Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 10 minor 1 cited by

Soliton self-gravity and core-halo relation in fuzzy dark matter halos

T0 review · 3 major / 10 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 The scatter in fuzzy dark matter's core–halo relation comes from the soliton core's own self-gravity and local dynamics, not just from halo concentration scatter.

desk verdict Solid two-parameter core-halo model and a useful FDM mass reconstruction, but the central scatter claim is not established because the key parameter is reconstructed from the same f=rt/rc it is correlated against. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14614 v1 pith:VUPAXY5S submitted 2024-11-21 astro-ph.CO

Yusuke Manita , Takuya Takahashi , Atsushi Taruya This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords fuzzydarkmattersolitoncorecore-halorelationSchrödinger-PoissonequationNFWhaloultralightself-gravityconcentration-mass
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 sets out a minimal model of a fuzzy dark matter halo in which the central soliton core is a ground state of the Schrödinger–Poisson system living inside an external Navarro–Frenk–White halo potential. The model is controlled by two dimensionless numbers: $\alpha$, which measures the host halo's gravitational pull on the core, and $\beta$, which measures the soliton's self-gravity through its central density. Applying the model to the soliton cores seen in cosmological and merger simulations, the authors reconstruct these parameters for each halo and find that simulated halos sit between the two extreme regimes, with $\beta/\beta_{\rm crit}\sim O(1)$ to $O(10^2)$, so both self-gravity and the host halo matter. Their central claim is that the scatter in the core–halo relation cannot be blamed only on the scatter in the halo's concentration–mass relation; intrinsic features of the soliton core, potentially from local dynamics at the halo center, contribute substantially. They also show that the fuzzy dark matter particle mass can be recovered from halo profile data to about 10% accuracy, which gives observational applications.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a stationary, spherically symmetric ground-state solution of the Schrödinger–Poisson equations for a soliton sitting in an external NFW potential (eqs. 2.17–2.18). The solution is labeled by two dimensionless parameters: $\alpha$ (host halo strength, eq. 2.16) and $\beta$ (central wavefunction amplitude squared, eq. 2.19). The transition between the two limiting behaviors occurs at $\beta_{\rm crit}(\alpha)\simeq 1.92\,\alpha^{4/3}$; in one limit the soliton's self-gravity dominates, in the other the NFW potential dominates. The reconstruction uses the measured transition radius to write $\beta$ as a function of the concentration parameter, then solves self-consistently for the value of $c_{\rm vir}$ whose predicted core radius matches the simulated one, using a fitting formula for $x_c(\alpha,\beta)$ from appendix A. The same machinery yields universal upper and lower bounds on core radius and core mass for a given halo mass and FDM particle mass.

What would settle it

Track a single simulated soliton core over a dynamical time and reconstruct $\beta$ at many snapshots: if $\beta$ fluctuates by orders of magnitude or jumps at merger events while the profile still fits the ground-state template, then the reconstructed scatter reflects non-equilibrium dynamics rather than an intrinsic, quasi-steady core property. Alternatively, measure the density profile's deviation from the fitting form in eq. (3.21); a systematic mismatch at fixed $(\alpha,\beta)$ would show the reconstruction procedure is biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a corrected picture of the core–halo relation in fuzzy dark matter. Previous work approximated the core as a bound state governed mostly by the host halo or mostly by its own gravity, and attributed the scatter of the relation to the scatter in halo concentration. This paper solves the full stationary Schrödinger–Poisson system with both potentials and reconstructs $(\alpha, \beta, c_{\rm vir})$ from the measured core radius $r_c$, transition radius $r_t$, and halo mass $M_h$. The reconstructed halos occupy the intermediate regime $\beta/\beta_{\rm crit}\sim 1$–$10^2$, and the reconstructed $\beta$ scatters widely even at fixed halo mass, with no strong correlation with concentration. The authors therefore claim that the diversity of the core–halo relation reflects not only the halo's assembly history, encoded in $c_{\rm vir}$, but also the soliton's own local state, and they show that the scatter is correlated with both the concentration parameter and the ratio $f=r_t/r_c$.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction assumes that each simulated soliton is a stationary, spherically symmetric ground state of the Schrödinger–Poisson system with an external NFW potential, and that the transition radius marks the crossing where the fitted soliton and NFW profiles have equal density; if real cores are oscillating or out of equilibrium, the inferred $\beta$ and its scatter could be artifacts of the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Most simulated fuzzy dark matter halos lie in the regime $\beta/\beta_{\rm crit}\sim 1$–$10^2$, so any realistic core–halo model must include both soliton self-gravity and the host halo potential.
  • The scatter in the core–halo relation splits into two channels: the concentration parameter $c_{\rm vir}$ correlates with $\alpha$, while the ratio $f=r_t/r_c$ correlates with $\beta/\beta_{\rm crit}$.
  • Reconstructed concentration parameters fall below the CDM concentration–mass relation, roughly between two existing FDM predictions, consistent with suppressed small-scale structure.
  • Using the core mass as an extra input, the model recovers the simulation's FDM particle mass ($8\times10^{-23}$ eV) to within about 10%.
  • For a given FDM mass and halo mass, the core radius has an upper bound and the core mass a lower bound that do not depend on $\beta$ or $c_{\rm vir}$, giving observational criteria.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reconstructed $\beta$ scatter is really tracing local soliton dynamics, then tracking individual simulated cores across time should show $\beta$ wandering on a dynamical timescale; that is a direct simulation test of the paper's interpretation.
  • Applying the same reconstruction pipeline to snapshots before and after a major merger would quantify how much of the $\beta$ scatter is merger-driven rather than quasi-steady intrinsic variation.
  • Replacing the NFW external potential with a baryonic density profile—an extension the paper mentions—would turn the model into a tool for predicting how baryonic feedback changes the core–halo relation and its scatter.
  • The universal bounds could be turned into a null test: an observed core larger than $r_{c,\rm max}$ for an assumed particle mass would rule out that mass.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 10 minor

Summary. The paper models a fuzzy dark matter halo as a spherically symmetric Schrödinger-Poisson ground-state soliton embedded in an external NFW potential, characterized by two dimensionless parameters α (halo potential strength) and β (soliton central density). The authors solve the system numerically, derive the limiting behaviors in which either soliton self-gravity or the host halo dominates, define a critical βcrit, and obtain universal upper and lower bounds on core radius and core mass. They then reconstruct α, β, and the concentration parameter cvir for simulated halos using rc, rt, and Mh, concluding that simulated cores lie in the intermediate regime β/βcrit ~ O(1)-O(100). On this basis they argue that the scatter in the core-halo relation cannot be explained solely by the concentration-mass scatter but is also influenced by intrinsic soliton features, and they demonstrate a reconstruction of the FDM mass accurate to about 10%.

Significance. If the central scatter claim were established, the paper would provide a useful interpretive framework for FDM simulations and a practical model for observational core-halo analyses. The numerical implementation appears internally consistent, the two limiting cases are checked against the numerical solutions, the universal bounds in Sec. 3.3 are a useful byproduct, and the FDM mass reconstruction is an explicit, falsifiable application. However, the main scatter conclusion currently rests on a definitional correlation between B and the input ratio f=rt/rc, and the paper does not provide a quantitative test showing that B carries information independent of f. The core-halo scatter claim therefore needs substantial additional support before it can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.1-5.2, Eq. (5.1), Figs. 10 and 13] The central claim that the core-halo scatter is significantly influenced by intrinsic soliton features rests on the correlation between rc-Mh residuals and B = log10(beta/beta_crit). But B is not an independent observable: for each halo, beta is obtained from Eq. (5.1) using exactly the measured f = rt/rc, with alpha and rs fixed by the reconstruction, and beta_crit is a function of alpha. In the limit-B regime where xc ~ alpha^{-1/3}, the ratio beta/beta_crit reduces to a function of f alone, so the strong f-B correlation shown in Fig. 10 and the color trends in Fig. 13 are substantially built in by construction. The authors should provide a partial-correlation analysis of rc-Mh residuals with B after controlling for f, or a null mock test with synthetic scatter in f and cvir, to demonstrate that beta carries information beyond the input ratio f. Without such a test, the abstract's conclusion is not established.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5.2)] The reconstruction solves a single equation r_th_c(cvir) = rc for the concentration parameter, but the paper does not establish that this solution is unique or that the inferred parameters are stable to the assumed NFW form and to the fitting formula (A.1). If r_th_c(cvir) is non-monotonic or has multiple crossings in the sampled halo range, the reconstructed alpha, beta, and B depend on which branch is selected. The authors should report the number of solutions found and the sensitivity of the reconstructed parameters to the measurement uncertainties in rc and rt, for example through a bootstrap or Monte Carlo propagation of the input data.
  3. [Sec. 5.3 and Appendix C] The FDM mass reconstruction treats Mc as an additional independent input, but the text states that in the simulation data 'Mc is related to rc' and that rt was determined using Eq. (3.8), which is strictly valid only in limit A. If Mc was derived from rc in this way, Eq. (5.6) is not an independent consistency condition and the ~10% agreement in Fig. 14 is partly by construction. The authors should clarify whether Mc is an independent simulation measurement or is derived from rc; in the latter case, they should demonstrate that the mass reconstruction works using only (Mh, rt, rc).
minor comments (10)
  1. [Sec. 1] The text reads 'pawer-law behavior'; this should be 'power-law behavior'.
  2. [Sec. 3.1.1] After Eq. (3.8), 'parsection' appears to be a typo for 'parsec'.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The heading 'Maximam core radius and minimam core mass' contains two typos; it should read 'Maximum core radius and minimum core mass'.
  4. [Sec. 4.1] The text says 'Newton-Rapthon method'; this should be 'Newton-Raphson method'.
  5. [Sec. 4.2] After Eq. (4.10), 'reosonable approximation' should be 'reasonable approximation'.
  6. [Figure 3 caption] The labels for limit A and limit B appear to be swapped: Eq. (3.12) and Eq. (3.14) belong to limit B, while Eq. (3.5) and Eq. (3.7) belong to limit A.
  7. [Figure 5 caption] The dashed line in panel (c) should presumably correspond to rlim_c,max rather than rlim_c,min, to be consistent with Eq. (3.35).
  8. [Sec. 6] The sentence 'independent of neither β nor cvir' should be 'independent of both β and cvir' or equivalently 'dependent on neither β nor cvir'.
  9. [Sec. 5.1] The text says 'as a bybroduct'; this should be 'as a byproduct'.
  10. [Sec. 5.3] The text says 'used for the reconstructuction'; this should be 'used for the reconstruction'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The core-halo scatter claim is partially circular: the reconstructed parameter B is defined from the same ratio f=rt/rc used to characterize the profile, and the FDM mass 'demonstration' initializes the root finder at the fiducial answer.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1, Eq. (5.1); Section 5.2.2; Section 5.2.3]
    "From eq. (2.25), the relation ρfit_sol(rt) = ρNFW(rt) leads to β = α (1 + c (rt/rc)^2)^8 / [(rt/rs)(1 + rt/rs)^2] , (5.1) with c = 0.091. ... These plots show that f (Mh) is strongly correlated with B, but has no clear correlation with A. ... given that cvir and f correlate with A and B, respectively, figure 13 suggests that the scatter in the core-halo relation originates from the scatter in both cvir and f."

    Eq. (5.1) defines the reconstructed parameter β directly from the measured ratio f ≡ rt/rc, along with the reconstructed α and rs, and the matching condition rth_c = rc feeds the measured core radius back into the fit. Therefore B = log10(β/βcrit) is a deterministic function of the input pair (rc, rt), not an independent observable. The paper's statement that f is 'strongly correlated with B' is thus a near-tautology, and using B to 'explain' the scatter in the rc–Mh relation is equivalent to using f, which is itself one of the inputs.

  2. other [Section 5.3, FDM mass reconstruction, root-finding initialization]
    "the initial conditions to search for solutions are set to the reconstructed value for cvir (see section 5.2) and the fiducial value in simulations for the FDM mass, i.e., mψ = 8×10−23 eV. As a result, the reconstructed values of cvir, α and β show no significant differences compared to those in figure 7. The estimated FDM mass is shown in figure 14, where we see a good agreement with the fiducial value in the simulation to within about 10% accuracy."

    The simulation data were produced with the fiducial value mψ = 8×10−23 eV, so the consistency equations (5.5)–(5.6) are satisfied at that point up to model residuals. Starting the root finder at this exact fiducial value means the reported 'good agreement' is a self-consistency check with the answer supplied as the initial guess, not an out-of-sample prediction. The abstract presents this as a demonstration that the FDM mass can be reconstructed and as a basis for observational application, but the text reports no test with different initial masses or independent mock data. The approximately 10% accuracy is therefore not evidence that the method would recover an unknown mψ.

full rationale

The analytical core of the paper (Sections 2–4) is self-contained: the Schrödinger–Poisson system is solved numerically, the limiting cases are derived, the critical beta is defined from the model, and the universal bounds on core radius and core mass follow from the equations rather than from the simulation inputs. Those results do not reduce to their inputs. The circularity is concentrated in the interpretive step in Section 5. There, β (or B) is not an independent observable: Eq. (5.1) defines β from the measured f ≡ rt/rc and the reconstructed NFW parameters, and the reconstruction also forces rth_c = rc, so the same core radius enters both the plotted core–halo relation and the parameter used to 'explain' its scatter. The paper's own Figure 11 shows a monotonic f–β/βcrit relation, consistent with this algebraic dependence. Hence the claim that the scatter is driven by intrinsic soliton features, rather than by the concentration–mass scatter alone, is partly a restatement of the input f; the paper provides no partial-correlation or mock test showing that β carries information beyond f. The FDM mass reconstruction in Section 5.3 is further weakened by initializing the root finder at the fiducial mψ, so the reported agreement is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The self-citation to ref. [31] is not load-bearing in a circular way, because the Limit B formulas are also reproduced by the paper's own numerical solutions and [31] is a published analytical derivation. Overall, the analytical results stand, but the central claim about intrinsic soliton features driving the core–halo scatter is partially circular, so the score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model postulates a stationary ground-state soliton embedded in a fixed NFW halo and identifies the transition radius as density equality. The only genuine fitting constant introduced in this paper is n = 0.86 in the numerical fitting formula; the remaining constants come from earlier numerical work or from the profile shape definition. The central inference of beta scatter is obtained from the model plus measured rc, rt, and Mh, not from an independent measurement.

free parameters (2)
  • n = 0.86
    Exponent in the fitting formula for the dimensionless core radius (Eq. A.1), tuned to match the numerical shooting results in Appendix A and used for all parameter reconstruction.
  • c = 0.091
    Shape constant in the soliton density fitting formula Eq. (3.21), fixed by requiring the profile to drop to half the central density at rc; used in core mass calculations and in Eq. (5.1) for beta.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The FDM halo is a stationary, spherically symmetric ground-state soliton plus a time-averaged NFW envelope, so the total density is rho_sol + rho_NFW.
    Introduced in Section 2.1, Eqs. (2.4) and (2.5); it underlies the dimensionless Schrödinger-Poisson system and the reconstruction.
  • domain assumption The transition radius rt marks the radius where the fitted soliton profile and NFW profile have equal density, rho_sol_fit(rt) = rho_NFW(rt).
    Used to derive Eq. (5.1); ref. [20] determines rt by fitting the same analytic forms.
  • domain assumption The soliton density profile is universal of the form rho_c/(1+c(r/rc)^2)^8 with c = 0.091 for all alpha and beta.
    Eq. (3.21); checked numerically in Fig. 2 but assumed when computing core masses and beta in Eq. (5.1).
  • standard math The limit B eigenvalue and core radius are accurately described by the Airy approximation from ref. [31], Eqs. (3.12) to (3.14).
    Used to set beta_crit and the limit B asymptotics; this is prior published analytical work, partly by one of the authors.
  • ad hoc to paper The fitting formula Eq. (A.1) with n = 0.86 reproduces the numerical xc for all relevant alpha and beta.
    Fitted to their own shooting solutions; used as a surrogate in parameter reconstruction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Soliton self-gravity and core-halo relation in fuzzy dark matter halos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUPAXY5S

@misc{pith2026241114614,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Soliton self-gravity and core-halo relation in fuzzy dark matter halos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUPAXY5S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14614}
}
read the original abstract

Fuzzy dark matter (FDM) is an attractive dark matter candidate composed of ultralight particles. In this paper, toward a clear understanding of the core-halo relation in the FDM halos, we consider a simple model of the soliton-halo system, in which the self-gravitating soliton core is formed in the presence of Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) halo potential as an external field. Solving numerically the Schr\"odinger-Poisson equation, the self-gravitating soliton is obtained as a ground-state solution, which is characterized by the two key parameters, i.e., size of soliton core and its strength of self-gravity relative to those of the NFW halo. Using our soliton-halo model, we investigate the properties of soliton cores found in cosmological simulation, and the key parameters characterizing these solitons are reconstructed in a self-consistent manner. Results suggest that (1) the soliton core properties depend critically on both the self-gravity of the soliton and the external potential of the host halo, and (2) the scatter observed in the core-halo relation cannot be explained solely by the one in the halo's concentration-mass relation, as previously suggested, but also significantly influenced by intrinsic features of the soliton core, potentially arising from local dynamics at the halo center. We also demonstrate that the FDM mass can be reconstructed from the simulation data characterizing the halo density profile, providing a basis for applying the model to observational studies.

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. Ultralight fuzzy dark matter review

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A review of fuzzy dark matter that surveys the models, wave phenomenology, numerical methods, and current observational mass constraints of ultralight dark matter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    Chabanier, M

    S. Chabanier, M. Millea and N. Palanque-Delabrouille, Matter power spectrum: from Ly α forest to CMB scales , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 489 (2019) 2247 [ 1905.08103]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    SDSS collaboration, The 3-D power spectrum of galaxies from the SDSS , Astrophys. J. 606 (2004) 702 [ astro-ph/0310725]

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Bullock and M

    J.S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Small-Scale Challenges to the ΛCDM Paradigm, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 55 (2017) 343 [ 1707.04256]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Tulin and H.-B

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure , Phys. Rept. 730 (2018) 1 [ 1705.02358]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana and A. Gruzinov, Cold and fuzzy dark matter , Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 1158 [astro-ph/0003365]

    arXiv 2000

  6. [6]

    Niemeyer, Small-scale structure of fuzzy and axion-like dark matter , 1912.07064

    J.C. Niemeyer, Small-scale structure of fuzzy and axion-like dark matter , 1912.07064

    arXiv 1912

  7. [7]

    Hui, Wave Dark Matter , Ann

    L. Hui, Wave Dark Matter , Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 59 (2021) 247 [ 2101.11735]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Ferreira, Ultra-light dark matter , Astron

    E.G.M. Ferreira, Ultra-light dark matter , Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 29 (2021) 7 [ 2005.03254]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Hui, J.P

    L. Hui, J.P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine and E. Witten, Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 043541 [ 1610.08297]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Marsh, Axion Cosmology, Phys

    D.J.E. Marsh, Axion Cosmology, Phys. Rept. 643 (2016) 1 [ 1510.07633]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Axions In String Theory , JHEP 06 (2006) 051 [ hep-th/0605206]

    2006 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper and J. March-Russell, String Axiverse , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 123530 [ 0905.4720]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Schive, T

    H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh and T. Broadhurst, Cosmic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Coherent Dark Wave , Nature Phys. 10 (2014) 496 [ 1406.6586]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Schive, M.-H

    H.-Y. Schive, M.-H. Liao, T.-P. Woo, S.-K. Wong, T. Chiueh, T. Broadhurst et al., Understanding the Core-Halo Relation of Quantum Wave Dark Matter from 3D Simulations , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 261302 [ 1407.7762]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Navarro, C.S

    J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White, The Structure of cold dark matter halos , Astrophys. J. 462 (1996) 563 [ astro-ph/9508025]

    1996 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Navarro, C.S

    J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White, A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering, Astrophys. J. 490 (1997) 493 [ astro-ph/9611107]

    1997 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Nori and M

    M. Nori and M. Baldi, Scaling relations of fuzzy dark matter haloes – I. Individual systems in their cosmological environment, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 501 (2021) 1539 [ 2007.01316]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    P. Mocz, M. Vogelsberger, V.H. Robles, J. Zavala, M. Boylan-Kolchin, A. Fialkov et al., Galaxy formation with BECDM – I. Turbulence and relaxation of idealized haloes , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471 (2017) 4559 [ 1705.05845]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Nori, A.V

    M. Nori, A.V. Macci` o and M. Baldi, Fuzzy Aquarius: evolution of a Milky-way like system in the Fuzzy Dark Matter scenario , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 522 (2023) 1451 [ 2210.08022]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Chan, E.G.M

    H.Y.J. Chan, E.G.M. Ferreira, S. May, K. Hayashi and M. Chiba, The diversity of core–halo structure in the fuzzy dark matter model , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 511 (2022) 943 [2110.11882]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Schwabe, J.C

    B. Schwabe, J.C. Niemeyer and J.F. Engels, Simulations of solitonic core mergers in ultralight axion dark matter cosmologies , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 043513 [ 1606.05151]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    X. Du, C. Behrens, J.C. Niemeyer and B. Schwabe, Core-halo mass relation of ultralight axion dark matter from merger history , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 043519 [ 1609.09414]. – 28 –

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Mina, D.F

    M. Mina, D.F. Mota and H.A. Winther, Solitons in the dark: First approach to non-linear structure formation with fuzzy dark matter , Astron. Astrophys. 662 (2022) A29 [ 2007.04119]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Elgamal, M

    S. Elgamal, M. Nori, A.V. Macci` o, M. Baldi and S. Waterval, No Catch-22 for Fuzzy Dark Matter: testing substructure counts and core sizes via high-resolution cosmological simulations , 2311.03591

  17. [25]

    May and V

    S. May and V. Springel, Structure formation in large-volume cosmological simulations of fuzzy dark matter: impact of the non-linear dynamics , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 506 (2021) 2603 [2101.01828]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Veltmaat, J.C

    J. Veltmaat, J.C. Niemeyer and B. Schwabe, Formation and structure of ultralight bosonic dark matter halos , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 043509 [ 1804.09647]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Veltmaat, B

    J. Veltmaat, B. Schwabe and J.C. Niemeyer, Baryon-driven growth of solitonic cores in fuzzy dark matter halos , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 083518 [ 1911.09614]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Chavanis, Derivation of the core mass – halo mass relation of fermionic and bosonic dark matter halos from an effective thermodynamical model , Phys

    P.-H. Chavanis, Derivation of the core mass – halo mass relation of fermionic and bosonic dark matter halos from an effective thermodynamical model , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 123506 [1905.08137]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Desjacques and A

    V. Desjacques and A. Nusser, Axion core–halo mass and the black hole–halo mass relation: constraints on a few parsec scales , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 488 (2019) 4497 [ 1905.03450]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kawai, A

    H. Kawai, A. Kamada, K. Kamada and N. Yoshida, Modeling the core-halo mass relation in FDM halos , 2312.10744

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Taruya and S

    A. Taruya and S. Saga, Analytical approach to the core-halo structure of fuzzy dark matter , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 103532 [ 2208.06562]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bullock, T.S

    J.S. Bullock, T.S. Kolatt, Y. Sigad, R.S. Somerville, A.V. Kravtsov, A.A. Klypin et al., Profiles of dark haloes. Evolution, scatter, and environment , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 321 (2001) 559 [astro-ph/9908159]

    2001 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Yavetz, X

    T.D. Yavetz, X. Li and L. Hui, Construction of wave dark matter halos: Numerical algorithm and analytical constraints, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 023512 [ 2109.06125]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    X. Li, L. Hui and T.D. Yavetz, Oscillations and Random Walk of the Soliton Core in a Fuzzy Dark Matter Halo , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 023508 [ 2011.11416]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Zagorac, I

    J.L. Zagorac, I. Sands, N. Padmanabhan and R. Easther, Schr¨ odinger-Poisson solitons: Perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 103506 [ 2109.01920]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lin, H.-Y

    S.-C. Lin, H.-Y. Schive, S.-K. Wong and T. Chiueh, Self-consistent construction of virialized wave dark matter halos , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 103523 [ 1801.02320]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Moroz, R

    I.M. Moroz, R. Penrose and P. Tod, Spherically symmetric solutions of the Schrodinger-Newton equations, Class. Quant. Grav. 15 (1998) 2733

    1998

  30. [38]

    Marsh and A.-R

    D.J.E. Marsh and A.-R. Pop, Axion dark matter, solitons and the cusp–core problem , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 451 (2015) 2479 [ 1502.03456]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dentler, D.J.E

    M. Dentler, D.J.E. Marsh, R. Hloˇ zek, A. Lagu¨ e, K.K. Rogers and D. Grin,Fuzzy dark matter and the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 data , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 515 (2022) 5646 [2111.01199]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Laroche, D

    A. Laroche, D. Gilman, X. Li, J. Bovy and X. Du, Quantum fluctuations masquerade as halos: Bounds on ultra-light dark matter from quadruply-imaged quasars , 2206.11269

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Safarzadeh and D.N

    M. Safarzadeh and D.N. Spergel, Ultra-light Dark Matter is Incompatible with the Milky Way’s Dwarf Satellites , 1906.11848

    1906 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hayashi, E.G.M

    K. Hayashi, E.G.M. Ferreira and H.Y.J. Chan, Narrowing the Mass Range of Fuzzy Dark Matter with Ultrafaint Dwarfs , Astrophys. J. Lett. 912 (2021) L3 [ 2102.05300]. – 29 –

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kamada, M

    A. Kamada, M. Kaplinghat, A.B. Pace and H.-B. Yu, How the Self-Interacting Dark Matter Model Explains the Diverse Galactic Rotation Curves , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 111102 [1611.02716]. – 30 –

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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