Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Interference in Fuzzy Dark Matter Filaments: Idealised Models and Statistics

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that interference in cosmic filaments, modelled as steady-state cylinders of fuzzy dark matter, produces the small-scale matter power boost seen in full simulations, with the onset set by the ground-state scale and the…

desk verdict Careful semi-analytic machinery for FDM filament interference, but the headline match to simulations is a scale check, not a curve. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10829 v3 pith:TIMECR3U submitted 2024-12-14 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Tim Zimmermann , David J.E. Marsh , Keir K. Rogers , Hans A. Winther , Sijing Shen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph PACS 98.80.-k95.35.+d
keywords fuzzydarkmatterultralightaxionwaveinterferencefringescosmicfilamentspowerspectrumSchrödinger-Poissonfilamentmassfunction
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the small-scale boost in the fuzzy dark matter (FDM) matter power spectrum seen in full cosmological Schrödinger–Poisson simulations is, at root, interference: cosmic filaments host extended fringes produced by quantum eigenstates beating against one another in a common, nearly static gravitational potential. The authors build a bottom-up model in which quasi-virial filaments are treated as infinitely long isothermal cylinders, each reconstructed as a superposition of FDM eigenstates, and they weight a population of such cylinders with a filament mass function derived from ellipsoidal collapse. Stacking the single-filament power spectra produces a boost that sets in near the ground-state scale ($k_{\mathrm{detach}} \propto \langle \psi_0 | R | \psi_0 \rangle^{-1}$) and is cut off at a boson-mass-dependent scale ($k_{\mathrm{cut}} \propto m$), in qualitative agreement with the simulation feature. If correct, the result identifies a physical origin for the boost, suggests that the bump's location encodes the boson mass, and explains why Lyman-α forest constraints are unaffected by the interference.

What carries the argument

The central object is the reconstructed FDM wave function on a quasi-virial isothermal cylinder, $\psi = \sum_{n,l} a_{nl}\, u_{nl}(R) e^{il\Phi} e^{-iE_{nl}t/\hbar}$ with $u_{nl}$ the radial eigenstates of the Schrödinger equation in the fixed gravitational potential sourced by the classical filament density; interference appears as the cross-terms in $|\psi|^2$. Five ingredients carry the argument: (i) the closed-form isothermal cylinder density profile and its associated phase-space distribution function; (ii) the WKB (semiclassical) correspondence, with Langer correction for the angular-momentum barrier, that maps classical phase-space density to mode coefficients $|a_{nl}|^2$; (iii) a sparse regression (adaptive LASSO or $\ell^1$-Poisson) with an exponential WKB prior that selects of order $10$ to $100$ active modes from libraries of order $10^2$ to $10^4$; (iv) a fuzzy filament mass function built from ellipsoidal collapse with tensor-virial freeze-out and the FDM-suppressed linear power spectrum; and (v) the one-filament power spectrum, computed semi-analytically by Hankel-transforming the angular autocorrelation of the modes and then stacking over masses with the filament mass function.

What would settle it

Split the filament catalogues from the cosmological simulations by kinematic state and measure the small-scale power boost of each subset: the model predicts the boost comes almost entirely from quasi-virial filaments, with onset $k_{\mathrm{detach}} \propto \langle \psi_0 | R | \psi_0 \rangle^{-1}$ and cutoff $k_{\mathrm{cut}} \propto m$; alternatively, compute $P_{1f}(k)$ from the reconstructed cylinders with the interference cross-terms set to zero, which the model predicts collapses exactly onto the CDM baseline at all wavenumbers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that interference in a steady-state population of fuzzy filaments can generate the non-suppressive feature in the matter power spectrum that fully cosmological simulations report, without invoking any physics beyond the wave dynamics already in the Schrödinger–Poisson model. Concretely, the reconstructed cylinders yield an excess in two-point correlation between the spatial scale of the FDM ground-state mode and the quantum-pressure scale: the FDM spectrum stays on the CDM baseline down to the characteristic ground-state radius, then detaches with a boost ($k_{\mathrm{detach}} \propto \langle \psi_0 | R | \psi_0 \rangle^{-1}$) and is driven to zero at a mass-dependent cutoff ($k_{\mathrm{cut}} \propto m$, interpreted as a nonlinear extension of the linear Jeans suppression). The boost is attributed exclusively to the interference cross-terms in $|\psi|^2$, because the CDM and FDM filaments are built on the same background density; suppressing the cross-terms removes the feature and restores the CDM spectrum. The authors present this as a proof-of-concept analysis and note that the complementary, suppressive part of FDM power on quasi-linear scales lies outside their model, being captured instead by perturbative semiclassical (propagator-perturbation) methods.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the filaments responsible for the power boost are well described as isolated, infinitely long, isothermal cylinders in a quasi-virial steady state; if real cosmic filaments are predominantly bulk-flow-dominated or far from this equilibrium, the model's boost would not be the boost seen in simulations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the detach and cutoff scales scale as $k_{\mathrm{detach}} \propto \langle \psi_0 | R | \psi_0 \rangle^{-1}$ and $k_{\mathrm{cut}} \propto m$, the location and width of the interference window in the matter power spectrum are in principle a probe of the boson mass: lighter axions shift the window to larger scales and make the boost shallower.
  • At currently observable scales the boost is practically irrelevant for the Lyman-α forest: the interference enhancement sits at wavenumbers at least two orders of magnitude past the pressure filtering scale, so the classical-FDM approximation used in Lyman-α analyses remains justified.
  • The same eigenstate-reconstruction prescription applies to any steady-state object with known density and phase-space distribution, which opens a post-processing route to paint interference fringes onto CDM simulations of filaments rather than running full wave simulations.
  • The reconstructed filaments host quantized vortices (winding-number-one phase defects) at destructive-interference loci, giving a concrete population of vortex lines that can be used to test whether vortices induce observable bulk rotation in filaments.
  • Together with perturbative semiclassical treatments that capture FDM suppression on quasi-linear scales, the model completes a two-regime picture of FDM structure formation: coherent suppression at large scales, interference boost at small scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The window from $k_{\mathrm{detach}}$ to $k_{\mathrm{cut}}$ is fixed by two quantities the model computes from first principles — the ground-state radius and the isothermal velocity dispersion — so a future measurement of the bump's location could give a direct boson-mass estimate without fitting the full nonlinear history of structure formation; the paper only gestures at this application.
  • The model implies a census test of its own premise: split the simulated filaments of the published catalogues by kinematic state (quasi-virial versus bulk-flow-dominated) and measure the small-scale power boost from each subset; the model predicts the boost comes essentially entirely from the quasi-virial subset.
  • By the same machinery, haloes should show a similarly shaped but weaker and shorter-wavelength bump (larger $k_{\mathrm{detach}}$ and $k_{\mathrm{cut}}$, reduced amplitude), so searching for an interference bump in stacked halo spectra would stress-test the cylinder approximation.
  • Because the one-filament power spectrum is semi-analytical, it can be converted into predictions for stacked weak-lensing filament profiles or the phase-sensitive line correlation function; a detection of the predicted bump at the predicted $k$-window would confirm the interference origin, and its absence across a decade of boson mass would rule it out.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a bottom-up, semi-analytic model for interference in fuzzy dark matter (FDM) filaments. The authors model filaments as infinitely long, isothermal, steady-state cylinders, construct self-consistent density and phase-space distribution functions, build an eigenstate library of the Schrödinger–Poisson Hamiltonian, and fix the mode coefficients using a WKB-motivated prior combined with a regularized regression. They then use ellipsoidal collapse to derive a filament mass function, populate an idealized filament population, and compute the one-filament matter power spectrum P1f(k). The main result is that the interference cross-terms produce a power-spectrum boost relative to the CDM filament baseline between a detachment scale k_detach, related to the ground-state radius, and a cutoff scale k_cut, related to the isothermal velocity dispersion of the distribution function. The authors argue that this boost is broadly consistent with the small-scale power boost reported in fully cosmological FDM simulations, and they discuss implications for Lyman-alpha forest analyses and future applications.

Significance. If the model's central claim is established, this is a useful and novel contribution: it provides a first-principles, semi-analytic route to interference-induced small-scale power in FDM, with a transparent physical interpretation in terms of eigenstate cross-terms. The paper's internal numerics are a genuine strength: the DF inversion recovers the input density, the WKB coefficient assignment reproduces the background without optimizing, the adaptive-LASSO and l1-Poisson estimators reduce the mode count while preserving accuracy, and the box-sampled P1f matches the analytic stacking calculation. The authors also make the code publicly available. However, the headline claim of agreement with fully cosmological simulations is currently supported only by a qualitative comparison of scales, not by a direct, quantitative comparison of power-spectrum amplitudes or shapes. This validation gap is the main weakness and needs to be addressed before the abstract's 'confirm' language is justified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4 / Fig. 12] The central claim that the model 'can produce the matter power boost observed in fully-cosmological FDM simulations' is not directly tested. Figure 12 shows only the model's Psingle(k|M) and P1f(k) alongside the model's own CDM one-filament baseline; no power spectra from Mocz et al. (2019) or May & Springel (2021, 2022) are overlaid. The stated consistency is based on comparing k_detach and k_cut, which are read off the same model spectra that define them, to the broad scale range of the simulated boost. This is an in-sample consistency check, not a validation of the boost amplitude, its k-dependence, or the claim that filaments—rather than halos or the diffuse web—are the source of the simulated excess. I recommend either overlaying the simulated FDM power spectra and quantifying agreement in amplitude and shape, or explicitly softening the abstract and Section 4 claims to 'scale consistency' rather than 'produce the observed boost'.
  2. [Sec. 2.2 and Eq. (39)] The filament population used for P1f(k) is restricted to quasi-virial, infinitely long, isothermal cylinders, with bulk-flow-dominated filaments explicitly excluded. The paper then populates the box uniformly and independently, neglecting filament–filament correlations and, more importantly, providing no estimate of the fraction of all cosmic filaments that are in the quasi-virial state. Since the amplitude of the predicted boost is proportional to the number density of such filaments, the absence of this fraction means the model's boost amplitude is not calibrated against the full filament population present in the simulations. This is particularly relevant because the simulated boost is a property of all FDM density in the box, not of an isolated steady-state subpopulation. The paper should either estimate this fraction (e.g., from filament catalogues), show that the quasi-virial population dominates the interference signal, or restrict the conclusions to a proof-of-concept statement about the existence of the mechanism.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (44)] The interpretation of k_cut as the uncertainty-principle scale is internally consistent but is not an independent prediction. The isothermal fit for u_cut is made to the same reconstructed distribution function that was used to assign the mode coefficients and hence to build the wave function whose power spectrum defines k_cut. The agreement between the fitted u_cut and the observed cutoff therefore demonstrates self-consistency, not a posteriori confirmation from external simulations. This should be stated explicitly, and the model's predictive content should be separated from its internal consistency checks.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title / Sec. 2 heading] The word 'Filamants' in the Section 2 heading is a typo and should read 'Filaments'.
  2. [Sec. 2.2.1] 'Vlassov' should be 'Vlasov' in the phrase 'Schrödinger-Vlassov correspondence'.
  3. [Sec. 2.2, final paragraph] The phrase 'the results of of Gough & Uhlemann (2024)' contains a duplicated 'of'.
  4. [Eq. (37)] The longitudinal window function parameters Delta = 10/L are introduced without discussion of their sensitivity; a brief comment on how the results depend on this choice would be helpful.
  5. [Fig. 10] The legend labels 'virial theorem' and 'ad-hoc freeze-out' are ambiguous: the figure caption should state explicitly which solid/dashed curves correspond to which freeze-out condition for each FDM mass.
  6. [Sec. 4] The notation m22 is used (e.g., 'm22 = 0.1') before being defined; it would be clearer to define m22 = m/(10^-22 eV) at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the interference boost is a derived consequence of the eigenstate reconstruction, and no simulation power spectrum is used as an input.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: it starts from the Schrödinger-Poisson equation (Eq. 1), constructs an eigenstate expansion for a quasi-virial isothermal cylinder (Secs. 2.2-2.3), and fixes the eigenstate coefficient moduli by requiring the time-averaged density to match the chosen background density (Eqs. 20-24). The small-scale power boost emerges from the interference cross-terms in Eq. (5), which are not fitted to any simulation result; they follow from the random phase assignment and the coefficient moduli constrained only by the background density. The power spectrum is then computed directly from the reconstructed wave function (Sec. 3.2, Appendix D). The scales k_detach and k_cut are identified from the model's own spectra and interpreted via the ground-state radius and the phase-space distribution, respectively; this is an internal consistency check rather than a circular input, because neither the background density nor the coefficient-fitting procedure is chosen to reproduce the simulated power boost. The comparison with fully cosmological FDM simulations is qualitative and scale-based (Sec. 4), and the paper does not tune any parameter to match the simulation P(k). Self-citations (e.g., Zimmermann et al. 2024) appear in the introduction and as part of the halo-modelling lineage, but they are not load-bearing for the filament power-spectrum calculation, which relies primarily on non-self references such as Yavetz et al. (2022), Lin et al. (2018), and Eisenstein et al. (1997). The absence of a direct overlay with simulated power spectra is a limitation in the strength of the validation claim, but it is not a circularity in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model pulls its background density, eigenstate expansion, WKB prior, ellipsoidal collapse, and excursion-set ingredients from prior literature. The paper-specific choices are the cylinder geometry, anisotropic DF inversion, the L0 cutoff, the likelihood variance, and the isothermal fit for the cutoff velocity. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • anisotropy parameter beta = 0 and 0.5 (two considered cases)
    Chooses the shape of the velocity dispersion tensor and the density profile (eq 9). Not fitted to data; it is an input assumption.
  • Langer-offset L0 for l=0 modes = 0.1 (for beta = 0.5)
    Ad hoc cutoff introduced in eq (B.13) to handle the diverging DF at l=0; fixed so that the WKB wave function reproduces rho_BG up to R ~ 1 kpc (Sec 2.3, Fig 6).
  • Gaussian likelihood variance Sigma^2 = unspecified
    User-defined hyperparameter in the adaptive LASSO estimator, eq (26). Controls the strength of the fit to rho_BG; no value is reported.
  • isothermal fit sigma_u for u_cut = derived from fitting f(E) ~ exp(-E/sigma_u^2) to the DF in Fig 4
    Used in Sec 4 to set u_cut = sqrt(<u^2>) and predict k_cut. This is a fit to the model's own phase-space distribution, not to external data.
assumptions (9)
  • standard math Non-relativistic Schrodinger-Poisson equation governs FDM on astrophysical scales.
    Equation (1a)-(1b). Standard effective theory for ultralight scalar dark matter.
  • domain assumption The gravitational potential is quasi-static and sourced by the interference-free background density rho_BG.
    Sec 2.1, eqs (3a)-(3b). Assumes interference is a linear perturbation; verified numerically to be O(1-10%) in one case (Fig 2), but assumed generally.
  • domain assumption Quasi-virial filaments are infinitely long, isothermal, steady-state cylinders.
    Sec 2.2. Adopted from Stodolkiewicz (1963), Ostriker (1964), Eisenstein et al. (1997). Bulk-flow dominated filaments are explicitly excluded.
  • domain assumption Phase-space DF has the form f(E,|L|) = |L|^(-beta) g(E) with constant anisotropy beta.
    Sec 2.2.2, eq (16). Chosen to enforce constant beta and to make eq (17) an Abel integral equation with a guaranteed solution.
  • standard math WKB correspondence (with Langer correction) relates mode coefficients to the DF.
    Appendix B, eq (B.12). Valid at high energies E >> V; used to set the prior for mode coefficients (eq 22).
  • domain assumption Ellipsoidal collapse with virial freeze-out describes filament formation and yields the FMF.
    Appendix C, eq (C.6). The freeze-out condition is imposed by hand (as acknowledged), following Angrick and Bartelmann (2010).
  • standard math Excursion set formalism with a smooth-k filter describes the filament mass function.
    Sec 3.1, eqs (C.7)-(C.11). Uses calibrated filter parameters from Du et al. (2023).
  • domain assumption Mode phases are uniformly random in [0, 2*pi).
    Sec 2.1, after eq (6). Follows Yavetz et al. (2022); this is what generates the interference pattern.
  • ad hoc to paper Longitudinal density profile is an erf-function window with width set by Delta = 10/L.
    Eq (37). Chosen for a rapidly decaying, simple Fourier transform; no physical derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interference in Fuzzy Dark Matter Filaments: Idealised Models and Statistics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TIMECR3U

@misc{pith2026241210829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interference in Fuzzy Dark Matter Filaments: Idealised Models and Statistics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TIMECR3U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10829}
}
read the original abstract

Fuzzy (wave) dark matter (FDM), the dynamical model underlying an ultralight bosonic dark matter species, produces a rich set of non-gravitational signatures that distinguishes it markedly from the phenomenologically related warm (particle) dark matter (WDM) scenario. The emergence of extended interference fringes hosted by cosmic filaments is one such phenomenon reported by cosmological simulations, and a detailed understanding of such may strengthen existing limits on the boson mass but also break the degeneracy with WDM, and provide a unique fingerprint of interference in cosmology. In this paper, we provide initial steps towards this goal. In particular, we show in a bottom-up approach, how the presence of interference in an idealised filament population can lead to a non-suppressive feature in the matter power spectrum -- an observation supported by fully-cosmological FDM simulations. To this end, we build on a theoretically motivated and numerically observed steady-state approximation for filaments and express the equilibrium dynamics of such in an expansion of FDM eigenstates. We optimise the size of the expansion by incorporating classical phase-space information. Ellipsoidal collapse considerations are used to construct a fuzzy filament mass function which, together with the reconstructed FDM wave function, allow us to efficiently compute the one-filament power spectrum. We showcase our non-perturbative interference model for a selection of boson masses and confirm our approach is able to produce the matter power boost observed in fully-cosmological FDM simulations. More precisely, we find an excess in correlation between the spatial scale associated with the FDM ground state and the quantum pressure scale. We speculate about applications of this effect in data analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10829 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Top) Cross section of a steady-state FDM filament with FDM mass m = 2 × 10−22 eV at redshift z = 4. The interference is con￾structed as a post-processing step for an interference-free background density which may be provided by an analytical model (this work) or DM simulations (future work). The depicted situation assumes isotropy in the cross sectional plane. However, our model is designed to apply to anisotropic … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Top) Gravitational potential sourced by the axial-symmetric contribution ⟨|ψ| 2 ⟩Φ = ⟨|ψ| 2 ⟩ of the wave function depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial filament densities obtained from eq. (12) (solid lines) and the solution of the inverse problem of eq. (17) (dashed lines), i.e. the density implied by the DF. Vertical lines depict the fit radius R99 within which 99% of the total line mass µ are contained. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 E/V (R99) 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 (2π¯h) 2µ −1 f(E, L) β = 0.5 β = 0 z = 4 l = 0 l = 1 l = 2 l = 4 l = 8 l = 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Recovered DFs for the densities depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Subset of the eigenstate library for m = 2 × 10−22 eV , β = 0 at redshift z = 4. The total library for this parameter combination contains J = 746 states. As is the case for halos, the small radii behaviour of radial eigenstates is determined by the angular momentum Rn…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Top row) The density |ψ| 2 , i.e. the static terms shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Reconstructed FDM interference as a function of axion mass for an isotropic background density at redshiftz = 4. (First Row) FDM density, |ψ| 2 , as in eq. (5), i.e. including both the time static and interference term. (Second Row) The interference term relative to st…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: An example of ellipsoidal collapse in a ΛCDM background for a homogeneous ellipsoid with mass M = 5 × 109 M⊙ h −1 . The equation of motion, eq. (C.1), preserves the homogeneity of the initial condi￾tions and it is thus sufficient to observe the evolution of the axis sc…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Filament mass function (FMF) for various FDM masses at red￾shift z = 4. The suppression in the linear FDM power spectrum trans￾lates to a power suppression for filament masses. For filament masses M > 3 × 109h −1 M⊙, all considered FDM cases are indistinguishable from…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Volume rendering of the idealised FDM filament sample for m22 = 1 in a periodic, comoving box of L = 2 h −1 Mpc at z = 4, generated by sampling the FMF in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Three-dimensional filament matter power spectra of the interference-free CDM background and the reconstructed FDM den￾sity for a selection of FDM masses at z = 4. (Top) Single fila￾ment spectrum, Psingle(k | M), for an example filament of total mass M = 5×109 h −1 M⊙.…

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. Searching for signatures of fuzzy dark matter in cosmic filament profiles

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Galaxy distributions around SDSS filaments are consistent with no periodicity and exclude A > 0.16 λ0 + 0.18 (0.2–2 Mpc) at 3σ in a simple cosine model of fuzzy-dark-matter interference.

  2. 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

129 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Aghanim, N. et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6

    2020

  4. [4]

    Alexander, S., Capanelli, C., G. M. Ferreira, E., & McDonough, E. 2022, Physics Letters B, 833, 137298

    2022

  5. [5]

    & Bartelmann, M

    Angrick, C. & Bartelmann, M. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 518, A38

    2010

  6. [6]

    A., Weygaert, R

    Arag \' o n-Calvo, M. A., Weygaert, R. V. D., & Jones, B. J. T. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 2163

    2010

  7. [7]

    Armengaud, E., Palanque-Delabrouille, N., Y\`eche, C., Marsh, D. J. E., & Baur, J. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 471, 4606

    2017

  8. [8]

    2010, Phys

    Arvanitaki, A., Dimopoulos, S., Dubovsky, S., Kaloper, N., & March-Russell, J. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 123530

    2010

Show all 129 references
  1. [9]

    2009, Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 26, 1767

    Baddour , N. 2009, Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 26, 1767

    2009

  2. [10]

    Banik, N., Bovy, J., Bertone, G., Erkal, D., & de Boer, T. J. L. 2021, JCAP, 10, 043

    2021

  3. [11]

    2015, Physical Review D, 91, 083524

    Bartelmann, M. 2015, Physical Review D, 91, 083524

    2015

  4. [12]

    J., Farahi , A., Cole , S., et al

    Benson , A. J., Farahi , A., Cole , S., et al. 2013, , 428, 1774

    2013

  5. [13]

    Berry, M. V. & Almeida, A. M. O. d. 1973, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical, Nuclear and General, 6, 1451

    1973

  6. [14]

    Berry, M. V. & Mount, K. E. 1972, Reports on Progress in Physics, 35, 315

    1972

  7. [15]

    & Tremaine, S

    Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton University Press)

    2008

  8. [16]

    D., Bolton, J

    Boera, E., Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., & Nasir, F. 2019, Astrophys. J., 872, 101

    2019

  9. [17]

    2021, , 506, 128

    Bohr , S., Zavala , J., Cyr-Racine , F.-Y., & Vogelsberger , M. 2021, , 506, 128

    2021

  10. [18]

    R., Cole, S., Efstathiou, G., & Kaiser, N

    Bond, J. R., Cole, S., Efstathiou, G., & Kaiser, N. 1991, The Astrophysical Journal, 379, 440

    1991

  11. [19]

    Bond, J. R. & Myers, S. T. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 103, 1

    1996

  12. [20]

    2021, [ [arXiv] 2110.02964 ]

    Cicoli, M., Guidetti, V., Righi, N., & Westphal, A. 2021, [ [arXiv] 2110.02964 ]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M., Krughoff, K

    Colberg, J. M., Krughoff, K. S., & Connolly, A. J. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 359, 272

    2005

  14. [22]

    & Sheth , R

    Cooray , A. & Sheth , R. 2002, , 372, 1

    2002

  15. [23]

    2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 076

    Dalal, N., Bovy, J., Hui, L., & Li, X. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 076

    2021

  16. [24]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Dalal, N. & Kravtsov, A. 2022, Physical Review D, 106, 063517

    2022

  17. [25]

    1986, Physics Reports, 133, 217

    Dejonghe, H. 1986, Physics Reports, 133, 217

    1986

  18. [26]

    Dentler, M., Marsh, D. J. E., Hlo z ek, R., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 515, 5646

    2022

  19. [27]

    2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 388, 638

    Desjacques, V. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 388, 638

    2008

  20. [28]

    2018, , 97, 023529

    Desjacques , V., Kehagias , A., & Riotto , A. 2018, , 97, 023529

    2018

  21. [29]

    2003, Modern Cosmology (Elsevier LTD, Oxford)

    Dodelson, S. 2003, Modern Cosmology (Elsevier LTD, Oxford)

    2003

  22. [30]

    2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 656

    Dolag, K., Meneghetti, M., Moscardini, L., Rasia, E., & Bonaldi, A. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 656

    2006

  23. [31]

    2023 a , , 519, 4183

    Dome , T., Fialkov , A., Mocz , P., et al. 2023 a , , 519, 4183

    2023

  24. [32]

    2023 b , , 525, 348

    Dome , T., Fialkov , A., Sartorio , N., & Mocz , P. 2023 b , , 525, 348

    2023

  25. [33]

    Du, X., Behrens, C., & Niemeyer, J. C. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 941

    2016

  26. [34]

    Du, X., Marsh, D. J. E., Escudero, M., et al. 2023, Soliton Merger Rates and Enhanced Axion Dark Matter Decay

    2023

  27. [35]

    E., & Niemeyer , J

    Eggemeier , A., Battefeld , T., Smith , R. E., & Niemeyer , J. 2015, , 453, 797

    2015

  28. [36]

    J., Loeb, A., & Turner, E

    Eisenstein, D. J., Loeb, A., & Turner, E. L. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 475, 421

    1997

  29. [37]

    A., Taamoli, S., & Baghram, S

    Fard, M. A., Taamoli, S., & Baghram, S. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 900

    2019

  30. [38]

    Fiege, J. D. & Pudritz, R. E. 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 311, 85

    2000

  31. [39]

    2020, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020, 003

    Garny, M., Konstandin, T., & Rubira, H. 2020, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020, 003

    2020

  32. [40]

    & Uhlemann , C

    Gough , A. & Uhlemann , C. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 60

    2024

  33. [41]

    Hamilton , A. J. S. 2000, , 312, 257

    2000

  34. [42]

    T., Marcia, R

    Harmany, Z. T., Marcia, R. F., & Willett, R. M. 2012, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 21, 1084

    2012

  35. [43]

    2009, The Elements of Statistical Learning (Springer New York)

    Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. 2009, The Elements of Statistical Learning (Springer New York)

    2009

  36. [44]

    M., Winckelmans, G., & Walther, J

    Hejlesen, M. M., Winckelmans, G., & Walther, J. H. 2019, Applied Mathematics Letters, 89, 28

    2019

  37. [45]

    Hlozek, R., Grin, D., Marsh, D. J. E., & Ferreira, P. G. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 103512

    2015

  38. [46]

    Hlozek, R., Marsh, D. J. E., & Grin, D. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 476, 3063

    2018

  39. [47]

    2000, Phys

    Hu, W., Barkana, R., & Gruzinov, A. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 1158

    2000

  40. [48]

    2021, , 59, 247

    Hui , L. 2021, , 59, 247

    2021

  41. [49]

    & Gnedin , N

    Hui , L. & Gnedin , N. Y. 1997, , 292, 27

    1997

  42. [50]

    J., & Li, X

    Hui, L., Joyce, A., Landry, M. J., & Li, X. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 011

    2021

  43. [51]

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

    Hui, L., Ostriker, J. P., Tremaine, S., & Witten, E. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 043541

    2017

  44. [52]

    & Qian, E

    Hunter, C. & Qian, E. 1993, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 262, 401

    1993

  45. [53]

    J., Cha , S., & Cho , H

    HyeongHan , K., Jee , M. J., Cha , S., & Cho , H. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 377

    2024

  46. [54]

    G., Bolton , J

    Ir s i c , V., Viel , M., Haehnelt , M. G., Bolton , J. S., & Becker , G. D. 2017, , 119, 031302

    2017

  47. [55]

    Ir s i c , V. et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 043511

    2024

  48. [56]

    A., & Zeldovich, I

    Khlopov, M., Malomed, B. A., & Zeldovich, I. B. 1985, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 215, 575

    1985

  49. [57]

    2017, Phys

    Kobayashi, T., Murgia, R., De Simone, A., Ir s i c , V., & Viel, M. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 123514

    2017

  50. [58]

    R., Hlo z ek, R., et al

    Lagu\"e, A., Bond, J. R., Hlo z ek, R., et al. 2022, JCAP, 01, 049

    2022

  51. [59]

    Lagu\"e, A., Schwabe, B., Hlo z ek, R., Marsh, D. J. E., & Rogers, K. K. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 043507

    2024

  52. [60]

    & Campo, J

    Laliena, V. & Campo, J. 2018, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 51 325203 (2018) [ [arXiv] 1807.01392 ]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Langer, R. E. 1937, Physical Review, 51, 669

    1937

  54. [62]

    Ledoux, V., Ixaru, L., Rizea, M., Van Daele, M., & Berghe, G. V. 2006, Computer Physics Communications, 175, 612

    2006

  55. [63]

    M., Li , B., & Pascoli , S

    Leo , M., Baugh , C. M., Li , B., & Pascoli , S. 2018, , 2018, 010

    2018

  56. [64]

    G., Panin, A

    Levkov, D. G., Panin, A. G., & Tkachev, I. I. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 151301

    2018

  57. [65]

    Lewis, H. R. & Bellan, P. M. 1990, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 31, 2592

    1990

  58. [66]

    2018, Physical Review D, 97, 103523

    Lin, S.-C., Schive, H.-Y., Wong, S.-K., & Chiueh, T. 2018, Physical Review D, 97, 103523

    2018

  59. [67]

    K., Proukakis , N

    Liu , I. K., Proukakis , N. P., & Rigopoulos , G. 2023, , 521, 3625

    2023

  60. [68]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11088

    Liu , Y., Gao , L., Liao , S., & Zhu , K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11088

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04535

    Lokken , M., van Engelen , A., Aguena , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04535

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    W., Nugent, P., et al

    Luki\'c, Z., Stark, C. W., Nugent, P., et al. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 446, 3697

    2015

  63. [71]

    1967, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 136, 101

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1967, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 136, 101

    1967

  64. [72]

    Marsh, D. J. E. 2016, Phys. Rept., 643, 1

    2016

  65. [73]

    Marsh, D. J. E. & Hoof, S. 2021, [ [arXiv] 2106.08797 ]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Marsh, D. J. E. & Niemeyer, J. C. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 123, 051103

    2019

  67. [75]

    Marsh, D. J. E. & Silk, J. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 437, 2652

    2014

  68. [76]

    & Springel, V

    May, S. & Springel, V. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 2603

    2021

  69. [77]

    & Springel, V

    May, S. & Springel, V. 2022, MNRAS submitted [ [arXiv] 2209.14886 ]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Mead , J. M. G., King , L. J., & McCarthy , I. G. 2010, , 401, 2257

    2010

  71. [79]

    M., Demirtas, M., Long, C., et al

    Mehta, V. M., Demirtas, M., Long, C., et al. 2021, JCAP, 07, 033

    2021

  72. [80]

    1996, The Astronomical Journal, 112, 1085

    Merritt, D. 1996, The Astronomical Journal, 112, 1085

    1996

  73. [81]

    2019, Physical Review Letters, 123, 141301

    Mocz, P., Fialkov, A., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2019, Physical Review Letters, 123, 141301

    2019

  74. [82]

    2020, , 494, 2027

    Mocz , P., Fialkov , A., Vogelsberger , M., et al. 2020, , 494, 2027

    2020

  75. [83]

    2018, Physical Review D, 97

    Mocz, P., Lancaster, L., Fialkov, A., Becerra, F., & Chavanis, P.-H. 2018, Physical Review D, 97

    2018

  76. [84]

    & Succi , S

    Mocz , P. & Succi , S. 2015, , 91, 053304

    2015

  77. [85]

    O., Gluscevic , V., Boddy , K

    Nadler , E. O., Gluscevic , V., Boddy , K. K., & Wechsler , R. H. 2019, , 878, L32

    2019

  78. [86]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 462, 563

    1996

  79. [87]

    & Baldi , M

    Nori , M. & Baldi , M. 2018, , 478, 3935

    2018

  80. [88]

    & Baldi , M

    Nori , M. & Baldi , M. 2021, , 501, 1539

    2021

  81. [89]

    2019, Mon

    Nori, M., Murgia, R., Ir s i c , V., Baldi, M., & Viel, M. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 482, 3227

    2019

  82. [90]

    2013, Astrophys

    Obreschkow, D., Power, C., Bruderer, M., & Bonvin, C. 2013, Astrophys. J., 762, 115

    2013

  83. [91]

    C., Jones, M

    Odekon, M. C., Jones, M. G., Graham, L., Kelley-Derzon, J., & Halstead, E. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 130

    2022

  84. [92]

    1964, The Astrophysical Journal, 140, 1056

    Ostriker, J. 1964, The Astrophysical Journal, 140, 1056

    1964

  85. [93]

    2014, Foundations and Trends® in Optimization, 1, 127

    Parikh, N. 2014, Foundations and Trends® in Optimization, 1, 127

    2014

  86. [94]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (Princeton University Press)

    1980

  87. [95]

    & Ullio, P

    Peta c , M. & Ullio, P. 2019, Physical Review D, 99, 043003

    2019

  88. [96]

    M., Vegetti , S., McKean , J

    Powell , D. M., Vegetti , S., McKean , J. P., et al. 2023, , 524, L84

    2023

  89. [97]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 351

    Rams y, M., Slyz, A., Devriendt, J., Laigle, C., & Dubois, Y. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 351

    2021

  90. [98]

    K., Dvorkin, C., & Peiris, H

    Rogers, K. K., Dvorkin, C., & Peiris, H. V. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 128, 171301

    2022

  91. [99]

    K., Hlo z ek, R., Lagu\"e, A., et al

    Rogers, K. K., Hlo z ek, R., Lagu\"e, A., et al. 2023, JCAP, 06, 023

    2023

  92. [100]

    Rogers, K. K. & Peiris, H. V. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 043526

    2021

  93. [101]

    Rogers , K. K. & Peiris , H. V. 2021, , 126, 071302

    2021

  94. [102]

    K., Peiris, H

    Rogers, K. K., Peiris, H. V., Pontzen, A., et al. 2019, JCAP, 02, 031

    2019

  95. [103]

    Rogers, K. K. & Poulin, V. 2025, Phys. Rev. Res., 7, L012018

    2025

  96. [104]

    2014, Nature Physics, 10, 496

    Schive, H.-Y., Chiueh, T., & Broadhurst, T. 2014, Nature Physics, 10, 496

    2014

  97. [105]

    E., & Reed, D

    Schneider, A., Smith, R. E., & Reed, D. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 433, 1573

    2013

  98. [106]

    & Niemeyer , J

    Schwabe , B. & Niemeyer , J. C. 2022, , 128, 181301

    2022

  99. [107]

    1979, The Astrophysical Journal, 232, 236

    Schwarzschild, M. 1979, The Astrophysical Journal, 232, 236

    1979

  100. [108]

    J., & Sheth, R

    Shen, J., Abel, T., Mo, H. J., & Sheth, R. K. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 645, 783

    2006

  101. [109]

    2024 [ [arXiv] 2412.12012 ]

    Sheridan, E., Carta, F., Gendler, N., et al. 2024 [ [arXiv] 2412.12012 ]

    2024 arXiv

  102. [110]

    K., Mo, H

    Sheth, R. K., Mo, H. J., & Tormen, G. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 323, 1

    2001

  103. [111]

    Stod \'o lkiewicz, J. S. 1963, , 13, 30

    1963

  104. [112]

    Talman , J. D. 1978, Journal of Computational Physics, 29, 35

    1978

  105. [113]

    Trefethen, L. N. 2000, Spectral Methods in MATLAB (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics)

    2000

  106. [114]

    2014, Physical Review D, 90

    Uhlemann, C., Kopp, M., & Haugg, T. 2014, Physical Review D, 90

    2014

  107. [115]

    2019, , 99, 083524

    Uhlemann , C., Rampf , C., Gosenca , M., & Hahn , O. 2019, , 99, 083524

    2019

  108. [116]

    & Niemeyer, J

    Veltmaat, J. & Niemeyer, J. C. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 123523

    2016

  109. [117]

    G., Matarrese, S., & Riotto, A

    Viel, M., Lesgourgues, J., Haehnelt, M. G., Matarrese, S., & Riotto, A. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 063534

    2005

  110. [118]

    I., Tempel, E., Kang, X., & Guo, Q

    Wang, P., Libeskind, N. I., Tempel, E., Kang, X., & Guo, Q. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 839

    2021

  111. [119]

    White, S. D. M. & Silk, J. 1979, The Astrophysical Journal, 231, 1

    1979

  112. [120]

    Widrow, L. M. & Kaiser, N. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 416, L71

    1993

  113. [121]

    K., Hlo z ek, R., & Marsh, D

    Winch, H., Rogers, K. K., Hlo z ek, R., & Marsh, D. J. E. 2024, Astrophys. J., 976, 40

    2024

  114. [122]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 804, 132

    Wolstenhulme, R., Bonvin, C., & Obreschkow, D. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 804, 132

    2015

  115. [123]

    2020, , 633, A89

    Xia , Q., Robertson , N., Heymans , C., et al. 2020, , 633, A89

    2020

  116. [124]

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

    Yavetz, T. D., Li, X., & Hui, L. 2022, Physical Review D, 105, 023512

    2022

  117. [125]

    Zel'dovich, Y. B. 1970, , 5, 84

    1970

  118. [126]

    & Hui, L

    Zhang, J. & Hui, L. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 641, 641

    2006

  119. [127]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 2

    Zhu, W., Zhang, F., & Feng, L.-L. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 2

    2021

  120. [128]

    Zimmermann , T., Alvey , J., Marsh , D. J. E., Fairbairn , M., & Read , J. I. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.20374

    2024 arXiv

  121. [129]

    2006, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 1418

    Zou, H. 2006, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 1418

    2006

Pith tools

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