Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 63 references

Signatures of Fuzzy Dark Matter Inside Radial Critical Curves

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that fuzzy dark matter halos produce a distinctly higher probability of high magnification inside radial critical curves than cold dark matter does, even when CDM includes subhalos, and that this offers a new…

desk verdict The negative-fluctuation islands inside radial critical curves are a real qualitative FDM effect, but the quantitative p-value grid rests on an unvalidated GRF and should be treated as a proof of concept, not a constraint. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24373 v2 pith:AIR2RNTQ submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

J. M. Palencia , Paloma Morilla , Sung Kei Li , J. M. Diego , Amruth Alfred , Thomas J. Broadhurst , B. J. Kavanagh , Jeremy Lim This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords fuzzydarkmattergravitationallensingradialcriticalcurvesmagnificationstatisticsaxionmasssolitondeBrogliewavelengthCDMsubhalos
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 paper argues that fuzzy dark matter (FDM), made of ultra-light axions behaving as a wave, leaves a specific fingerprint in strong gravitational lensing: inside the radial critical curve of a galaxy-scale lens, FDM predicts a much higher probability of images magnified by a factor of ten or more than standard cold dark matter predicts, even when CDM models are augmented with subhalos. The effect is driven by wave-interference density fluctuations that can be negative relative to the smooth halo, creating islands where the lens becomes critical again. The authors simulate lens systems with axion masses of $0.4$, $1$, and $10\times10^{-22}$ eV and halo masses from $3\times10^{11}$ to $4\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$, comparing magnification statistics inside isomagnification contours. If the claim is correct, observations of compact, highly magnified sources such as quasars, supernovae, or star clusters near radial arcs would provide a complementary test of FDM in the $10^{-22}$--$10^{-21}$ eV axion-mass window.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a Gaussian random field (GRF) model for the projected column-density fluctuations of FDM, with power spectrum $P(k)\propto r_h(x)\,\lambda_{\rm dB}^3\exp(-\lambda_{\rm dB}^2 k^2/4)$ and a radial variance function $\sigma^2(x)$ derived from the NFW halo density along the line of sight, combined with a soliton core that follows the soliton--halo relation. The de Broglie wavelength $\lambda_{\rm dB}\propto m_\psi^{-1}M_h^{-1/3}$ sets the fluctuation scale and is the primary parameter controlling the strength of the effect. The argument proceeds by drawing random GRF realizations, adding the soliton and NFW plus S\'ersic components linearly, computing deflection angles analytically for the smooth profiles and numerically via FFT for the fluctuations, and then comparing magnification histograms within isomagnification contours scaled from the smooth CDM radial critical curve. The crucial ingredient is that FDM fluctuations can be negative relative to the mean density, whereas CDM substructure only adds positive mass, so FDM can locally restore the radial criticality condition that CDM substructure can only push further away.

What would settle it

Take a sample of well-modelled galaxy-scale lenses and measure how often compact sources near radial arcs are magnified by $\mu\ge10$. If the observed rate matches the smooth-CDM or CDM-with-subhalo predictions, with no excess inside the radial critical curve, the $10^{-22}$--$10^{-21}$ eV axion window in galaxy-mass halos is ruled out; a wave-mechanical simulation of a single galaxy halo would also settle whether the Gaussian-random-field variance assumed here reproduces the true projected fluctuations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that FDM produces enhanced and statistically distinctive magnification inside radial critical curves, uniquely because of negative density fluctuations. In a smooth CDM lens, the radial critical condition is $1-\kappa+\gamma\approx0$; adding substructure only adds mass, which increases $\kappa$ and drives the system further from criticality, demagnifying central images. In FDM, wave interference creates negative surface-density fluctuations that can locally restore $1-\kappa+\gamma\approx0$, producing new critical regions and islands of high magnification inside the radial critical curve. As a result, the probability of magnification $\mu\ge10$ inside the radial CC is orders of magnitude higher for axion masses $10^{-22}$--$10^{-21}$ eV than for CDM, and CDM subhalos of $10^6$--$10^8\,M_\odot$ placed at various radii cannot reproduce the enhancement. The paper also finds that the smallest axion masses considered ($0.4\times10^{-22}$ eV) distort the lens too strongly to have escaped detection, while $10^{-21}$ eV in lower-mass halos remains a viable and testable window.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the line-of-sight column-density fluctuations of FDM are a Gaussian random field with the power spectrum and radial variance of Eqs. (19) and (21), and that baryons damp those fluctuations by only about 20%; if the real fluctuations are non-Gaussian, radially different, or more strongly damped, the quantitative p-values and the claimed axion-mass range lose support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Radial arcs become a statistical dark-matter probe: the fraction of galaxy-scale lenses with central images magnified by $\mu\ge10$ should be markedly higher in an FDM universe than in CDM, with or without subhalos.
  • The predicted effect is strongest for axion masses around $10^{-22}$ to $10^{-21}$ eV in lower-mass halos, giving upcoming wide-field surveys a concrete target population of lenses to examine.
  • In the FDM case, radial images near arcs should appear asymmetric and broken into components on the de Broglie scale, unlike the smooth symmetric arcs produced by CDM even when subhalos are present.
  • At $m_\psi=10^{-21}$ eV in massive halos, FDM behaves much like CDM, so the cleanest detections would come from lower-mass halos; conversely, the smallest axion masses already produce distortions that should have been observed, bracketing the testable range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's GRF model is not validated against full wave simulations; a direct wave-mechanical simulation of a galaxy halo would either confirm the assumed variance and Gaussianity of Eqs. (19) and (21) or weaken the quantitative p-value claims.
  • The same negative-fluctuation mechanism should also operate near tangential critical curves and in cluster-scale halos as a form of millilensing, which would extend the proposed test beyond radial arcs even though the paper does not explore those settings.
  • A practical consequence the authors leave implicit is that targeted searches for central images of lensed quasars and supernovae in existing and upcoming lens samples could turn a modest number of systems into a constraint on the axion mass without requiring direct dark-matter detection.
  • Because the p-values depend on the adopted soliton--halo relation, independent measurements of soliton masses in dwarf galaxies would sharpen or weaken the axion-mass interpretation.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies strong lensing magnification statistics inside radial critical curves (CCs) for fuzzy dark matter (FDM) halos. The authors construct mock lenses from a smooth NFW + Sérsic mass model, add for FDM a soliton core and Gaussian random field (GRF) column-density fluctuations with power spectrum and radial variance given by Eqs. 19–21, and compute magnification maps for a grid of three halo masses (3×10^11 to 4×10^12 M_sun) and three axion masses (0.4, 1, and 10 × 10^-22 eV). They compare the probability P(μ≥10) of high magnification inside isomagnification contours within the radial CC for CDM and FDM, including CDM models with single NFW subhalos and models with ellipticity imposed by transforming the deflection field (Eq. 27). The central claim is that FDM predicts significantly enhanced high-magnification probability inside radial CCs, due to negative interference-driven density fluctuations that CDM cannot produce, and that axion masses in the range 10^-22 to 10^-21 eV in galaxy-mass halos yield distinctive, observationally testable magnification distributions for compact sources such as QSOs and supernovae.

Significance. If the quantitative predictions hold, the paper offers a genuinely complementary probe of ultralight axion dark matter: radial-arc interiors are rarely used as FDM discriminators, and the proposed statistic (P(μ≥10) versus contour fraction) is falsifiable and tied to a specific mass window. Strengths include the transparent lensing pipeline (analytic NFW/Sérsic deflections, FFT-based fluctuation deflections, an explicit resolution criterion of ten pixels per de Broglie wavelength), the systematic grid over halo and axion mass, the inclusion of ellipticity and subhalo comparisons, the use of the public soliton-halo code SHR, and a candid discussion of deferred effects (central SMBH, uncertain galaxy profiles) whose deferral is reasonable. However, the central quantitative claim depends on three ingredients that are not quantitatively secured: the assumed GRF fluctuation model of Eqs. 19–21 taken from prior work with heavily overlapping authorship, a handpicked 20% baryonic damping factor, and a CDM baseline with at most one subhalo per realization.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.2.2 (Eqs. 19–21)] The quantitative FDM/CDM contrast in Fig. 4 rests entirely on the Gaussian random field (GRF) model for the projected density fluctuations, which is adopted by citing Amruth et al. (2023), Kawai et al. (2022), and Dalal et al. (2021) rather than validated in this manuscript. Because P(μ≥10) is a tail statistic driven by rare, strongly negative δκ excursions, both the assumed Gaussianity and the radial variance profile directly set the computed p-values; the paper offers no test of the GRF approximation against full Schrödinger–Poisson simulations or against projected densities from published FDM simulations. Given that the primary sources of the model share authors with the present paper, an independent calibration, or at minimum an explicit quantitative caveat, is needed before the 10^-22–10^-21 eV window can be presented as a robust prediction.
  2. [§3.2.2 and Fig. 6] There is an internal tension between the fluctuation variance implemented and the suppression the paper invokes. Eq. 21 is the NFW-based variance and grows as ~1/x toward the halo centre, whereas the smooth FDM profile of Eq. 16 replaces the NFW cusp with the flat soliton; the caption of Fig. 6 states that density fluctuations overlapping the soliton region 'are consequently suppressed,' yet Section 3.2.2 describes the realizations as modulated only by the radial variance of Eq. 21, with no suppression term specified. If no suppression was applied, the innermost radial bins of Fig. 4 are contaminated by artificially large fluctuation power; if it was applied, the text must give the modified variance and justify its form. The manuscript should resolve this and recompute the inner points with a soliton-consistent variance.
  3. [§4 and Fig. 4] Although the text states that several GRF realizations were performed to mitigate biases from a single realization, no error bars, confidence bands, or per-realization spread are shown on any p-value curve (Figs. 4, 7, 8, 9). Since P(μ≥10) counts rare events in apertures of moderate size, the realization-to-realization scatter can plausibly be comparable to the quoted FDM-CDM separations, and without this uncertainty the central claim that the two models differ significantly is not quantitatively established. Please add the scatter or confidence intervals throughout and state the number of realizations used per model.
  4. [§3.3] The 20% baryonic damping of the FDM fluctuation amplitude is a single handpicked value, introduced with 'we consider only a not so large dampening factor of ~20%,' with no sensitivity analysis and no physical model for how it varies with radius, baryon fraction, or axion mass. Because the damping scales the raw fluctuation amplitude linearly and the p-values are nonlinear tail probabilities, a change of even a factor of two in the damping could move the curves in Fig. 4 by amounts comparable to the claimed FDM-CDM separation. At minimum, the p-value curves should be recomputed for a plausible range of damping factors (e.g., 0–50%), and the adopted 20% value should be justified from the cited baryonic suppression literature.
  5. [§5.2 (Figs. 8–9)] The comparison against CDM with substructure uses at most one NFW subhalo per realization, with three masses and four positions. The abstract's claim that the FDM signal cannot be reproduced 'even when including subhalos' is stronger than this evidence: a realistic CDM halo contains a population of subhalos, and the single-subhalo runs already show that a 10^8 M_sun subhalo near the radial CC raises P(μ≥10) substantially in some bins. A population drawn from a CDM subhalo mass function, or a clear argument that many subhalos cannot build up the high-magnification tail, is needed to support the headline claim; otherwise the claim should be softened to 'single NFW subhalos of the masses considered.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4, Eq. 27] The ellipticity transformation rescales the Cartesian components of the circular deflection field rather than being the gradient of an elliptical lens potential; this is a nonstandard construction and should be validated against a direct computation of an elliptical mass distribution, at least at e=0.4.
  2. [Fig. 3] The vertical axes are labeled 'Density' but show normalized probability densities; please clarify the normalization, and note that in the two panels the histograms and contours have different meanings, which complicates direct comparison.
  3. [§5, Fig. 6] The black lines mark the smooth-CDM critical curves, but the FDM critical curves are not overplotted, so the claim of enhanced magnification at the interface between tangential and radial CCs is difficult to verify from the figure as presented.
  4. [§3.2.1] 'latter confirmed in other studies' should read 'later confirmed'; also, the discussion of scatter in the soliton-halo relation would benefit from a quantitative statement of the scatter amplitude from the cited works.
  5. [Appendix B] The source size is given as a Gaussian of width 0.8 pixels without the pixel scale in physical units; since the appendix's argument requires the source size to be comparable to the de Broglie wavelength, the conversion should be stated explicitly.
  6. [§3.2.2 and §5] The threshold μ≥10 is adopted without physical or observational motivation; a sentence on why this threshold was chosen, and how the conclusions change for other thresholds such as μ≥5 or μ≥20, would strengthen the statistical framing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lensing statistics are forward-model outputs from an explicitly stated FDM fluctuation model, with axion-mass dependence entering through the input de Broglie wavelength rather than through fitting the predicted magnification.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claim is a forward lensing calculation: given a stated FDM mass model (NFW + soliton + GRF column-density fluctuations with P(k) from Eq. 19 and variance from Eq. 21), the deflection fields and magnification maps are computed and P(mu>=10) is measured from those maps. No parameter is fitted to the magnification statistic being predicted; the axion-mass dependence enters through lambda_dB as an input scale, which is ordinary parameter dependence, not a self-fulfilling construction. Equations 19 and 21 are adopted as an explicit model assumption citing Amruth et al. 2023, Kawai et al. 2022, and Dalal et al. 2021; although the first two have overlapping authorship, the paper labels the GRF as an assumption rather than as a theorem, and Dalal et al. 2021 is an external independent source. The soliton-halo relation is likewise taken from simulation-calibrated work with external confirmation, and the paper acknowledges scatter and alternative relations. The handpicked ~20% baryonic damping and the lack of validation against full wave simulations are correctness risks, not circular reductions: they affect the quantitative strength of the conclusion without making the conclusion equal to its input. The internal tension between the NFW-based variance of Eq. 21 and the soliton suppression described in Sec. 5 is a modeling inconsistency, not a circular step. Therefore no circular step meeting the quotation/reduction standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on assumed models for FDM fluctuations and soliton properties, plus a handpicked baryonic damping factor. No new particles or forces are introduced; the GRF is a statistical description of known FDM physics.

free parameters (5)
  • Baryonic damping factor = ~20% reduction of FDM surface density fluctuations
    Section 3.3: chosen by hand ('a not so large dampening factor of ~20%') to show the differences between CDM and FDM; not varied or justified from simulations.
  • Sérsic profile parameters = values from HS 0810+2554 system (Amruth et al. 2023)
    The baryonic component parameters (n, re, mass-to-light ratio) are adopted from a specific observed lens, not derived; they affect the smooth potential and therefore the radial critical curve location.
  • Subhalo masses and positions = 1e6, 1e7, 1e8 solar masses at 0.3, 0.6, 0.9 r_CC
    Section 5.2: manually chosen for the CDM comparison; not a realistic subhalo population, so the baseline is limited.
  • Magnification threshold for p-values = mu >= 10
    Section 4 and Fig. 3: arbitrary but explicit threshold used to define 'high magnification'.
  • Pixel resolution = at least 10 pixels per de Broglie wavelength
    Numerical choice to resolve fluctuations; affects the computed statistics and p-values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption FDM column density fluctuations are a Gaussian random field with power spectrum P(k) (Eq. 19) and variance sigma^2(x) (Eq. 21)
    Section 3.2.2: assumed from Amruth et al. 2023, Kawai et al. 2022, Dalal et al. 2021; not tested against full wave simulations in this paper.
  • domain assumption Soliton-halo relation as in Liao et al. 2024 (Ms proportional to m_psi^-1 (1+z)^(1/2) Mh^(1/3))
    Section 3.2.1: determines soliton mass and central density; scatter in the relation is acknowledged but not propagated.
  • ad hoc to paper Ellipticity is imposed by transforming the deflection field (Eq. 27)
    Section 4: approximate way to make elliptical lenses; not exact for elliptical mass distributions.
  • domain assumption NFW + soliton + Sersic composition describes the galaxy mass distribution
    Section 3: standard in lensing; acknowledged in Discussion that true galaxy density profiles are unknown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Signatures of Fuzzy Dark Matter Inside Radial Critical Curves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AIR2RNTQ

@misc{pith2026250524373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Signatures of Fuzzy Dark Matter Inside Radial Critical Curves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AIR2RNTQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24373}
}
abstract

We investigate the strong gravitational lensing properties of fuzzy dark matter (FDM) halos, focusing on the magnification properties near radial critical curves (CCs). Using simulated lenses we compute magnification maps for a range of axion masses and halo configurations. We show that FDM produces enhanced central magnification and secondary CCs that are not easily reproduced by standard cold dark matter (CDM), even when including subhalos. The strength and scale of these effects depend primarily on the de~Broglie wavelength, governed by the axion and halo masses. We find that axion masses in the range $m_\psi \sim 10^{-22}$--$10^{-21}\,\mathrm{eV}$ in galaxy-mass halos lead to distinctive magnification distributions. Our results suggest that observations of highly magnified, compact sources near radial arcs, such as quasars or supernovae, could serve as a powerful test for the presence of FDM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radial profile of a FDM halo ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Depiction of this work’s methodology. Upper left: Zoom in into central halo region magnification map. The dot-dashed white line shows the position of the radial CC, where maximum magnification is achieved (together with the tangential CC, not shown in this plot). Bottom left: Same as upper left but for the case of FDM with a soliton structure in the centre, further demagnifying the central region, and wave-like mass… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Probability of magnification estimated within smooth CDM isomagnification contours for the CDM profile ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: p-values for a magnification factor equal to or larger than 10 for each of the simulated lenses. The left panel shows the p-values for the lightest halo mass (3 × 1011 M⊙), for all the axion masses. Middle and right panels are the equivalent p-values for the 7 × 1011 M…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Magnification patterns inside the radial CC ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ellipticity effects on magnification. From left to right: no ellipticity to highly elliptical lens. The lens parameters are those of model 22 according to table 1(Mh = 7 × 1011 M⊙ and mψ = 10−22 eV). The smooth CCs stretch along the major axis and compress along the mi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: p-values for magnification values equal or larger than 10 in both the smooth CDM model (in purple), and the wave￾like FDM model (in green). Each point represents the p-value for the pixels inside the scaled CC contours with a size given as a fraction of the radial CC s…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: p-values for magnification values equal or larger than 10 in the smooth CDM model (in purple) and adding a subhalo of 107M⊙ at different positions with respect to the centre of the main halo. Same as Figs. 4 and 7, the p-value is the probabil￾ity of obtaining an image …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  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]

    2022, , 2022, 044, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/11/044

    Aja , B., Arguedas Cuendis , S., Arregui , I., et al. 2022, , 2022, 044, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/11/044

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/11/044 2022

  4. [4]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 736, 10.1038/s41550-023-01943-9

    Amruth , A., Broadhurst , T., Lim , J., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 736, 10.1038/s41550-023-01943-9

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01943-9 2023

  5. [5]

    2018, European Physical Journal C, 78, 203, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5662-y

    Arcadi , G., Dutra , M., Ghosh , P., et al. 2018, European Physical Journal C, 78, 203, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5662-y

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

  6. [6]

    Armengaud , E., Palanque-Delabrouille , N., Y \`e che , C., Marsh , D. J. E., & Baur , J. 2017, , 471, 4606, 10.1093/mnras/stx1870

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1870 2017

  7. [7]

    S., & Kaplinghat , M

    Boylan-Kolchin , M., Bullock , J. S., & Kaplinghat , M. 2011, , 415, L40, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01074.x

    arXiv 2011

  8. [9]

    N., Smoot , G

    Broadhurst , T., De Martino , I., Luu , H. N., Smoot , G. F., & Tye , S. H. H. 2020, , 101, 083012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.083012 2020

Show all 63 references
  1. [10]

    K., Alfred , A., et al

    Broadhurst , T., Li , S. K., Alfred , A., et al. 2025, , 978, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9aa8

    2025 doi

  2. [12]

    Cardone , V. F. 2004, , 415, 839, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031696

    2004 doi

  3. [13]

    T., Ostriker , J

    Chiang , B. T., Ostriker , J. P., & Schive , H.-Y. 2023, , 518, 4045, 10.1093/mnras/stac3358

    2023 doi

  4. [14]

    T., Schive, H.-Y., & Chiueh, T

    Chiang, B. T., Schive, H.-Y., & Chiueh, T. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 103019, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103019

    2021 doi

  5. [15]

    W., & Tukey, J

    Cooley, J. W., & Tukey, J. W. 1965, Mathematics of Computation, 19, 297. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2003354

    1965

  6. [16]

    2021, , 2021, 076, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/076

    Dalal , N., Bovy , J., Hui , L., & Li , X. 2021, , 2021, 076, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/076

    2021 doi

  7. [17]

    2022, Phys

    Dalal, N., & Kravtsov, A. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 063517, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.063517

    2022 doi

  8. [18]

    2017, Galaxies, 5, 17, 10.3390/galaxies5010017

    Del Popolo , A., & Le Delliou , M. 2017, Galaxies, 5, 17, 10.3390/galaxies5010017

    2017 doi

  9. [19]

    M., Li , S

    Diego , J. M., Li , S. K., Amruth , A., et al. 2024, , 689, A167, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450474

    2024 doi

  10. [20]

    A., & Macci \`o , A

    Dutton , A. A., & Macci \`o , A. V. 2014, , 441, 3359, 10.1093/mnras/stu742

    2014 doi

  11. [21]

    Eberhardt , A., Liang , Q., & Ferreira , E. G. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.18051, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.18051

    2024 doi

  12. [22]

    Ferreira , E. G. M. 2021, , 29, 7, 10.1007/s00159-021-00135-6

    2021 doi

  13. [23]

    A., & Primack , J

    Flores , R. A., & Primack , J. R. 1994, , 427, L1, 10.1086/187350

    1994 doi

  14. [24]

    d., Della Monica, R., & De Martino, I

    Furlanetto, G. d., Della Monica, R., & De Martino, I. 2025, Class. Quant. Grav., 42, 075011, 10.1088/1361-6382/adc17f

    2025 doi

  15. [25]

    2004, , 351, 903, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07836.x

    Gentile , G., Salucci , P., Klein , U., Vergani , D., & Kalberla , P. 2004, , 351, 903, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07836.x

    2004

  16. [26]

    M., Chessey , M

    Goldberg , D. M., Chessey , M. K., Harris , W. B., & Richards , G. T. 2010, , 715, 793, 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/793

    2010 doi

  17. [27]

    2011, , 742, 76, 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/76

    Guedes , J., Callegari , S., Madau , P., & Mayer , L. 2011, , 742, 76, 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/76

    2011 doi

  18. [28]

    R., & Vives-Arias , H

    Hartley , P., Jackson , N., Sluse , D., Stacey , H. R., & Vives-Arias , H. 2019, , 485, 3009, 10.1093/mnras/stz510

    2019 doi

  19. [29]

    2000, Phys

    Hu, W., Barkana, R., & Gruzinov, A. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 1158, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1158

    2000 doi

  20. [30]

    2021, Ann

    Hui, L. 2021, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 59, 247, 10.1146/annurev-astro-120920-010024

    2021 doi

  21. [31]

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

    Hui, L., Ostriker, J. P., Tremaine, S., & Witten, E. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 043541, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043541

    2017 doi

  22. [32]

    G., Bolton , J

    Ir s i c , V., Viel , M., Haehnelt , M. G., Bolton , J. S., & Becker , G. D. 2017, , 119, 031302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.031302

    2017 doi

  23. [33]

    2022, , 925, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac39a2

    Kawai , H., Oguri , M., Amruth , A., Broadhurst , T., & Lim , J. 2022, , 925, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac39a2

    2022 doi

  24. [34]

    R., Gaudi , B

    Keeton , C. R., Gaudi , B. S., & Petters , A. O. 2003, , 598, 138, 10.1086/378934

    2003 doi

  25. [35]

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

    Klypin , A., Kravtsov , A. V., Valenzuela , O., & Prada , F. 1999, , 522, 82, 10.1086/307643

    1999 doi

  26. [36]

    2017, , 96, 123514, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123514

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

    2017 doi

  27. [37]

    Kulkarni, M., & Ostriker, J. P. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 510, 1425, 10.1093/mnras/stab3520

    2021 doi

  28. [38]

    2022, Mon

    Laroche, A., Gilman, D., Li, X., Bovy, J., & Du, X. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 517, 1867, 10.1093/mnras/stac2677

    2022 doi

  29. [39]

    Leung , K. K. H., Ahmed , M., Alarcon , R., et al. 2019, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 219, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences (EDP), 02005, 10.1051/epjconf/201921902005

    2019

  30. [40]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.09908, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09908

    Liao , P.-Y., Su , G.-M., Schive , H.-Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.09908, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09908

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [41]

    Mazure , A., & Capelato , H. V. 2002, , 383, 384, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011751

    2002 doi

  32. [42]

    G., Schaye , J., Font , A

    McCarthy , I. G., Schaye , J., Font , A. S., et al. 2012, , 427, 379, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21951.x

    2012

  33. [43]

    H., et al

    Mocz, P., Vogelsberger, M., Robles, V. H., et al. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 471, 4559, 10.1093/mnras/stx1887

    2017 doi

  34. [44]

    1994, , 370, 629, 10.1038/370629a0

    Moore , B. 1994, , 370, 629, 10.1038/370629a0

    1994 doi

  35. [45]

    1999, , 310, 1147, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03039.x

    Moore , B., Quinn , T., Governato , F., Stadel , J., & Lake , G. 1999, , 310, 1147, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03039.x

    1999

  36. [46]

    O., Drlica-Wagner , A., Bechtol , K., et al

    Nadler , E. O., Drlica-Wagner , A., Bechtol , K., et al. 2021, , 126, 091101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.091101

    2021 doi

  37. [47]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1996, , 462, 563, 10.1086/177173

    1996 doi

  38. [48]

    1997, , 490, 493, 10.1086/304888

    ---. 1997, , 490, 493, 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  39. [49]

    2011, , 142, 24, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/24

    Oh , S.-H., Brook , C., Governato , F., et al. 2011, , 142, 24, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/24

    2011 doi

  40. [50]

    Perera , D., Williams , L. L. R., Liesenborgs , J., et al. 2025, , 536, 2690, 10.1093/mnras/stae2753

    2025 doi

  41. [51]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.11753, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.11753

    Pinetti , E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.11753, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.11753

    2025 doi arXiv

  42. [52]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  43. [53]

    M., Vegetti , S., McKean , J

    Powell , D. M., Vegetti , S., McKean , J. P., et al. 2023, , 524, L84, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad074

    2023 doi

  44. [54]

    H., Lora, V., Matos, T., & S\'anchez-Salcedo, F

    Robles, V. H., Lora, V., Matos, T., & S\'anchez-Salcedo, F. J. 2015, Astrophys. J., 810, 99, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/99

    2015 doi

  45. [55]

    S., Bower , R

    Schaller , M., Frenk , C. S., Bower , R. G., et al. 2015, , 451, 1247, 10.1093/mnras/stv1067

    2015 doi

  46. [56]

    2020, , 124, 201301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.201301

    Schive , H.-Y., Chiueh , T., & Broadhurst , T. 2020, , 124, 201301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.201301

    2020 doi

  47. [57]

    2016, Astrophys

    Schive, H.-Y., Chiueh, T., Broadhurst, T., & Huang, K.-W. 2016, Astrophys. J., 818, 89, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/89

    2016 doi

  48. [58]

    2014, , 113, 261302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.261302

    Schive , H.-Y., Liao , M.-H., Woo , T.-P., et al. 2014, , 113, 261302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.261302

    2014 doi

  49. [59]

    Schneider , P., Ehlers , J., & Falco , E. E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg), 10.1007/978-3-662-03758-4

    1992 doi

  50. [60]

    J., Birrer , S., Treu , T., et al

    Shajib , A. J., Birrer , S., Treu , T., et al. 2019, , 483, 5649, 10.1093/mnras/sty3397

    2019 doi

  51. [61]

    P., Auger , M

    Spingola , C., McKean , J. P., Auger , M. W., et al. 2018, , 478, 4816, 10.1093/mnras/sty1326

    2018 doi

  52. [62]

    2018, , 730, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004

    Tulin , S., & Yu , H.-B. 2018, , 730, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004

    2018 doi

  53. [63]

    D., Bolton , J

    Viel , M., Becker , G. D., Bolton , J. S., & Haehnelt , M. G. 2013, , 88, 043502, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043502

    2013 doi

  54. [64]

    2015, , 447, 3189, 10.1093/mnras/stu2673

    Xu , D., Sluse , D., Gao , L., et al. 2015, , 447, 3189, 10.1093/mnras/stu2673

    2015 doi

  55. [65]

    Zhang , D., Ferreira , E. G. M., Obata , I., & Namikawa , T. 2024, , 110, 103525, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103525

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.