [§3.2] The phrase 'more than 30 zoom-in simulations' is inconsistent with the three galaxies listed in Table 1 and the run counting in Tables A1–A5; please clarify whether 'simulations' includes subhaloes or other variants, or correct the number.
  3. [Fig. 4, right panel] The statement that positive values of the slope alpha are 'dynamically unstable values due to noise' and are therefore omitted/shaded needs a reference or quantitative justification; as plotted, the apparent constant-core behavior of the FDM model is partly a consequence of this truncation.
  4. [§3.2] The introduction and methods mention black hole physics as part of the baryonic model, but the run tables list no black hole particles or black hole properties; please specify whether black holes form in these dwarf runs or are absent because of the halo masses.
  5. [§5] The phrase 'able to correctly simulate evolving astrophysical systems' is too strong for the approximate Madelung-SPH treatment used here; 'model' or 'approximately simulate' would be more accurate given the limitations discussed above.
  6. [Data availability] The data availability statement says data will be shared 'on reasonable request' but provides no repository link or code release; providing at least the analysis scripts and a documented version of fuzzy-gasoline would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FDM cores and CDM-like stellar observables are emergent simulation outputs, not fitted inputs; self-citations are methodological, and the derivation is self-contained.

full rationale

Walking the claimed derivation chain: the central results are produced by evolving the GPP-derived mEP system (Eqs. 5–7) with a baryonic model inherited from NIHAO; no observed datum is fitted and no output quantity is imposed as an input. The SPH estimates of the quantum pressure (Eqs. 13–15) are discretizations of the analytic Q term, not fits, and the DMO-versus-hydro design isolates the FDM and baryonic contributions. The conclusion that FDM produces cores while stellar observables stay CDM-like is an emergent output of the thirty zoom-in runs, and the extra massive-halo run (Fig. 3) provides a negative control showing the effect is not trivially universal. Self-citations (Nori & Baldi 2018 for the ax-gadget QP scheme, Nori et al. 2019 for the threshold-mass interpretation, Macciò et al. 2020 for baryon-driven core mass range) are used as method and context, not as the authority for the new simulation outcomes; even if the SPH discretization were inaccurate, that would be a numerical validation problem, not a definitional reduction. No equation in the paper makes a predicted profile equal to a fitted or cited input by construction. The paper even self-identifies as a pilot study, so any resolution or convergence concern is a limitation, not circularity.

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

The central claims rest on the physical model of FDM (Gross-Pitaevskii and Madelung), on the fidelity of the SPH discretization, on the transfer of CDM-calibrated baryonic subgrid physics to FDM, and on the representativeness of three zoom-in halos. No new physical entities are introduced, but several domain assumptions are load bearing and one numerical parameter (SPH neighbor count) is not reported.

free parameters (3)
  • NIHAO baryonic subgrid parameters (star formation, supernova feedback, metal cooling, black hole physics) = inherited from NIHAO calibration
    These control baryon-driven core formation and stellar observables; they were calibrated on CDM systems and assumed to hold in FDM runs without recalibration.
  • SPH neighbor number NN(i) = not reported
    Used in the quantum potential SPH sums (Eq. 11 and Sec 3.1); the value affects the accuracy of density and derivative estimates and is not given.
  • FDM boson mass m22 = 2 and 8
    Model input scanned, not fitted; included because core scale and all FDM effects scale with it.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FDM is described by Gross-Pitaevskii-Poisson with a single scalar field; Madelung transformation gives the quantum pressure of Eq. (7).
    Sec 2.1 establishes the model, but the single-fluid, single-valued phase assumption neglects vorticity and interference.
  • domain assumption SPH estimates of rho, grad rho, and Laplacian rho (Eqs. 12-15) converge to continuum values at the resolution used.
    Sec 3.1: the quantum force is evaluated through SPH sums, but no convergence study or validation against wave solvers is shown.
  • domain assumption Initial FDM power spectra from axionCAMB capture the linear suppression; nonlinear QP is accounted for during evolution.
    Sec 3.2: initial conditions use axionCAMB spectra with GRAFIC2; the treatment of nonlinear wave dynamics is assumed to be handled by the SPH scheme.
  • domain assumption NIHAO baryonic subgrid prescriptions are valid in FDM cosmologies.
    Sec 3.2: gas cooling, star formation, SN feedback, and BH routines are imported unchanged from NIHAO; no FDM-specific recalibration is described.
  • domain assumption The three NIHAO halos are representative of the 1e9 to 1e11 solar mass dwarf population.
    Sec 3.2, Table 1: a single halo per mass regime is used to support statements about all halos and about the mass dependence of baryonic core formation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fuzzy Gasoline: Cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of dwarf galaxy formation with Fuzzy Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4VYZ3WQ

@misc{pith2026241109733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fuzzy Gasoline: Cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of dwarf galaxy formation with Fuzzy Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4VYZ3WQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09733}
}
abstract

We present the first set of high-resolution, hydrodynamical cosmological simulations of galaxy formation in a Fuzzy Dark Matter (FDM) framework. These simulations were performed with a new version of the GASOLINE2 code, known as FUZZY-GASOLINE, which can simulate quantum FDM effects alongside a comprehensive baryonic model that includes metal cooling, star formation, supernova feedback, and black hole physics, previously used in the NIHAO simulation suite. Using thirty zoom-in simulations of galaxies with halo masses in the range $10^9 \lesssim M_{\text{halo}}/M_{\odot} \lesssim 10^{11}$, we explore how the interplay between FDM quantum potential and baryonic processes influences dark matter distributions and observable galaxy properties. Our findings indicate that both baryons and low-mass FDM contribute to core formation within dark matter profiles, though through distinct mechanisms: FDM-induced cores emerge in all haloes, particularly within low-mass systems at high redshift, while baryon-driven cores form within a specific mass range and at low redshift. Despite these significant differences in dark matter structure, key stellar observables such as star formation histories and velocity dispersion profiles remain remarkably similar to predictions from the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) model, making it challenging to distinguish between CDM and FDM solely through stellar observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09733 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Surface density maps viewed face-on as well as stellar face- and edge-on images in the I, V and U wavelength bands for all fuzzy-gasoline systems (L, M and S from top to bottom). The face-on surface density maps presented column-wise are, from left to right are: dark matter, stars, and gas. The white dashed circle is drawn based on the virial radius. As expected the virial mass of the L system decreases (and convers… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dark matter radial density profiles of all the simulations at z = 0, gathered by system (S, M and L in the left, central and right column, respectively). Dark-matter-only simulations are represented in blue shades, while simulations with baryons with reds. sity profile as well. Nevertheless, this effect is pronounced when the strength of the FDM interaction overtakes gravity in the central region of the halo, condit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dark matter radial density profiles of an additional system approximately 40 times more massive than system L at z = 0. over time, values of the slope in FDM fluctuate around zero, consistently with a core at all the redshifts considered. These evidences confirm that an early onset of a core in the dark matter profile can only be linked to FDM and not to baryons. Thus, indirect observations of cores in the dark matt… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution in redshift of the dark matter radial density profiles of system M, for the two specific models M_CDM and M_2. Redshifts displayed are z = {0,0.5,1,1.5,2,2.5} in lighter shades from high to low redshift. In the right hand plot the value of the slope α in FDM,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dark matter velocity dispersion profiles of all the simulations at z = 0, gathered by system (S, M and L in the left, central and right column, respectively). Dark-matter-only simulations are represented in blue shades, while simulations with baryons with reds. superno…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gas (first row) and star (second row) density profiles, gathered by columns for the S, M and L systems, respectively. 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [Gyr] 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 SFR [M yr −1 ] 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Time [Gyr] 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Time [Gyr] CDM 8 2 [PI…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Star formation histories for the S, M and L systems, respectively. tions portfolio in FDM both in mass (following the NIHAO approach) and both in redshift, extending FDM to our new large simulations suite HELLO (Waterval et al. 2024). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is b…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Seven Dwarfs illuminated. The impact of radiation on dwarf galaxies and their circumgalactic medium

    astro-ph.GA 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adding radiative transfer to the Seven Dwarfs simulation produces quenched ultra-faint dwarfs, smaller dark matter cores, and lower CGM metal-ion column densities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    Ade P. A. R., et al., 2016, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , 594, A13

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 2016

  4. [4]

    Alam S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.2617A 470, 2617

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx721 2017

  5. [5]

    Armengaud E., Palanque-Delabrouille N., Marsh D. J. E., Baur J., Y\`eche C., 2017, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stx1870 , 471, 4606

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1870 2017

  6. [6]

    Benitez-Llambay A., Frenk C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.4887B 498, 4887

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2698 2020

  7. [7]

    S., Ludlow A

    Benítez-Llambay A., Frenk C. S., Ludlow A. D., Navarro J. F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.2387B 488, 2387

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1890 2019

  8. [8]

    Bertschinger E., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/322526 , 137, 1

    doi:10.1086/322526 2001

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Bohm D., 1952, @doi [Physical Review] 10.1103/PhysRev.85.166 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952PhRv...85..166B 85, 166

    1952 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Zolotov A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786...87B 786, 87

    Brooks A. M., Zolotov A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786...87B 786, 87

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Kuhlen M., Zolotov A., Hooper D., 2013, @doi [Astrophys

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

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    V., Minchev I., Dutton A

    Buck T., Obreja A., Macci \`o A. V., Minchev I., Dutton A. A., Ostriker J. P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.3461B 491, 3461

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..343B 55, 343

    Bullock J. S., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..343B 55, 343

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Chan H. Y. J., Ferreira E. G. M., May S., Hayashi K., Chiba M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac063 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511..943C 511, 943

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Chavanis P.-H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.043531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PhRvD..84d3531C 84, 043531

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Macci \`o A

    Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., Frings J., Wang L., Stinson G. S., Penzo C., Kang X., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457L..74D 457, L74

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    V., Baldi M., Waterval S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1762 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.4050E 532, 4050

    Elgamal S., Nori M., Macci \`o A. V., Baldi M., Waterval S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1762 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.4050E 532, 4050

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Ferreira E. G. M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-021-00135-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&ARv..29....7F 29, 7

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Fitts A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1757 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.3547F 471, 3547

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Primack J

    Flores R. A., Primack J. R., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...427L...1F 427, L1

    1994 doi

  13. [21]

    Frings J., Macci \`o A., Buck T., Penzo C., Dutton A., Blank M., Obreja A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3378F 472, 3378

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Gill S. P. D., Knebe A., Gibson B. K., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07786.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351..399G 351, 399

    2004

  15. [23]

    Governato F., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature08640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.463..203G 463, 203

    2010 doi

  16. [25]

    Hlozek R., Grin D., Marsh D. J. E., Ferreira P. G., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.103512 , D91, 103512

    2015 doi

  17. [26]

    Hu W., Barkana R., Gruzinov A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PhRvL..85.1158H 85, 1158

    2000 doi

  18. [27]

    P., Tremaine S., Witten E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvD..95d3541H 95, 043541

    Hui L., Ostriker J. P., Tremaine S., Witten E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvD..95d3541H 95, 043541

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

    G., Bolton J

    Ir s i c V., Viel M., Haehnelt M. G., Bolton J. S., Becker G. D., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.031302 , 119, 031302

    2017 doi

  20. [29]

    Rept.] 10.1016/0370-1573(95)00058-5 , 267, 195

    Jungman G., Kamionkowski M., Griest K., 1996, @doi [Phys. Rept.] 10.1016/0370-1573(95)00058-5 , 267, 195

    1996 doi

  21. [30]

    V., Valenzuela O., Prada F., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...522...82K 522, 82

    Klypin A., Kravtsov A. V., Valenzuela O., Prada F., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...522...82K 522, 82

    1999 doi

  22. [31]

    R., Knebe A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..608K 182, 608

    Knollmann S. R., Knebe A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..608K 182, 608

    2009 doi

  23. [32]

    V., Udrescu S

    Macci \`o A. V., Udrescu S. M., Dutton A. A., Obreja A., Wang L., Stinson G. R., Kang X., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463L..69M 463, L69

    2016 doi

  24. [33]

    V., Frings J., Buck T., Dutton A

    Macci \`o A. V., Frings J., Buck T., Dutton A. A., Blank M., Obreja A., Dixon K. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.5400M 484, 5400

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    V., Crespi S., Blank M., Kang X., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495L..46M 495, L46

    Macci \`o A. V., Crespi S., Blank M., Kang X., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495L..46M 495, L46

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    V., Stinson G., Brook C

    Macciò A. V., Stinson G., Brook C. B., Wadsley J., Couchman H. M. P., Shen S., Gibson B. K., Quinn T., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/744/1/L9 , 744, L9

    2011 doi

  27. [36]

    Madelung E., 1927, @doi [Zeitschrift für Physik] 10.1007/BF01400372 , 40, 322

    1927 doi

  28. [37]

    Marsh D. J. E., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.123520 , D91, 123520

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    Marsh D. J. E., Silk J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437.2652M 437, 2652

    2014 doi

  30. [39]

    C., White S., 2010, Galaxy Formation and Evolution https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010gfe..book.....M

    Mo H., van den Bosch F. C., White S., 2010, Galaxy Formation and Evolution https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010gfe..book.....M

    2010

  31. [40]

    Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevE.91.053304 , E91, 053304

    Mocz P., Succi S., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevE.91.053304 , E91, 053304

    2015 doi

  32. [41]

    H., Zavala J., Boylan-Kolchin M., Fialkov A., Hernquist L., 2017, @doi [Mon

    Mocz P., Vogelsberger M., Robles V. H., Zavala J., Boylan-Kolchin M., Fialkov A., Hernquist L., 2017, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stx1887 , 471, 4559

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

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

    1994 doi

  34. [43]

    Moore B., Ghigna S., Governato F., Lake G., Quinn T., Stadel J., Tozzi P., 1999, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/312287 , 524, L19–L22

    1999 doi

  35. [44]

    F., Eke V

    Navarro J. F., Eke V. R., Frenk C. S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/283.3.L72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.283L..72N 283, L72

    1996 doi

  36. [45]

    Nori M., Baldi M., 2018, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/sty1224 , 478, 3935

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    Nori M., Baldi M., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3772 , 501, 1539

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    Nori M., Murgia R., Ir s i c V., Baldi M., Viel M., 2019, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/sty2888 , 482, 3227

    2019 doi

  39. [48]

    V., Baldi M., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1081 , 522, 1451

    Nori M., Macciò A. V., Baldi M., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1081 , 522, 1451

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    D., Quinn H

    Peccei R. D., Quinn H. R., 1977, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1440 , 38, 1440

    1977 doi

  41. [50]

    Peebles P. J. E., 1980, The large-scale structure of the universe https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691209838/the-large-scale-structure-of-the-universe. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J

    1980

  42. [51]

    P., 1961, @doi [Sov

    Pitaevskii L. P., 1961, @doi [Sov. Phys. JETP] 10.1007/BF02731494 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1961NCim...20..454G 13, 451

    1961 doi

  43. [53]

    M., Di Cintio A., Brook C

    Santos-Santos I. M., Di Cintio A., Brook C. B., Macci \`o A., Dutton A., Dom \' nguez-Tenreiro R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2660 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4392S 473, 4392

    2018 doi

  44. [54]

    Schive H.-Y., Tsai Y.-C., Chiueh T., 2010, @doi [Astrophys. J. Suppl.] 10.1088/0067-0049/186/2/457 , 186, 457

    2010 doi

  45. [55]

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

    2014 doi

  46. [56]

    Schive H.-Y., Chiueh T., Broadhurst T., Huang K.-W., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/89 , 818, 89

    2016 doi

  47. [57]

    A., Goldbaum N

    Schive H.-Y., ZuHone J. A., Goldbaum N. J., Turk M. J., Gaspari M., Cheng C.-Y., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2586 , 481, 4815

    2018 doi

  48. [58]

    E., Maccio A

    Schneider A., Smith R. E., Maccio A. V., Moore B., 2012, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21252.x , 424, 684

    2012

  49. [59]

    Springel V., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.435..629S 435, 629

    2005 doi

  50. [60]

    Stinson G., Seth A., Katz N., Wadsley J., Governato F., Quinn T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11097.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373.1074S 373, 1074

    2006

  51. [61]

    K., Dixon K

    Stoychev B. K., Dixon K. L., Macci \`o A. V., Blank M., Dutton A. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1924 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489..487S 489, 487

    2019 doi

  52. [62]

    Tegmark M., et al., 2006, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.123507 , 74, 123507

    2006 doi

  53. [63]

    Tollet E., et al., 2016, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stv2856 , 456, 3542

    2016 doi

  54. [64]

    C., Schwabe B., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Veltmaat J., Niemeyer J. C., Schwabe B., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043509 , D98, 043509

    2018 doi

  55. [65]

    W., Keller B

    Wadsley J. W., Keller B. W., Quinn T. R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.2357W 471, 2357

    2017 doi

  56. [66]

    A., Stinson G

    Wang L., Dutton A. A., Stinson G. S., Macci \`o A. V., Penzo C., Kang X., Keller B. W., Wadsley J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454...83W 454, 83

    2015 doi

  57. [67]

    Waterval S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1191 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.5307W 514, 5307

    2022 doi

  58. [68]

    Waterval S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.1463W 533, 1463

    2024 doi

  59. [69]

    Woo T.-P., Chiueh T., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 697, 850

    2009

  60. [70]

    J., van den Bosch F

    Yang X., Mo H. J., van den Bosch F. C., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06254.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.339.1057Y 339, 1057

    2003

Pith tools

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