Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 3 cited by

Introducing the AIDA-TNG project: galaxy formation in alternative dark matter models

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces the AIDA-TNG simulation suite and argues that a galaxy formation model calibrated on cold dark matter still yields a realistic galaxy population when the dark matter is warm or self-interacting.

desk verdict A well-executed simulation resource that will become a benchmark, but the 'realistic in all scenarios' claim outruns the evidence—similarity across one code's runs is not yet a physical result. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12439 v2 pith:62ITIFTX submitted 2025-01-21 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Giulia Despali , Lauro Moscardini , Dylan Nelson , Annalisa Pillepich , Volker Springel , Mark Vogelsberger This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords AIDA-TNGgalaxyformationwarmdarkmatterself-interactingcosmologicalhydrodynamicalsimulationshalomassfunctionpowerspectrumsizes
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

The AIDA-TNG project runs cosmological simulations with the same baryonic galaxy formation recipe as the IllustrisTNG model, but with six dark matter variants: cold dark matter, three warm dark matter models (light particles that erase small-scale structure), and two self-interacting models (dark matter that scatters with itself and smooths dense centres). The paper's central claim is that the unmodified TNG model, calibrated on cold dark matter, produces a realistic galaxy population in every scenario. Stellar and gas mass fractions, the stellar mass function, supermassive black hole masses, and the star formation rate density are nearly identical across models, with deviations only in the most extreme warm model. The clear differences are structural: warm dark matter creates cores in low-mass haloes, self-interacting dark matter creates cores in high-mass haloes, and self-interacting models make galaxies about 20 percent larger. The suite's matched volumes and paired dark-matter-only and full-physics runs let baryonic and dark matter effects be separated, so the project can say where alternative dark matter should appear in observations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the AIDA-TNG simulation suite: 51.7 and 110.7 Mpc cosmological boxes, each run with the AREPO magnetohydrodynamic code, the IllustrisTNG galaxy formation model left entirely unchanged, and six dark matter models—CDM, three WDM masses (1, 3, 5 keV), and two SIDM cross-sections (constant $\sigma/m=1\,\mathrm{cm}^2\,\mathrm{g}^{-1}$ and a velocity-dependent model). Two features carry the argument: matched initial conditions taken from TNG50 and TNG100, so any difference between models is caused by dark matter physics, and paired dark-matter-only and full-physics runs, which let the authors factor baryonic feedback out of the comparison. The WDM models are imposed through a transfer-function suppression of the initial power spectrum with a half-mode mass for each particle mass, while the SIDM models use the Monte Carlo scattering scheme in AREPO.

What would settle it

Take the WDM3 and SIDM1 boxes and re-run them with the TNG feedback parameters varied by a factor of two (for example, doubling or halving the galactic wind energy). If the resulting changes in stellar mass fractions or galaxy sizes are as large as the dark-matter-driven differences, the unchanged-model comparison cannot isolate dark matter physics, and the central claim fails; on the observational side, a survey search for the predicted roughly 20 percent larger SIDM galaxies at fixed stellar mass would provide a direct test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that the redshift-zero galaxy population produced by the IllustrisTNG galaxy formation model is statistically indistinguishable in its global scaling relations across CDM, WDM (1, 3, 5 keV), and SIDM (constant and velocity-dependent cross-sections), even though the model was tuned on CDM alone. The paper supports this by comparing matched cosmological boxes in dark-matter-only and full-physics versions of each model, and by measuring the halo mass function, stellar mass function, stellar and gas mass fractions, SMBH–stellar mass relation, and star formation rate density. It reports that all these quantities agree closely across scenarios, with the largest deviations in the 1 keV warm model, which is already excluded by other observations. The paper also reports that the differences that do survive are structural: WDM suppresses low-mass halo counts and lowers central densities at the low-mass end, while SIDM erodes central cusps at the high-mass end, and SIDM galaxies have stellar half-mass radii about 20 percent larger than CDM at fixed stellar mass. On scales below about 1 Mpc, the matter power spectrum is suppressed in all models, but WDM and SIDM reach that suppression from opposite directions—WDM from the initial power-spectrum cut-off, SIDM from late-time core formation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, stated in Section 2.3, is that the TNG galaxy formation model, tuned on cold dark matter, also governs gas cooling, star formation, and black hole feedback correctly inside haloes whose dark matter is warm or self-interacting—so the similar galaxy properties are physical insensitivity, not an artifact of a rigid subgrid model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observers can use TNG-based mock galaxy populations to test warm and self-interacting dark matter without first re-calibrating the baryon model for each scenario.
  • Baryonic effects on halo counts and the small-scale matter power spectrum can be treated as approximately universal across these dark matter models, so dark-matter-only predictions can be corrected by a single baryonic transfer function.
  • Self-interacting dark matter predicts a measurable population of galaxies roughly 20 percent larger at fixed stellar mass in the range $5\times10^9$ to $10^{12}\,M_\odot$, a signature that large imaging surveys can look for directly.
  • Warm and self-interacting dark matter should be sought in halo structure and small-scale clustering, not in global galaxy scaling relations: SIDM cores at high halo masses, WDM cores and missing haloes at low masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication of the paper's set-up is that observational tensions between CDM and galaxy scaling relations are unlikely to be resolved by switching to these WDM or SIDM models, since the same baryon recipe reproduces the same galaxy population in all of them; tensions would have to come from structural or small-scale data.
  • The near-universality of baryonic effects suggests a practical shortcut the authors do not spell out: a single baryonic correction fitted in CDM could be applied to dark-matter-only predictions in any of these dark matter models, as long as structural differences are treated separately.
  • If the SIDM galaxy-size signal survives comparison with surveys, it provides a way to break degeneracies with baryonic feedback, which also inflates galaxy sizes; the two effects could be separated by combining size data with central dark matter densities.
  • The velocity-dependent SIDM model's smaller cores at cluster masses imply that cluster-scale constraints on constant cross-sections may not transfer directly to velocity-dependent models, pointing to dwarf-scale structure as the discriminating regime.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the AIDA-TNG project, a suite of cosmological magnetohydrodynamic simulations run with the Arepo code and the IllustrisTNG galaxy formation model, in cold dark matter (CDM), three warm dark matter (WDM) models with particle masses 1, 3, and 5 keV, and two self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) models with constant (1 cm^2/g) and velocity-dependent (Correa 2021) cross-sections. Each model is run as dark-matter-only and full-physics versions of two cosmological boxes, 110.7 and 51.7 Mpc, at two resolution levels, using the same initial conditions as the corresponding TNG100 and TNG50 runs. The paper presents first results on the halo mass function and its redshift evolution, the stellar mass function, halo density profiles, the concentration-mass relation, galaxy scaling relations (stellar mass-halo mass, gas fraction, SMBH mass, star formation rate density, galaxy sizes), and the matter power spectrum. The central claim is that, despite the TNG subgrid model being calibrated on CDM, galaxy properties such as stellar and gas mass fractions, stellar mass function, SMBH masses, and SFRD are very similar across all dark matter scenarios, while differences appear in halo structure (cores, concentrations) and galaxy sizes (SIDM galaxies about 20 percent larger).

Significance. If the results hold, AIDA-TNG will be a valuable community resource: it combines cosmological volumes, a well-tested baryonic model, and multiple dark matter alternatives in matched initial conditions, with DMO/FP pairs that allow baryonic and dark-matter effects to be separated. Strengths of the paper include the transparent description of initial conditions, resolution limits, and artificial-fragmentation masking for WDM; the use of existing TNG initial conditions for controlled comparisons; and the public availability of the data. The conclusion that global galaxy properties are insensitive to the dark matter model is interesting and, if correct, has practical importance for interpreting observations. However, the paper's strongest claim, that the TNG model 'can produce a realistic galaxy population in all scenarios,' rests on the untested transferability of a CDM-calibrated subgrid model to altered dark-matter potentials, and this assumption is acknowledged but not independently validated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 5; Section 2.3] The central claim that the TNG galaxy formation model 'can produce a realistic galaxy population in all scenarios' is stronger than the presented evidence. The evidence in Figs. 9 and 13 shows that one subgrid model (TNG) yields similar galaxy properties across the AIDA runs, but this similarity cannot by itself distinguish a physically robust insensitivity from a subgrid model that is too rigid to respond to changes in halo potential. The paper states in Sec. 2.3 that the TNG model is kept entirely unchanged; this is a reasonable design choice for a first study, but the 'realistic' conclusion requires either a quantitative observational test in the mass range where ADM actually changes halo structure (e.g., M_vir < 1e11 Msun for WDM3/WDM1 or the dwarf regime for SIDM), or an explicit statement that the conclusion is conditional on the TNG subgrid model remaining valid. The paper's own comparison in Sec. 4.1 to EAGLE-based SIDM simulations shows that baryonic response differs between galaxy formation models at 1e12-1e13 Msun, so the result is not known to be galaxy-formation-model independent. Please either soften the claim to 'consistent with the TNG subgrid model remaining approximately valid' or add the missing quantitative test.
  2. [Abstract; Table 1; Section 2.1] The abstract claims that the TNG model produces a realistic galaxy population in all scenarios, but the full-physics runs do not include WDM5. Table 1 shows no FP WDM5 run in any of the presented boxes, and Sec. 2.1 states that a FP version of the 50/A WDM5 box was deliberately not created. Thus the galaxy-population similarity is not simulated for the 5 keV WDM model; it is inferred from the DMO run being close to CDM. This is a load-bearing gap for the 'all scenarios' phrasing. Please either add a full-physics WDM5 run (even at lower resolution) or restrict the conclusion to the scenarios for which full-physics runs exist.
  3. [Section 3; Figure 8] The WDM1 FP/DMO halo mass function ratio at z >= 2 shows a low-mass excess that the authors themselves attribute to a possible effect of artificial fragmentation ('this could be a non-trivial consequence of artificial fragmentation'). Since the paper only masks haloes below M_lim rather than removing spurious haloes, the low-mass behaviour in Fig. 8 for WDM1 is not quantitatively robust. This matters because the paper uses Fig. 8 to argue that baryonic effects on the halo mass function are similar across dark matter models. Applying the Lovell et al. (2014) sphericity-based spurious-halo removal, or at least showing the ratio with and without haloes below M_lim, would strengthen this specific conclusion.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3] The abstract states that the simulations resolve haloes down to 10^8 Msun, but the mass functions in Fig. 6 use a 100-particle limit and the lowest 50/A dark matter particle mass gives 100*m_DM ~ 4e8 Msun; please reconcile the quoted mass range with the actual resolution limit.
  2. [Section 1] The text uses 'WIMPS'; the correct acronym is 'WIMPs'.
  3. [Section 2] The phrase 'a economic use' should be 'an economic use'.
  4. [Section 2.1] The paper quotes half-mode masses for the WDM models but does not provide the computed M_lim values for each run; a small table or appendix listing M_lim per box and resolution would help readers interpret the dashed-line regions in Fig. 6.
  5. [Figure 13] In the bottom-left panel, the caption says 'The dotted lines mark the 1σ region' but it is unclear whether this is the scatter of the simulations or an observational reference; please specify.
  6. [Figure 14] The caption notes that observed sizes are projected half-light radii while simulated sizes are 3D half-mass radii, but the text should reiterate this caveat because it directly affects the interpretation of the ~20% size difference.
  7. [Section 6.2] The description of the vSIDM model as having a cross-section 'inversely proportional to the relative velocity' is a simplification; the Correa (2021) model has a more specific velocity dependence, so please rephrase to avoid implying a pure 1/v scaling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AIDA-TNG measures the response of an unchanged CDM-calibrated model to externally specified dark matter physics.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing chain is feed-forward rather than circular. The WDM transfer function (Eq. 1) and the SIDM cross-sections are adopted from the literature (Bode et al. 2001; Viel et al. 2005; Correa 2021) as input physics; the halo mass functions, density profiles, concentration-mass relations, and galaxy properties are measured simulation outputs, not parameters fitted to those outputs. The unchanged TNG subgrid model (Sec. 2.3) is a fixed, externally validated code; running it in WDM and SIDM potentials and finding similar stellar/gas mass fractions, stellar mass function, SMBH masses, and SFRD is a genuine extrapolation, because the TNG calibration data did not include ADM runs and the similarity is not enforced by construction. The comparisons to the Lovell et al. (2014) suppression formula and the Despali et al. (2016) mass function are consistency checks against external fitting functions. The fit of the CDM full-physics mass-function slope (alpha = -0.82) is only a baseline for comparing ADM counts and does not enter the ADM measurements themselves. Self-citations to TNG validation papers support the realism premise, but the central ADM claim rests on new simulation measurements and qualitative external observational comparisons; no uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or renamed known result is involved. The robustness concern that a rigid subgrid model could mask dark matter effects is a validity caveat, not circular reasoning.

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

The paper introduces no new physics; it combines existing models (Bode et al. 2001 for WDM, Correa 2021 for vSIDM, and the IllustrisTNG subgrid model) in new simulations. The list above captures the externally calibrated inputs on which the results depend.

free parameters (4)
  • WDM thermal relic masses = 1, 3, and 5 keV
    Model parameters that set the half-mode masses and thus the scale of small-scale suppression; chosen to represent warm, borderline, and viable scenarios (Sec 2.1). They are inputs, not fitted here, but the WDM results depend on them.
  • SIDM constant cross-section sigma/m = 1 cm^2/g
    Chosen as a classic SIDM benchmark from the literature; the SIDM1 core sizes and density profile changes in Sec 4 depend directly on this value.
  • vSIDM velocity-dependent cross-section parameters = normalized to sigma/m ~ 100 cm^2/g at low velocities (Correa 2021)
    Adopted from Correa 2021, an empirical fit to dwarf spheroidal observations; the vSIDM results (cores at intermediate masses, galaxy sizes) inherit this calibration.
  • TNG subgrid model parameters = fixed to IllustrisTNG calibration values (Weinberger et al. 2017; Pillepich et al. 2018b)
    The galaxy property results (stellar mass function, SMBH masses, sizes, SFRD) depend on this calibration, which was performed for CDM; the paper deliberately does not refit them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Bode et al. (2001) transfer function with nu=1.2, gX=1.5 maps WDM particle mass to an initial power spectrum suppression.
    Used in Sec 2.1 to generate WDM initial conditions; all WDM results are conditioned on this mapping.
  • domain assumption Self-interactions do not affect the initial power spectrum, so SIDM runs share CDM initial conditions.
    Stated in Sec 2.2; standard for SIDM simulations since interactions matter only during non-linear evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper The IllustrisTNG subgrid model, calibrated for CDM, remains applicable in WDM and SIDM universes without recalibration.
    Explicitly stated in Sec 2.3; it is the central transferability assumption on which the galaxy property comparisons rest.
  • domain assumption Haloes below the Wang and White (2007) limiting mass Mlim are unreliable due to artificial fragmentation.
    Used in Sec 2.1 and Sec 3 to set the low-mass cut of WDM mass functions; the paper does not remove spurious haloes, only masks them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Introducing the AIDA-TNG project: galaxy formation in alternative dark matter models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/62ITIFTX

@misc{pith2026250112439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Introducing the AIDA-TNG project: galaxy formation in alternative dark matter models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/62ITIFTX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12439}
}
abstract

We introduce the AIDA-TNG project, a suite of cosmological magnetohydrodynamic simulations that simultaneously model galaxy formation and different variations of the underlying dark matter model. We consider the standard cold dark matter model and five variations, including three warm dark matter scenarios and two self-interacting models with constant or velocity-dependent cross-section. In each model, we simulate two cosmological boxes of 51.7 and 110.7 Mpc on a side, with the same initial conditions as TNG50 and TNG100, and combine the variations in the physics of dark matter with the fiducial IllustrisTNG galaxy formation model. The AIDA-TNG runs are thus ideal for studying the simultaneous effect of baryons and alternative dark matter models on observable properties of galaxies and large-scale structures. We resolve haloes in the range between $10^{8}$ and $4\times10^{14}\,$M$_{\odot}$ and scales down to the nominal resolution of 570 pc in the highest resolution runs. This work presents the first results on statistical quantities such as the halo mass function and the matter power spectrum; we quantify the modification in the number of haloes and the power on scales smaller than 1 Mpc, due to the combination of baryonic and dark matter physics. Despite being calibrated on cold dark matter, we find that the TNG galaxy formation model can produce a realistic galaxy population in all scenarios. The stellar and gas mass fraction, stellar mass function, black hole mass as a function of stellar mass and star formation rate density are very similar in all dark matter models, with some deviations only in the most extreme warm dark matter model. Finally, we also quantify changes in halo structure due to warm and self-interacting dark matter, which appear in the density profiles, concentration-mass relation and galaxy sizes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12439 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Available cosmological simulations for ADM models, compared in volume (x-axis) and resolution (y-axis), to the AIDA-TNG flagship runs (yellow stars) introduced in this paper. Grey symbols show DMO runs (Schneider et al. 2012; Rocha et al. 2013; Bose et al. 2016; Stücker et al. 2022; Fischer et al. 2022, 2024), while the simulations includ￾ing baryonic physics are shown in colour (Robertson et al. 2018, 2019; Forouha… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Properties that distinguish alternative models from CDM. Left: Input matter power spectrum P(k) in CDM and WDM models at the initial time of the simulations (z = 127). Warmer models show a cut-off at increasingly larger scales, corresponding to smaller k values. Right: Self￾interaction cross-section σ/mχ as a function of velocity. We consider a model with a constant cross-section (blue line) and one with a steep vel… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualisation of the dark matter (top), gas (middle), and stellar (bottom) projected mass distributions in a Milky-Way mass halo (Mvir = 6.9 × 1012 M⊙ in CDM at z = 0) from the 100/A runs. From left to right, CDM, SIDM1, vSIDM, and WDM3. We zoom-in to the central parts of the halo, ∼ 0.5 rvir in the top and middle panels, and ∼ 0.25 rvir in the stellar distribution. In the latter, we also mark the distance correspon… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Halo mass function at z = 0 in the DMO (left) and FP (right) runs of the four simulation sets listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Redshift evolution of the effects of different dark matter models. In each panel, we show the ratios of each halo mass function to CDM at six different redshifts between z = 0 (orange) and z = 5 (light blue), calculated by averaging over all the available FP runs of ea…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Baryonic effects on the halo mass function. In each panel, we compare the FP and DMO runs of each dark matter variation, plotting their ratios at six different redshifts from z = 0 (orange) to z = 5 (light blue), as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Stellar mass function at z = 0. In each run, we consider the stel￾lar mass measured within r = 30 kpc from the halo centre and qualita￾tively compare it to observations from SDSS (Bernardi et al. 2013) and GAMA (Wright et al. 2017). Solid and dashed lines represent the…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dark matter density profiles at z = 0 when considering five halo mass bins (left to right). We calculated the mean dark matter profile in bins of ∆ log(Mvir) = 0.2 dex around the mean value, both in the FP (solid) and dark (dashed) runs. The profiles were calculated i…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Total and stellar mean density profiles in the inner parts of the haloes at z = 0, represented by solid and dashed lines. The mass bins are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Concentration-mass relation at z = 0 for haloes in the DMO (left) and FP (right) runs. We combine measurements from the 50/A and 100/A boxes, using the latter only for haloes with a mass M200c ≥ 1011 M⊙. The coloured lines and symbols show the mean concentration as a …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Quantitative tests of the TNG galaxy formation model in all dark matter scenarios at z = 0. We focus on some of the quantities that have been used in the design of the TNG model (see Pillepich et al. 2018b) together with the stellar mass function ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Left: Galaxy sizes expressed in terms of r∗ as a function of the galaxy stellar mass at z = 0. The ratios of alternative models to CDM (bottom subpanel) show us that SIDM models produce larger galaxies in most mass bins (see also the bottom panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Matter power spectrum in the CDM runs at z = 0 for the DMO (black) and the FP runs separated into different components (coloured curves). The dotted lines show the prediction from linear theory, while the yellow line shows the result from Springel et al. (2018) for th…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Baryonic effects on the total matter power-spectrum measured at five different redshifts from z = 0 to z = 10. Here we plot the P(k) ratio of the FP run of each model to its corresponding DMO one. Each column considers one alternative model (coloured lines of differen…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Matter power spectrum in alternative models compared to the CDM scenario in the dark (left) and FP (middle and right) runs at z = 0. For each dark matter model, we plot the ratio to the CDM value in the range 1 h Mpc−1 ≤ k ≤ 300 h Mpc−1 , corresponding to scales 1 h −…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Redshift evolution of the matter power spectra in alternative models compared to the CDM scenario in the two boxes. Each panel shows the ratio between the two for a particular case. From left to right, we show the DMO power and the total power in the FP, followed by t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. COZMIC. III. Cosmological Zoom-in Simulations of Self-interacting Dark Matter with Suppressed Initial Conditions

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Cosmological zoom-in simulations show that suppressing the small-scale matter power spectrum, as expected in self-interacting dark matter models, reduces or erases the gravothermal core-collapse signature in dwarf-mass halos.

  2. A Novel Implementation of Self-Interacting Dark Matter in AREPO

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

    A dedicated-tree Monte-Carlo SIDM module in AREPO-2 conserves energy/momentum under multiple scatters, supports velocity-dependent and inelastic models, and runs with only modest overhead versus CDM except in late cor...

  3. Strong-lensing Perturber Signatures in Self-interacting Dark Matter Simulations

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Core-collapsed self-interacting dark matter halos in the Concerto simulations reach high enough central densities to match the perturbing masses inferred in J0946, B1938, SDP.81, and SPT2147-50.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    K., et al

    Adhikari, S., Banerjee, A., Boddy, K. K., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.10638

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    C., Nightingale, J., He, Q., et al

    Amorisco, N. C., Nightingale, J., He, Q., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2464

    2022

  3. [3]

    E., Springel, V ., White, S

    Angulo, R. E., Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2046

    2012

  4. [4]

    W., Treu, T., Gavazzi, R., et al

    Auger, M. W., Treu, T., Gavazzi, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, L163 Bahé, Y . M., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 167

    2010

  5. [5]

    J., Enzi, W

    Ballard, D. J., Enzi, W. J. R., Collett, T. E., Turner, H. C., & Smith, R. J. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 7564

    2024

  6. [6]

    2015, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 807, 50

    Bechtol, K., Drlica-Wagner, A., Balbinot, E., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 807, 50

    2015

  7. [7]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143

    2019

  8. [8]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y . 2013, ApJ, 762, 109

    2013

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    2015, py-sphviewer: Py-SPHViewer v1.0.0

    Benitez-Llambay, A. 2015, py-sphviewer: Py-SPHViewer v1.0.0

    2015

  2. [10]

    K., et al

    Bernardi, M., Meert, A., Sheth, R. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 697

    2013

  3. [11]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 30

    Bhattacharyya, J., Adhikari, S., Banerjee, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 30

    2022

  4. [12]

    P., & Turok, N

    Bode, P., Ostriker, J. P., & Turok, N. 2001, ApJ, 556, 93

    2001

  5. [13]

    M., et al

    Borrow, J., Schaller, M., Bahé, Y . M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2441

    2023

  6. [14]

    A., Frenk, C

    Bose, S., Hellwing, W. A., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 318

    2016

  7. [15]

    S., & Kaplinghat, M

    Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., & Kaplinghat, M. 2011, MNRAS, 415, L40

    2011

  8. [16]

    M., Kuhlen, M., Zolotov, A., & Hooper, D

    Brooks, A. M., Kuhlen, M., Zolotov, A., & Hooper, D. 2013, ApJ, 765, 22

    2013

  9. [17]

    Bryan, G. L. & Norman, M. L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80

    1998

  10. [18]

    Bullock, J. S. & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 343

    2017

  11. [19]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.09186

    Correa, C., Schaller, M., Schaye, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.09186

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Correa, C. A. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 920

    2021

  13. [21]

    A., Schaller, M., Ploeckinger, S., et al

    Correa, C. A., Schaller, M., Ploeckinger, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3045

    2022

  14. [22]

    V ., et al

    Creasey, P., Sameie, O., Sales, L. V ., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2283

    2017

  15. [23]

    E., et al

    Despali, G., Giocoli, C., Angulo, R. E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2486

    2016

  16. [24]

    M., Fassnacht, C

    Despali, G., Heinze, F. M., Fassnacht, C. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, submitted to A&A under review, arXiv:2407.12910

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A., & Oppenheimer, B

    Despali, G., Lovell, M., Vegetti, S., Crain, R. A., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1295

    2020

  18. [26]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 4563

    Despali, G., Sparre, M., Vegetti, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4563

    2019

  19. [27]

    & Vegetti, S

    Despali, G. & Vegetti, S. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1997

    2017

  20. [28]

    G., Vegetti, S., et al

    Despali, G., Walls, L. G., Vegetti, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4543

    2022

  21. [29]

    2018, ApJS, 239, 35

    Diemer, B. 2018, ApJS, 239, 35

    2018

  22. [30]

    2015, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 813, 109

    Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., Rykoff, E., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 813, 109

    2015

  23. [31]

    2022, A&A, 666, A41

    Eckert, D., Ettori, S., Robertson, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A41

    2022

  24. [32]

    1965, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata, 5, 87

    Einasto, J. 1965, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata, 5, 87

    1965

  25. [33]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 5848

    Enzi, W., Murgia, R., Newton, O., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5848

    2021

  26. [34]

    Enzi, W. J. R., Krawczyk, C. M., Ballard, D. J., & Collett, T. E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, submitted to MNRAS, arXiv:2411.08565

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    S., Brüggen, M., Schmidt-Hoberg, K., et al

    Fischer, M. S., Brüggen, M., Schmidt-Hoberg, K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1923

    2022

  28. [36]

    S., Kasselmann, L., Brüggen, M., et al

    Fischer, M. S., Kasselmann, L., Brüggen, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2327 Forouhar Moreno, V . J., Benítez-Llambay, A., Cole, S., & Frenk, C. 2022, MN- RAS, 517, 5627

    2024

  29. [37]

    B., Governato, F., Pontzen, A., et al

    Fry, A. B., Governato, F., Pontzen, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1468

    2015

  30. [38]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  31. [39]

    A., Schaller, M., Frenk, C

    Hellwing, W. A., Schaller, M., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, L11

    2016

  32. [40]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800

    2018

  33. [41]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90 Iršiˇc, V ., Viel, M., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 043511

    2007

  34. [42]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005

    Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., Smith, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005

    2022

  35. [43]

    E., Linden, T., & Yu, H.-B

    Kaplinghat, M., Keeley, R. E., Linden, T., & Yu, H.-B. 2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, 021302 Article number, page 19 of 20 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa53836-25corr

    2014

  36. [44]

    Kaplinghat, M., Ren, T., & Yu, H.-B. 2020, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2020, 027

    2020

  37. [45]

    Y ., Peter, A

    Kim, S. Y ., Peter, A. H. G., & Hargis, J. R. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 211302

    2018

  38. [46]

    V ., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F

    Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V ., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82

    1999

  39. [47]

    & Shapiro, P

    Koda, J. & Shapiro, P. R. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1125

    2011

  40. [48]

    E., Genel, S., Wandelt, B

    Lee, M. E., Genel, S., Wandelt, B. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 11

    2024

  41. [49]

    2000, Astrophys

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A. 2000, Astrophys. J., 538, 473

    2000

  42. [50]

    Lovell, M. R. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L11

    2020

  43. [51]

    Lovell, M. R. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3029

    2024

  44. [52]

    R., Eke, V ., Frenk, C

    Lovell, M. R., Eke, V ., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2318

    2012

  45. [53]

    R., Frenk, C

    Lovell, M. R., Frenk, C. S., Eke, V . R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 300

    2014

  46. [54]

    R., Pillepich, A., Genel, S., et al

    Lovell, M. R., Pillepich, A., Genel, S., et al. 2018, MN- RAS[arXiv:1801.10170]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    D., Bose, S., Angulo, R

    Ludlow, A. D., Bose, S., Angulo, R. E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1214

    2016

  48. [56]

    & Dickinson, M

    Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

    2014

  49. [57]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    Marinacci, F., V ogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

    2018

  50. [58]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 1515

    Mastromarino, C., Despali, G., Moscardini, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1515

    2023

  51. [59]

    2023, A&A, 678, L2

    Meneghetti, M., Cui, W., Rasia, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, L2

    2023

  52. [60]

    2020, Science, 369, 1347

    Meneghetti, M., Davoli, G., Bergamini, P., et al. 2020, Science, 369, 1347

    2020

  53. [61]

    2001, MNRAS, 325, 435

    Meneghetti, M., Yoshida, N., Bartelmann, M., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 435

    2001

  54. [62]

    E., Kaplinghat, M., & Li, N

    Minor, Q. E., Kaplinghat, M., & Li, N. 2017, ApJ, 845, 118

    2017

  55. [63]

    P., Somerville, R

    Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., Maulbetsch, C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 903

    2010

  56. [64]

    O., Birrer, S., Gilman, D., et al

    Nadler, E. O., Birrer, S., Gilman, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 7

    2021

  57. [65]

    O., Yang, D., & Yu, H.-B

    Nadler, E. O., Yang, D., & Yu, H.-B. 2023, ApJ, 958, L39

    2023

  58. [66]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206

    2018

  59. [67]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

    1996

  60. [68]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 450

    Nelson, D., Kauffmann, G., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 450

    2018

  61. [69]

    2024, A&A, 686, A157

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Ayromlou, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A157

    2024

  62. [70]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    Nelson, D., Springel, V ., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

    2019

  63. [71]

    A., Frenk, C

    Oman, K. A., Frenk, C. S., Crain, R. A., Lovell, M. R., & Pfeffer, J. 2024, MN- RAS, 533, 67 O’Neil, S., V ogelsberger, M., Heeba, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 288

    2024

  64. [72]

    P., et al

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V ., Coles, J. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2539

    2023

  65. [73]

    Peter, A. H. G., Rocha, M., Bullock, J. S., & Kaplinghat, M. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 105

    2013

  66. [74]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196

    2019

  67. [75]

    2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A1 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A24

    2014

  68. [76]

    F., Jenkins, A., et al

    Power, C., Navarro, J. F., Jenkins, A., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 14

    2003

  69. [77]

    2022, A&A, 665, A16

    Ragagnin, A., Meneghetti, M., Bassini, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A16

    2022

  70. [78]

    2024, A&A, 687, A270

    Ragagnin, A., Meneghetti, M., Calura, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A270

    2024

  71. [79]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 3646

    Robertson, A., Harvey, D., Massey, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3646

    2019

  72. [80]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 4610

    Robertson, A., Massey, R., Eke, V ., Schaye, J., & Theuns, T. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4610

    2021

  73. [81]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, L20

    Robertson, A., Massey, R., Eke, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, L20

    2018

  74. [82]

    H., Bullock, J

    Robles, V . H., Bullock, J. S., Elbert, O. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2945

    2017

  75. [83]

    Rocha, M., Peter, A. H. G., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 81

    2013

  76. [84]

    C., Torrey, P., V ogelsberger, M., & O’Neil, S

    Rose, J. C., Torrey, P., V ogelsberger, M., & O’Neil, S. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5623

    2023

  77. [85]

    R., La Barbera, F., et al

    Roy, N., Napolitano, N. R., La Barbera, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1057

    2018

  78. [86]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 359

    Sameie, O., Creasey, P., Yu, H.-B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 359

    2018

  79. [87]

    W., et al

    Schaller, M., Borrow, J., Draper, P. W., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2378

    2024

  80. [88]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521

    2015

  81. [89]

    E., Macciò, A

    Schneider, A., Smith, R. E., Macciò, A. V ., & Moore, B. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 684

    2012

  82. [90]

    J., White, S

    Shen, S., Mo, H. J., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 978

    2003

  83. [91]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 2835

    Shen, X., Borrow, J., V ogelsberger, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2835

    2024

  84. [92]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 1302

    Shen, X., Brinckmann, T., Rapetti, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1302

    2022

  85. [93]

    J., Gavazzi, R., et al

    Shuntov, M., McCracken, H. J., Gavazzi, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A61

    2022

  86. [94]

    2024, MNRAS[arXiv:2409.01758]

    Sorini, D., Bose, S., Pakmor, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS[arXiv:2409.01758]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    2005

  88. [96]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    2010

  89. [97]

    & Hernquist, L

    Springel, V . & Hernquist, L. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 289

    2003

  90. [98]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    Springel, V ., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    2018

  91. [99]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629 Stücker, J., Angulo, R. E., Hahn, O., & White, S. D. M. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1703

    2005

  92. [100]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 1985

    Torrey, P., V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1985

    2014

  93. [101]

    & Yu, H.-B

    Tulin, S. & Yu, H.-B. 2018, Physics Reports, 730, 1

    2018

  94. [102]

    C., Lovell, M

    Turner, H. C., Lovell, M. R., Zavala, J., & V ogelsberger, M. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5327

    2021

  95. [103]

    & Koopmans, L

    Vegetti, S. & Koopmans, L. V . E. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 945

    2009

  96. [104]

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

    Viel, M., Lesgourgues, J., Haehnelt, M. G., Matarrese, S., & Riotto, A. 2005, Physical Review D, 71, 063534 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V ., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1518 V ogelsberger, M., Zavala, J., Cyr-Racine, F.-Y ., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1399 V ogelsberger...

    2005

  97. [105]

    & White, S

    Wang, J. & White, S. D. M. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 93

    2007

  98. [106]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V ., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291

    2017

  99. [107]

    H., Robotham, A

    Wright, A. H., Robotham, A. S. G., Driver, S. P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 283

    2017

  100. [108]

    O., & Yu, H.-B

    Yang, D., Nadler, E. O., & Yu, H.-B. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 67

    2023

  101. [109]

    & Yu, H.-B

    Yang, D. & Yu, H.-B. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 103031

    2021

  102. [110]

    & Frenk, C

    Zavala, J. & Frenk, C. S. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 81

    2019

  103. [111]

    Zavala, J., V ogelsberger, M., & Walker, M. G. 2013, MNRAS, 431, L20

    2013

  104. [112]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 758 Article number, page 20 of 20

    Zhong, Y .-M., Yang, D., & Yu, H.-B. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 758 Article number, page 20 of 20

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.