Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Self-interacting dark matter halos that undergo gravothermal collapse can account for the high densities inferred for all four known strong-lensing perturbers.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 12:51 UTC pith:QUZSR6SH

load-bearing objection A careful simulation-based case that core-collapsed SIDM subhalos can match the densest inferred strong-lens perturbers; the paper is honest about its caveats, but the 'all perturbers' framing runs ahead of the data and resolution. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.01491 v2 pith:QUZSR6SH submitted 2025-10-01 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAhep-ph

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

Demao Kong , Ethan O. Nadler , Hai-Bo Yu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAhep-ph PACS 95.35.+d98.62.Sb
keywords self-interacting dark matterstrong gravitational lensinggravothermal collapsecore collapsesubhaloslensing perturbersvelocity-dependent cross sectiondensity profiles
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that when dark matter particles scatter with a high, velocity-dependent cross section, halos naturally pass through a core-collapse phase that makes their centers far denser than cold dark matter predicts. In the zoom-in cosmological simulations, such collapsed halos reach central densities near 1e9 solar masses per cubic kiloparsec at roughly one kiloparsec, matching the enclosed masses and density slopes inferred for the J0946, B1938, SDP.81, and SPT2147-50 perturbers. The same mechanism makes the projected density slope time dependent, in sharp contrast with CDM, giving strong lensing a way to distinguish the models. If this is correct, four individual lens-system anomalies become a collective probe of the dark matter self-interaction cross section at halo velocities of roughly 15 to 65 kilometers per second.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the same gravothermal trajectory that causes core expansion in low-mass SIDM halos can, in larger halos around 1e10 solar masses, proceed to deep collapse and produce projected enclosed masses and steep cusps consistent with all four perturber models. For J0946, SIDM subhalos at redshift 0.23 span projected slopes from about -2 to 0 and include members with enclosed mass above about 9e8 solar masses within one kiloparsec, while CDM subhalos rarely reach the inferred steep slope. For B1938, core-collapsed field halos in the higher-resolution LMC simulation match the foreground NFW model, whereas CDM halos appear cored at the resolution limit. Fo

What carries the argument

The central object is the gravothermal core-collapse trajectory of SIDM halos, tracked through the projected enclosed mass M2D and the projected logarithmic density slope gamma2D at a characteristic radius of one kiloparsec. Self-interactions are modeled with a Yukawa-like, velocity-dependent differential cross section (viscosity-weighted, with sigma0/m equal to 70 or 147 cm^2/g and a turnover velocity w = 120 km/s), which lets halos first expand and then collapse. Tidal stripping accelerates the collapse, and the resulting two-stage evolution — enclosed mass rising and then falling while the slope keeps steepening — produces the dense, cuspy inner profiles that mimic the truncated-NFW, pseu

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the analytic density profiles inferred for the four observed perturbers faithfully represent the true dark matter mass distributions, and that these profiles can be compared directly to simulated halos at radii near or below the simulation resolution.

What would settle it

Confirm a luminous counterpart to the J0946 perturber and show, with that light included in the lens model, that the dark matter density profile is consistent with ordinary CDM subhalos (inner slope near -1); this would remove the need for core-collapsed SIDM as the explanation and undercut the claimed match.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The J0946 high-concentration anomaly, which CDM subhalos in these simulations do not reproduce, becomes a natural outcome of SIDM core collapse rather than an unlikely CDM fluctuation.
  • B1938's foreground perturber, with its extremely high inferred concentration (c_vir near 185), can be matched by core-collapsed SIDM field halos in a low-density environment, even though the robust radius of the lensing measurement sits close to the simulation resolution.
  • For SDP.81, the SIDM simulations produce multiple subhalos dense enough to match the pseudo-Jaffe reconstruction, something CDM does not; a confirmed future detection would strengthen the case.
  • At high redshift, only lower-mass SIDM subhalos have collapsed by z = 0.85, so re-fitting SPT2147-50 with more compact density profiles provides a direct test of whether the cross section is large enough to drive collapse that early.
  • Because M2D and gamma2D evolve with redshift in SIDM but remain nearly static in CDM, a redshift-stratified sample of strong-lensing perturbers can distinguish the two dark matter models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If a luminous galaxy is confirmed for the J0946 perturber, the paper's own logic implies that the SIDM cross section cannot be so large that all subhalos collapse; the model must preserve a diversity of density profiles, which these simulations indeed show.
  • The turnover point in the M2D-gamma2D plane suggests a maximum enclosed mass a collapsed halo can contribute at about one kiloparsec; stacking many future perturbers could measure this envelope and directly constrain the collapse timescale as a function of halo mass and cross section.
  • The paper compares simulated halos to analytic density models; forward modeling the actual lensed images of simulated halos would reveal which parts of the inferred profiles are really constrained and whether selection effects bias the comparison.
  • Because these SIDM models also predict rising rotation curves and dense stellar-stream perturbers at lower masses, a joint fit spanning galaxy rotation curves, stellar streams, and lensing perturbers could pin down the cross-section amplitude and turnover velocity simultaneously.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the Concerto suite of cosmological zoom-in SIDM simulations (Group, MW, and LMC hosts) to study projected enclosed masses and density slopes of dark-matter halos as they undergo gravothermal evolution. The authors compare simulated halo density profiles with analytic models used to interpret four strong-lensing perturber candidates: J0946+1006, B1938+666, SDP.81, and SPT2147-50. They find that core-collapsed SIDM subhalos can reach the high central densities inferred for these objects, in contrast to CDM subhalos, and interpret this as evidence that strong lensing perturbers can probe velocity-dependent SIDM cross sections. The paper also investigates how tides and mergers accelerate or delay core collapse, and argues that the evolution of the lensing observables M2D and gamma2D provides a redshift-dependent test of SIDM. The central claim is that core-collapsed SIDM halos can provide a reasonable explanation for all observed strong-lensing perturbers.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides an appealing unified explanation for anomalously dense strong-lensing perturbers and links them to velocity-dependent SIDM, with implications for the particle-physics interpretation of dark-matter self-interactions. The strengths of the paper are its use of high-resolution cosmological SIDM simulations, the inclusion of multiple host environments (Group, MW, LMC), and its unusually transparent discussion of caveats, including the unresolved SDP.81 detection, alternative light-contamination models, and known numerical issues in core-collapse simulations. The identification of a two-stage evolution with a turnover point in the M2D-gamma2D plane is a useful qualitative result. However, the central 'all observed perturbers' claim is currently supported mainly by visual overlap of a small number of simulated halos with analytic reference profiles, and at least one key comparison (B1938) is made below the resolution limit. The paper is therefore a promising proof-of-concept, but the strength of the conclusion is not yet matched by the analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV B/IV C; Sec. I (abstract)] The claim that core-collapsed SIDM halos explain 'all observed strong lensing perturbers' is not supported as stated. First, the SDP.81 detection is explicitly unconfirmed (Sec. IV C, footnote 1) and treated only as a case study, yet it appears in the aggregate 'all' claim. Second, the B1938 comparison (Sec. IV B, Fig. 9) is made at radii below the simulation resolution: the robust radius is 0.09 kpc and the NFW scale radius is 0.11 kpc, while the LMC resolution limit is 2.8*epsilon = 0.17 kpc. The statement that the presence of particles below 2.8 epsilon makes the SIDM profile 'more reliable' does not overcome force softening; density profiles below the softening scale are not trustworthy regardless of particle count. The authors should either remove SDP.81 from the summary claim and explicitly label B1938 as 'unresolved but suggestive,' or add a resolution-corrected estimate (e.g., th
  2. [Secs. IV-V (comparison methodology)] The central comparison overlays simulated 3D density profiles onto analytic profile fits from the literature (Figs. 6-11). This ignores the strong-lensing selection function: observed perturbers are biased toward high concentration and detectability, so a visual match of a few extreme simulated halos is not evidence of a population-level explanation. The authors acknowledge in Sec. V that forward modeling is needed, but the abstract and conclusions still present a 'reasonable explanation' for all perturbing systems. At minimum, the paper should report the fraction of simulated subhalos that fall within the 1 sigma or 95% CL range of each perturber model (e.g., in M2D-gamma2D space, as in Fig. 6). Without that, the overlap could be an artifact of the chosen halo selection and of the adopted analytic profiles.
  3. [Sec. IV A, Figs. 6-7] The J0946 comparison appears overclaimed. The inferred tNFW model has M2D(1 kpc) = 2.49e9 Msun (95% CL 1.98-3.03e9), but the text says 'a few' SIDM subhalos have M2D > 9e9 Msun and are compatible; this looks like a typo for 9e8. In any case, Fig. 7 shows that most SIDM profiles lie below the tNFW band, and only a small number of SIDM subhalos reach M2D comparable to the inferred value. Since J0946 is the primary motivation for the entire SIDM scenario, the authors should quantify the number and fraction of SIDM subhalos consistent with the inferred M2D and gamma2D, rather than describing them as 'a few.' This is especially important because the paper argues that the GroupSIDM-70 model is also viable, but the figures suggest a fairly sparse population at the relevant high-density tail.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. I] Typo: 'w=120 cm^2/g' should be 'w=120 km/s' (the turnover velocity has units of km/s).
  2. [Sec. IV A] The phrase 'M2D > 9×10^9 M⊙' is inconsistent with the inferred perturber mass of 2.49e9 M⊙; likely should be '9×10^8 M⊙'.
  3. [Figure legends] Labels 'M25', 'T25', 'H16', 'L25' are cryptic; define them in the captions as author-year references (e.g., Minor 2025, Tajalli et al. 2025, Hezaveh et al. 2016, Lange et al. 2025).
  4. [Sec. IV B] Grammar: 'compare our simulated halos the inferred density profile' should be 'compare our simulated halos with the inferred density profile'.
  5. [Sec. V] The statement that the J0946 data 'sets a strong constraint on the turnover velocity w~100 km/s' is not derived in this work, since only w=120 km/s is simulated; it is inherited from previous parametric analyses. Rephrase as consistent with earlier constraints [13,49].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the analysis forward-models fixed SIDM simulation outputs and compares them to external perturber fits.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the relevant sense. It adopts fixed velocity-dependent SIDM cross-section parameters from prior work (Refs. [13,49]) rather than fitting them to the lensing data presented here, then uses the Concerto N-body simulations to compute projected enclosed masses, density slopes, and 3D density profiles. These simulated quantities are compared to perturber models taken from independent observational analyses (Minor 2025 for J0946; Tajalli et al. 2025 for B1938; Hezaveh et al. 2016 for SDP.81; Lange et al. 2024 for SPT2147-50). No predicted quantity is defined in terms of the target observation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly flags the main limitations: SDP.81 is not confirmed (footnote 1 and Section IV C), the B1938 robust radius is below the LMC resolution limit (Section IV B), and forward modeling of the lensing signal is deferred to future work (Section V). These are evidentiary/robustness concerns, not circularity. Self-citations to the authors' earlier simulation suite and model papers supply the model inputs, but the new comparisons to B1938, SDP.81, SPT2147-50, and the redshift evolution are independent tests that do not reduce to those inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper invents no new particles, forces, or dimensions; it relies on the existing SIDM cross-section parametrization, standard halo-finder tools, and observational perturber models. The 'turnover point' is a descriptive feature of simulated trajectories, not a new entity. Free parameters are adopted, not fitted.

free parameters (4)
  • GroupSIDM-70 cross-section amplitude sigma0/m = 70 cm^2/g (adopted, not fitted)
    Input SIDM model parameter from prior parametric studies; the paper does not fit it to lensing data.
  • GroupSIDM-147 cross-section amplitude sigma0/m = 147.1 cm^2/g (adopted, not fitted)
    Inherited from Ref. [13]; the central claim depends on this amplitude being large enough to drive core collapse by z~0.2.
  • turnover velocity w = 120 km/s (adopted, not fitted)
    Velocity-dependence turnover adopted from earlier work; the conclusion that the inferred Vmax range (15-65 km/s) probes this turnover depends on this choice.
  • evaluation radius R = 1 kpc for J0946 M2D/gamma2D
    Chosen from J0946 observational analyses [32,36]; the other systems are compared via density profiles over a range of radii, so the 1-kpc choice is a diagnostic scale, not a global fit parameter.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The velocity-dependent differential cross-section model of Eq. (1) with viscosity weighting describes SIDM physics on halo scales.
    The entire simulation suite depends on this ansatz; no independent particle-physics justification is given in this paper.
  • domain assumption Halos identified by Rockstar+Consistent-Trees and Symfind in SIDM simulations correspond to physical self-bound structures.
    Sec. II.A; subhalo catalogs from two finders are merged to improve completeness, assuming both are reliable in the collisional regime.
  • domain assumption N-body SIDM core-collapse simulations with the adopted softening and particle mass resolve the inner densities relevant for lensing, with known artificial-heating biases only underestimating central densities.
    Secs. II.A and IV.B; the paper relies on prior convergence studies [56,84-87] and states results are conservative, but does not demonstrate convergence here.
  • domain assumption Observed perturber model profiles (tNFW, NFW, pseudo-Jaffe) reconstructed in Refs. [45], [37], [31], and [34] are adequate representations of the true projected mass distributions.
    Sec. IV; conflicting models exist for B1938 and J0946, and SDP.81 is not confirmed; the comparisons inherit these modeling assumptions.
  • ad hoc to paper Strong-lensing perturbers can be compared one-to-one with simulated halos at matched redshifts and mass ranges without forward modeling of lensing selection.
    Secs. IV and V; the authors explicitly note selection effects may bias this comparison, so the assumption is acknowledged yet not modeled.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26027 in / 14608 out tokens · 111001 ms · 2026-08-04T12:51:31.989395+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Motivated by recent detections of low-mass perturbers in strong gravitational lensing systems, we investigate analogs of these objects in the Concerto suite, a set of cosmological N-body zoom-in simulations of self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) with high-amplitude, velocity-dependent cross sections. We investigate characteristic halo properties relevant to gravitational imaging measurements, focusing on the projected enclosed mass and the central density slope. In SIDM, these quantities evolve continuously through gravothermal processes, spanning core-expansion and core-collapse phases, in sharp contrast to cold dark matter, where they remain nearly static after halo formation. This SIDM evolution further depends on tidal environment and merger history, which can be probed through strong lensing. We also identify simulated SIDM halos whose properties are consistent with the properties of low-mass perturbers inferred from recent observations, and we demonstrate that the core-collapse mechanism offers a compelling explanation for their observed high densities. Our results highlight the potential of strong gravitational lensing as a powerful probe of dark matter self-interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.01491 by Demao Kong, Ethan O. Nadler, Hai-Bo Yu.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Distributions of effective concentration (Eq. 2) as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Profiles of the 3D density (left), surface density (middle) and projected enclosed mass (right) for two representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Probability distributions of the projected density slope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Evolution of the projected enclosed mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Projected enclosed masses and density slopes of subhalos ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Density profiles of subhalos at redshift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Projected enclosed mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Density profiles of field halos at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Density profiles of subhalos at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Density profiles of subhalos at redshift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Distributions of the concentration (Eq. A1) versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Probability distributions of the concentration (Eq. A1) at redshifts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Probing Collapsed Dark Matter Halos with Fast Radio Bursts

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Core-collapsed SIDM halos produce longer FRB image time delays than CDM halos, enabling future surveys to constrain self-interaction cross sections above roughly 18-40 cm²/g depending on collapse timing.

  2. SIDM and CDM interpretations of the million-solar-mass lensing perturber JVAS B1938+666-$\mathcal{V}$

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    SIDM core-collapse simulations produce a dense central core matching the lensing perturber, while CDM requires an IMBH with extreme tidal mass loss whose realism is left open.

  3. Spherically Symmetric Fluid Simulations of Black Hole Accretion in Self-Interacting Dark Matter Halos

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    1D hydrodynamic simulations find that SIDM heat transport competes with gravity to regulate black hole accretion, enabling rapid growth in SIS profiles up to 10,000 solar masses from a 100 solar mass seed in 2 Myr.

  4. Gravothermal Collapse: Robust Against Baryonic Feedback

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Baryonic feedback mildly delays but does not stall gravothermal collapse in high-concentration SIDM halos and allows resumption in median-concentration cases, yielding feedback-history-dependent central densities.

  5. The Sensitivity of Substructure Lensing to SIDM Core-collapse Model Variation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The two-point correlation function of lensing deflection fields shows sensitivity to variations in SIDM subhalo core-collapse modeling at small scales.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 86 linked inside Pith · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Kauffmann, S

    G. Kauffmann, S. D. M. White, and B. Guiderdoni, The formation and evolution of galaxies within merging dark matter haloes., MNRAS264, 201 (1993)

    1993

  2. [2]

    Klypin, A

    A. Klypin, A. V. Kravtsov, O. Valenzuela, and F. Prada, Where Are the Missing Galactic Satellites?, ApJ522, 82 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9901240 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Moore, S

    B. Moore, S. Ghigna, F. Governato, G. Lake, T. R. Quinn, J. Stadel, and P. Tozzi, Dark matter substruc- ture within galactic halos, Astrophys. J. Lett.524, L19 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9907411

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  4. [4]

    P. Bode, J. P. Ostriker, and N. Turok, Halo formation in warm dark matter models, Astrophys. J.556, 93 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010389

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    M. R. Lovell, C. S. Frenk, V. R. Eke, A. Jenkins, L. Gao, and T. Theuns, The properties of warm dark matter haloes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.439, 300 (2014), arXiv:1308.1399 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Gilman, S

    D. Gilman, S. Birrer, A. Nierenberg, T. Treu, X. Du, and A. Benson, Warm dark matter chills out: con- straints on the halo mass function and the free- streaming length of dark matter with eight quadruple- image strong gravitational lenses, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.491, 6077 (2020), arXiv:1908.06983 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    R. E. Keeleyet al., JWST lensed quasar dark matter survey – II. Strongest gravitational lensing limit on the dark matter free streaming length to date, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.535, 1652 (2024), arXiv:2405.01620 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    E. O. Nadler, R. An, V. Gluscevic, A. Benson, and X. Du, COZMIC. I. Cosmological Zoom-in Simulations with Initial Conditions Beyond Cold Dark Matter, As- trophys. J.986, 127 (2025), arXiv:2410.03635 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Vogelsberger, J

    M. Vogelsberger, J. Zavala, and A. Loeb, Sub- haloes in Self-Interacting Galactic Dark Matter Haloes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.423, 3740 (2012), arXiv:1201.5892 [astro-ph.CO]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    Rocha, A

    M. Rocha, A. H. G. Peter, J. S. Bullock, M. Kapling- hat, S. Garrison-Kimmel, J. Onorbe, and L. A. Mous- takas, Cosmological Simulations with Self-Interacting Dark Matter I: Constant Density Cores and Substruc- ture, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.430, 81 (2013), arXiv:1208.3025 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  11. [11]

    Gilman, Y.-M

    D. Gilman, Y.-M. Zhong, and J. Bovy, Constraining res- onant dark matter self-interactions with strong grav- itational lenses, Phys. Rev. D107, 103008 (2023), arXiv:2207.13111 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    M. S. Fischer, L. Kasselmann, M. Br¨ uggen, K. Dolag, F. Kahlhoefer, A. Ragagnin, A. Robertson, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, Cosmological and idealized simu- lations of dark matter haloes with velocity-dependent, rare and frequent self-interactions, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.529, 2327 (2024), arXiv:2310.07750 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    E. O. Nadler, D. Yang, and H.-B. Yu, A Self-interacting Dark Matter Solution to the Extreme Diversity of Low- mass Halo Properties, Astrophys. J. Lett.958, L39 (2023), arXiv:2306.01830 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Despali, L

    G. Despali, L. Moscardini, D. Nelson, A. Pillepich, V. Springel, and M. Vogelsberger, Introducing the AIDA-TNG project: Galaxy formation in alternative dark matter models, Astron. Astrophys.697, A213 (2025), arXiv:2501.12439 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    E. O. Nadler, R. An, D. Yang, H.-B. Yu, A. Benson, and V. Gluscevic, COZMIC. III. Cosmological Zoom- in Simulations of Self-interacting Dark Matter with Suppressed Initial Conditions, Astrophys. J.986, 129 (2025), arXiv:2412.13065 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    E. O. Nadler, D. Kong, D. Yang, and H.-B. Yu, SIDM Concerto: Compilation and Data Release of Self-interacting Dark Matter Zoom-in Simulations, As- trophys. J.991, 69 (2025), arXiv:2503.10748 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    S. Hou, D. Yang, N. Li, and G. Li, A Universal Analytic Model for Gravitational Lensing by Self- Interacting Dark Matter Halos, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2502.14964 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Mao and P

    S.-d. Mao and P. Schneider, Evidence for substructure in lens galaxies?, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.295, 587 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9707187

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  19. [19]

    R. B. Metcalf and P. Madau, Compound gravitational lensing as a probe of dark matter substructure within galaxy halos, Astrophys. J.563, 9 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0108224

    arXiv 2001

  20. [20]

    L. V. E. Koopmans, Gravitational-mass imaging of CDM substructure, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.363, 1136 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501324

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  21. [21]

    Benitez-Llambay and C

    A. Benitez-Llambay and C. Frenk, The detailed struc- ture and the onset of galaxy formation in low-mass gaseous dark matter haloes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498, 4887 (2020), arXiv:2004.06124 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    E. O. Nadler, The Impact of Molecular Hydrogen Cool- ing on the Galaxy Formation Threshold, Astrophys. J. Lett.983, L23 (2025), arXiv:2503.04885 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Dalal and C

    N. Dalal and C. S. Kochanek, Direct detection of CDM substructure, Astrophys. J.572, 25 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0111456

    arXiv 2002

  24. [24]

    Bradac, P

    M. Bradac, P. Schneider, M. Steinmetz, M. Lombardi, L. J. King, and R. Porcas, B1422+231: the influence of mass substructure on strong lensing, Astron. Astrophys. 388, 373 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0112038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  25. [25]

    R. B. Metcalf and H. Zhao, Flux ratios as a probe of dark substructures in quadruple-image gravitational lenses, Astrophys. J. Lett.567, L5 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0111427

    arXiv 2002

  26. [26]

    Vegetti, L

    S. Vegetti, L. V. E. Koopmans, A. Bolton, T. Treu, and R. Gavazzi, Detection of a dark substructure through gravitational imaging, MNRAS408, 1969 (2010), arXiv:0910.0760 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1969

  27. [27]

    Vegetti, D

    S. Vegetti, D. J. Lagattuta, J. P. McKean, M. W. Auger, C. D. Fassnacht, and L. V. E. Koopmans, Gravita- tional detection of a low-mass dark satellite at cosmolog- ical distance, Nature481, 341 (2012), arXiv:1201.3643 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Oguriet al., The Hidden Fortress: Structure and substructure of the complex strong lensing cluster SDSS J1029+2623, Mon

    M. Oguriet al., The Hidden Fortress: Structure and substructure of the complex strong lensing cluster SDSS J1029+2623, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.429, 482 (2013), arXiv:1209.0458 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    C. L. MacLeod, R. Jones, E. Agol, and C. S. Kochanek, Detection of Substructure in the Gravitationally Lensed Quasar MG0414+0534 using Mid-Infrared and Ra- dio VLBI Observations, Astrophys. J.773, 35 (2013), arXiv:1212.2166 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    A. M. Nierenberg, T. Treu, S. A. Wright, C. D. Fass- nacht, and M. W. Auger, Detection of substructure with adaptive optics integral field spectroscopy of the gravi- tational lens B1422+231, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 442, 2434 (2014), arXiv:1402.1496 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    Y. D. Hezavehet al., Detection of lensing substructure using ALMA observations of the dusty galaxy SDP.81, Astrophys. J.823, 37 (2016), arXiv:1601.01388 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    Q. E. Minor, S. Gad-Nasr, M. Kaplinghat, and S. Veg- etti, An unexpected high concentration for the dark substructure in the gravitational lens SDSSJ0946+1006, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507, 1662 (2021), arXiv:2011.10627 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    A. c. S ¸eng¨ ul and C. Dvorkin, Probing dark matter with strong gravitational lensing through an effective density slope, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.516, 336 (2022), arXiv:2206.10635 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    S. C. Langeet al., Galaxy Mass Modelling from Multi- Wavelength JWST Strong Lens Analysis: Dark Mat- ter Substructure, Angular Mass Complexity, or Both?, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2410.12987 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    W. J. R. Enzi, C. M. Krawczyk, D. J. Ballard, and T. E. Collett, The overconcentrated dark halo in the strong lens SDSS J0946+1006 is a subhalo: evidence for self interacting dark matter?, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2411.08565 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Despali, F

    G. Despali, F. M. Heinze, C. D. Fassnacht, S. Vegetti, C. Spingola, and R. Klessen, Detecting low-mass haloes with strong gravitational lensing II: constraints on the density profiles of two detected subhaloes, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2407.12910 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Tajalli, S

    M. Tajalli, S. Vegetti, C. M. O’Riordan, S. D. M. White, C. D. Fassnacht, D. M. Powell, J. P. McKean, and G. Despali, SHARP – IX. The dense, low-mass per- turbers in B1938+666 and J0946+1006: implications for cold and self-interacting dark matter, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2505.07944 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Liet al., The ”Little Dark Dot”: Evidence for Self-Interacting Dark Matter in the Strong Lens SDSSJ0946+1006?, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2504.11800 [astro-ph.GA]

    S. Liet al., The ”Little Dark Dot”: Evidence for Self-Interacting Dark Matter in the Strong Lens SDSSJ0946+1006?, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2504.11800 [astro-ph.GA]. 16

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Caoet al., Probing Dark Matter Substructures with Free-Form Modelling: A Case Study of the ‘Jackpot’ Strong Lens, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2504.19177 [astro-ph.CO]

    X. Caoet al., Probing Dark Matter Substructures with Free-Form Modelling: A Case Study of the ‘Jackpot’ Strong Lens, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2504.19177 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Heet al., Not so dark, not so dense: an al- ternative explanation for the lensing subhalo in SDSSJ0946+1006, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2506.07978 [astro-ph.CO]

    Q. Heet al., Not so dark, not so dense: an al- ternative explanation for the lensing subhalo in SDSSJ0946+1006, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2506.07978 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Ephremidze, C

    N. Ephremidze, C. Chandrashekar, A. c. S ¸eng¨ ul, and C. Dvorkin, Dark Matter Substructure or Source Model Systematics? A Case Study of Cluster Lens Abell S1063, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2502.18571 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Vegettiet al., Strong Gravitational Lensing as a Probe of Dark Matter, Space Sci

    S. Vegettiet al., Strong Gravitational Lensing as a Probe of Dark Matter, Space Sci. Rev.220, 58 (2024), arXiv:2306.11781 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    J. W. Nightingaleet al., Scanning for dark matter sub- haloes in Hubble Space Telescope imaging of 54 strong lenses, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527, 10480 (2023), arXiv:2209.10566 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    D. J. Ballard, W. J. R. Enzi, T. E. Collett, H. C. Turner, and R. J. Smith, Gravitational imaging through a triple source plane lens: revisiting the ΛCDM-defying dark subhalo in SDSSJ0946+1006, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.528, 7564 (2024), arXiv:2309.04535 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Q. E. Minor, High Significance Detection of the Dark Substructure in Gravitational Lens SDSS J0946+1006 by Image Pixel Supersampling, ApJ981, 2 (2025), arXiv:2408.11090 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Tulin and H.-B

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Adhikariet al., Astrophysical Tests of Dark Matter Self-Interactions, arXiv e-prints (2022), arXiv:2207.10638 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Adhikariet al., Astrophysical Tests of Dark Matter Self-Interactions, arXiv e-prints (2022), arXiv:2207.10638 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat, and H.-B. Yu, Halo Shape and Relic Density Exclusions of Sommerfeld-Enhanced Dark Matter Explanations of Cosmic Ray Excesses, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 151301 (2010), arXiv:0911.0422 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    D. Yang, E. O. Nadler, and H.-B. Yu, Testing the parametric model for self-interacting dark matter us- ing matched halos in cosmological simulations, Phys. Dark Univ.47, 101807 (2025), arXiv:2406.10753 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    D. Yang, E. O. Nadler, H.-B. Yu, and Y.-M. Zhong, A parametric model for self-interacting dark matter halos, JCAP02, 032, arXiv:2305.16176 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    S. Ando, S. Horigome, E. O. Nadler, D. Yang, and H.-B. Yu, SASHIMI-SIDM: semi-analytical subhalo modelling for self-interacting dark matter at sub-galactic scales, JCAP02, 053, arXiv:2403.16633 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    Shah and S

    N. Shah and S. Adhikari, The abundance of core- collapsed subhaloes in SIDM: insights from structure formation in ΛCDM, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.529, 4611 (2024), arXiv:2308.16342 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    M. G. Roberts, M. Kaplinghat, M. Valli, and H.-B. Yu, Gravothermal collapse and the diversity of galac- tic rotation curves, Phys. Rev. D111, 103041 (2025), arXiv:2407.15005 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Kong and H.-B

    D. Kong and H.-B. Yu, Probing signals of self- interacting dark matter core collapse in Hi-rich galaxies, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101939 (2025), arXiv:2501.06413 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Zhang, H.-B

    X. Zhang, H.-B. Yu, D. Yang, and E. O. Nadler, The GD-1 Stellar Stream Perturber as a Core-collapsed Self- interacting Dark Matter Halo, Astrophys. J. Lett.978, L23 (2025), arXiv:2409.19493 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    M. S. Fischer, H.-B. Yu, and K. Dolag, Accurately sim- ulating core-collapse self-interacting dark matter halos, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2506.06269 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    A. c. S ¸eng¨ ul, C. Dvorkin, B. Ostdiek, and A. Tsang, Substructure detection reanalysed: dark perturber shown to be a line-of-sight halo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.515, 4391 (2022), arXiv:2112.00749 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    H. R. Stacey, D. M. Powell, S. Vegetti, J. P. McKean, and D. Wen, Investigation of mass substructure in grav- itational lens system SDP.81 with ALMA long-baseline observations, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2508.02776 (2025), arXiv:2508.02776 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Gavazzi, T

    R. Gavazzi, T. Treu, J. D. Rhodes, L. V. Koopmans, A. S. Bolton, S. Burles, R. Massey, and L. A. Mous- takas, The Sloan Lens ACS Survey. 4. The mass density profile of early-type galaxies out to 100 effective radii, Astrophys. J.667, 176 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701589

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  60. [60]

    M. W. Auger, T. Treu, A. S. Bolton, R. Gavazzi, L. V. E. Koopmans, P. J. Marshall, L. A. Moustakas, and S. Burles, The Sloan Lens ACS Survey. X. Stel- lar, Dynamical, and Total Mass Correlations of Mas- sive Early-type Galaxies, Astrophys. J.724, 511 (2010), arXiv:1007.2880 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  61. [61]

    Ibe and H.-b

    M. Ibe and H.-b. Yu, Distinguishing Dark Matter Anni- hilation Enhancement Scenarios via Halo Shapes, Phys. Lett. B692, 70 (2010), arXiv:0912.5425 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  62. [62]

    Yang and H.-B

    D. Yang and H.-B. Yu, Gravothermal evolution of dark matter halos with differential elastic scattering, JCAP 09, 077, arXiv:2205.03392 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [63]

    D. Yang, E. O. Nadler, and H.-B. Yu, Strong Dark Mat- ter Self-interactions Diversify Halo Populations within and surrounding the Milky Way, Astrophys. J.949, 67 (2023), arXiv:2211.13768 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    P. S. Behroozi, R. H. Wechsler, and H.-Y. Wu, The Rockstar Phase-Space Temporal Halo Finder and the Velocity Offsets of Cluster Cores, Astrophys. J.762, 109 (2013), arXiv:1110.4372 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  65. [65]

    P. S. Behroozi, R. H. Wechsler, H.-Y. Wu, M. T. Busha, A. A. Klypin, and J. R. Primack, Gravita- tionally Consistent Halo Catalogs and Merger Trees for Precision Cosmology, Astrophys. J.763, 18 (2013), arXiv:1110.4370 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    Mansfield, E

    P. Mansfield, E. Darragh-Ford, Y. Wang, E. O. Nadler, B. Diemer, and R. H. Wechsler, symfind : Address- ing the Fragility of Subhalo Finders and Revealing the Durability of Subhalos, Astrophys. J.970, 178 (2024), arXiv:2308.10926 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Kong, H.-B

    D. Kong, H.-B. Yu, E. O. Nadler, P. Mansfield, and A. Benson, Novel Challenges in Tracking Self- Interacting Dark Matter Subhalos, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2507.09799 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    G. L. Bryan and M. L. Norman, Statistical properties of x-ray clusters: Analytic and numerical comparisons, Astrophys. J.495, 80 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9710107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  69. [69]

    D. Buch, E. O. Nadler, R. H. Wechsler, and Y.-Y. Mao, Milky Way-est: Cosmological Zoom- in Simulations with Large Magellanic Cloud and Gaia–Sausage–Enceladus Analogs, Astrophys. J.971, 79 (2024), arXiv:2404.08043 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    E. O. Nadleret al., Symphony: Cosmological Zoom-in 17 Simulation Suites over Four Decades of Host Halo Mass, Astrophys. J.945, 159 (2023), arXiv:2209.02675 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  72. [72]

    J. L. Tonry and C. S. Kochanek, Redshifts of the grav- itational lenses mg1131+0456 and b1938+666, Astron. J.119, 1078 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9910480

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  73. [73]

    D. A. Riechers, Molecular Gas in Lensed z>2 Quasar Host Galaxies and the Star Formation Law for Galaxies with Luminous Active Galactic Nuclei, Astrophys. J. 730, 108 (2011), arXiv:1101.5624 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  74. [74]

    Tamura, M

    Y. Tamura, M. Oguri, D. Iono, B. Hatsukade, Y. Mat- suda, and M. Hayashi, High-resolution ALMA observa- tions of SDP.81. I. The innermost mass profile of the lensing elliptical galaxy probed by 30 milli-arcsecond images, PASJ67, 72 (2015), arXiv:1503.07605 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  75. [75]

    Gavazzi, T

    R. Gavazzi, T. Treu, L. V. E. Koopmans, A. S. Bolton, L. A. Moustakas, S. Burles, and P. J. Marshall, The Sloan Lens ACS Survey. VI: Discovery and analysis of a double Einstein ring, Astrophys. J.677, 1046 (2008), arXiv:0801.1555 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  76. [76]

    Nishikawa, K

    H. Nishikawa, K. K. Boddy, and M. Kaplinghat, Accel- erated core collapse in tidally stripped self-interacting dark matter halos, Phys. Rev. D101, 063009 (2020), arXiv:1901.00499 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  77. [77]

    Sameie, H.-B

    O. Sameie, H.-B. Yu, L. V. Sales, M. Vogelsberger, and J. Zavala, Self-Interacting Dark Matter Subhalos in the Milky Way’s Tides, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 141102 (2020), arXiv:1904.07872 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    Z. C. Zeng, A. H. G. Peter, X. Du, A. Benson, S. Kim, F. Jiang, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, and M. Vogelsberger, Core- collapse, evaporation, and tidal effects: the life story of a self-interacting dark matter subhalo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.513, 4845 (2022), arXiv:2110.00259 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    Kaplinghat, S

    M. Kaplinghat, S. Tulin, and H.-B. Yu, Dark Matter Halos as Particle Colliders: Unified Solution to Small- Scale Structure Puzzles from Dwarfs to Clusters, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 041302 (2016), arXiv:1508.03339 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  80. [80]

    Jianget al., A semi-analytic study of self-interacting dark-matter haloes with baryons, Mon

    F. Jianget al., A semi-analytic study of self-interacting dark-matter haloes with baryons, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.521, 4630 (2023), arXiv:2206.12425 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.