pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.31335 · v1 · pith:YWEULRFLnew · submitted 2026-05-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA· hep-ph

Gravothermal Collapse: Robust Against Baryonic Feedback

Demao Kong , Hai-Bo Yu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 20:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAhep-ph
keywords self-interacting dark mattergravothermal collapsebaryonic feedbackdark matter halosstrong gravitational lensingN-body simulationscore collapse
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gravothermal collapse in high-concentration SIDM halos proceeds despite extremely strong baryonic feedback

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

The paper tests the resilience of gravothermal collapse in self-interacting dark matter halos when episodic baryonic feedback is present. It applies a semi-analytical oscillating-potential model inside controlled N-body simulations to represent feedback cycles. High-concentration halos with short SIDM thermalization timescales experience only mild delays in collapse and never stall, even under extreme feedback. Median-concentration halos suffer larger delays but resume collapse once feedback ends, producing a wide range of final central densities that depend on the exact feedback sequence. These outcomes support identifying dense compact objects in strong-lensing data as core-collapsed SIDM halos.

Core claim

For high-concentration halos, where the SIDM thermalization timescale is short, gravothermal collapse is only mildly delayed and never stalled, even under extremely strong feedback. In contrast, the collapse of a median-concentration halo can be significantly delayed, but it resumes once feedback ceases. The final density profile of such halos depends sensitively on the episodic feedback history.

What carries the argument

The semi-analytical oscillating-potential model that reproduces the dynamical impact of episodic baryonic feedback on the dark matter distribution in N-body simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The semi-analytical oscillating-potential model faithfully reproduces the dynamical impact of episodic baryonic feedback on the dark matter distribution without requiring full hydrodynamical simulations.

What would settle it

A high-concentration halo observed with short thermalization time and strong ongoing baryonic feedback that shows no central density increase or stalled collapse would falsify the main claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31335 by Demao Kong, Hai-Bo Yu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Central density evolution of the median-concentration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The corresponding density profiles at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We perform a stress test of gravothermal collapse in self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) halos under baryonic feedback using a semi-analytical oscillating-potential model in controlled N-body simulations. For high-concentration halos, where the SIDM thermalization timescale is short, gravothermal collapse is only mildly delayed and never stalled, even under extremely strong feedback. In contrast, the collapse of a median-concentration halo can be significantly delayed, but it resumes once feedback ceases. The final density profile of such halos depends sensitively on the episodic feedback history, producing a broad diversity in central densities. These results strengthen the interpretation of dense compact perturbers identified in recent strong-lensing observations as core-collapsed SIDM halos.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper uses controlled N-body simulations with a semi-analytical oscillating-potential model to stress-test gravothermal collapse in SIDM halos under episodic baryonic feedback. It reports that high-concentration halos experience only mild delay and no stalling even under strong feedback, while median-concentration halos can be significantly delayed but resume collapse once feedback stops, yielding diverse final central densities that support interpreting strong-lensing perturbers as core-collapsed SIDM halos.

Significance. If the oscillating-potential model is shown to be faithful, the results would strengthen the viability of SIDM explanations for dense compact objects in lensing data by demonstrating robustness of gravothermal collapse against realistic feedback, particularly in high-concentration systems where thermalization is rapid.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (oscillating-potential implementation)] Methods section describing the oscillating-potential model: the central claim that high-concentration halos experience only mild delay and never stall rests on this semi-analytical prescription faithfully capturing episodic feedback; however, no cross-validation metrics, sensitivity tests to oscillation parameters, or direct comparisons to full hydrodynamical runs are reported, leaving open the possibility that the model understates heating or angular-momentum transfer that could stall collapse.
  2. [Results (high-concentration vs. median-concentration cases)] Results on high- vs. median-concentration halos: quantitative statements such as 'mildly delayed' and 'never stalled' lack reported error bars, convergence tests with respect to particle number or time-stepping, or explicit comparison of thermalization timescales to feedback periods, which are load-bearing for distinguishing the two regimes.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: the phrase 'extremely strong feedback' is used without a quantitative definition or reference to the specific potential amplitude or duty cycle employed in the runs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional tests, metrics, and clarifications as described.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Methods section describing the oscillating-potential model: the central claim that high-concentration halos experience only mild delay and never stall rests on this semi-analytical prescription faithfully capturing episodic feedback; however, no cross-validation metrics, sensitivity tests to oscillation parameters, or direct comparisons to full hydrodynamical runs are reported, leaving open the possibility that the model understates heating or angular-momentum transfer that could stall collapse.

    Authors: The oscillating-potential model is a controlled semi-analytical tool that imposes time-varying external potentials to mimic episodic baryonic feedback while retaining full N-body resolution of the SIDM dynamics. We acknowledge that the original submission did not report explicit cross-validation metrics or direct hydrodynamical comparisons. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated Methods subsection presenting sensitivity tests across oscillation amplitude, period, and duty cycle, together with quantitative metrics (e.g., fractional change in collapse time) and an explicit discussion of the model’s assumptions on heating and angular-momentum conservation. These additions will clarify the regime of applicability without claiming equivalence to full hydrodynamics. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results on high- vs. median-concentration halos: quantitative statements such as 'mildly delayed' and 'never stalled' lack reported error bars, convergence tests with respect to particle number or time-stepping, or explicit comparison of thermalization timescales to feedback periods, which are load-bearing for distinguishing the two regimes.

    Authors: We agree that the quantitative claims would be strengthened by explicit uncertainty quantification and timescale comparisons. The revised Results section will include error bars derived from ensembles of runs, a new appendix demonstrating numerical convergence with particle number (10^5–10^6) and time-step criteria, and a direct comparison of the SIDM thermalization timescale (computed following the standard definition) against the feedback oscillation periods for both halo concentrations. These additions will make the distinction between the high- and median-concentration regimes quantitatively robust. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The provided abstract and methodology description present results as direct outputs from controlled N-body simulations employing a semi-analytical oscillating-potential model for baryonic feedback. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are quoted that reduce the central claims (mild delay in high-concentration halos, sensitivity to feedback history) to inputs by construction. The outcomes are framed as simulation results benchmarked against external lensing observations, satisfying the criteria for a self-contained derivation without load-bearing reductions of the enumerated kinds.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the oscillating-potential model is mentioned but its internal parameters and assumptions are not detailed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5650 in / 1087 out tokens · 28544 ms · 2026-06-28T20:56:21.587976+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    repul- sive

    to generate the initial condition for the halo. All sim- ulations included in this work have total 2×10 6 particles with a Plummer-equivalent softening lengthϵ= 10 pc following the suggestion in [88]. Feedback model–Motivated by previous studies [9, 89], we adopt a simple tunable model that can generate dark matter cores with controlled sizes. In our cont...

  2. [2]

    R. A. Flores and J. R. Primack, Astrophysical Journal 427, L1 (1994)

    1994

  3. [3]

    Moore, Nature370, 629 (1994)

    B. Moore, Nature370, 629 (1994)

    1994

  4. [4]

    W. J. G. De Blok, S. S. McGaugh, and V. C. Rubin, Astronomical Journal122, 2396 (2001)

    2001

  5. [5]

    Gentile, P

    G. Gentile, P. Salucci, U. Klein, D. Vergani, and P. Kalberla, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.351, 903 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403154

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    Ohet al., Astron

    S.-H. Ohet al., Astron. J.149, 180 (2015), arXiv:1502.01281 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics55, 343 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    J. F. Navarro, V. R. Eke, and C. S. Frenk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.283, L72 (1996), arXiv:astro- ph/9610187

    arXiv 1996

  9. [9]

    Governatoet al., Nature463, 203 (2010), arXiv:0911.2237 [astro-ph.CO]

    F. Governatoet al., Nature463, 203 (2010), arXiv:0911.2237 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    Pontzen and F

    A. Pontzen and F. Governato, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.421, 3464 (2012), arXiv:1106.0499 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    Di Cintio, C

    A. Di Cintio, C. B. Brook, A. V. Macci` o, G. S. Stinson, A. Knebe, A. A. Dutton, and J. Wadsley, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society437, 415 (2014)

    2014

  12. [12]

    J. I. Read, O. Agertz, and M. L. M. Collins, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.459, 2573 (2016), arXiv:1508.04143 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    T. K. Chan, D. Kereˇ s, J. O˜ norbe, P. F. Hop- kins, A. L. Muratov, C. A. Faucher-Gigu` ere, and E. Quataert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.454, 2981 (2015), arXiv:1507.02282 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    E. D. Jahn, L. V. Sales, F. Marinacci, M. Vogels- berger, P. Torrey, J. Qi, A. Smith, H. Li, R. Kannan, J. D. Burger, and J. Zavala, MNRAS520, 461 (2023), arXiv:2110.00142 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    A. Cruz, A. Brooks, M. Lisanti, A. H. G. Peter, R. Geda, T. Quinn, M. Tremmel, F. Munshi, B. Keller, and J. Wadsley, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.11800 (2025), arXiv:2510.11800 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Kuzio de Naray, G

    R. Kuzio de Naray, G. D. Martinez, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat, Astrophys. J. Lett.710, L161 (2010), arXiv:0912.3518 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    K. A. Omanet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.452, 3650 (2015), arXiv:1504.01437 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    J. I. Read, G. Iorio, O. Agertz, and F. Fraternali, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society462, 3628 (2016)

    2016

  19. [19]

    Kamada, M

    A. Kamada, M. Kaplinghat, A. B. Pace, and H.-B. Yu, Physical Review Letters119, 111102 (2017)

    2017

  20. [20]

    Creasey, O

    P. Creasey, O. Sameie, L. V. Sales, H.-B. Yu, M. Vo- gelsberger, and J. Zavala, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society468, 2283 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    T. Ren, A. Kwa, M. Kaplinghat, and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. X9, 031020 (2019), arXiv:1808.05695 [astro- ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Kaplinghat, T

    M. Kaplinghat, T. Ren, and H.-B. Yu, JCAP06(06), 027, arXiv:1911.00544 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 1911

  23. [23]

    I. M. E. Santos-Santos, J. F. Navarro, A. Robertson, A. Ben´ ıtez-Llambay, K. A. Oman, M. R. Lovell, C. S. Frenk, A. D. Ludlow, A. Fattahi, and A. Ritz, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.495, 58 (2020), arXiv:1911.09116 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Zentner, S

    A. Zentner, S. Dandavate, O. Slone, and M. Lisanti, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022 (7), 031

  25. [25]

    Z. Jia, F. Jiang, S. Li, R. Li, J. Wang, and L. Zhu, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.17118 (2026), arXiv:2601.17118 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    L. V. Sales, A. Wetzel, and A. Fattahi, Nature Astron. 6, 897 (2022), arXiv:2206.05295 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Vegetti, L

    S. Vegetti, L. V. E. Koopmans, A. Bolton, T. Treu, and R. Gavazzi, MNRAS408, 1969 (2010), arXiv:0910.0760 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1969

  28. [28]

    Vegetti, D

    S. Vegetti, D. J. Lagattuta, J. P. McKean, M. W. Auger, C. D. Fassnacht, and L. V. E. Koopmans, Nature481, 341 (2012), arXiv:1201.3643 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    A. C ¸ . S ¸eng¨ ul, C. Dvorkin, B. Ostdiek, and A. Tsang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.515, 4391 (2022), arXiv:2112.00749 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    D. J. Ballard, W. J. R. Enzi, T. E. Collett, H. C. Turner, and R. J. Smith, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society528, 7564 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Q. E. Minor, ApJ981, 2 (2025), arXiv:2408.11090 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    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, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.540, 564 (2025), arXiv:2505.07944 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    D. M. Powell, J. P. McKean, S. Vegetti, C. Spingola, S. D. M. White, and C. D. Fassnacht, Nature Astron. 9, 1714 (2025), arXiv:2510.07382 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Bonaca, D

    A. Bonaca, D. W. Hogg, A. M. Price-Whelan, and C. Conroy, Astrophys. J.880, 38 (2019), arXiv:1811.03631 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Nibauer, A

    J. Nibauer, A. Bonaca, A. M. Price-Whelan, D. N. Spergel, and J. E. Greene, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.02247 (2025), arXiv:2510.02247 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Pe˜ narrubia, R

    J. Pe˜ narrubia, R. Errani, M. G. Walker, M. Gieles, and T. C. N. Boekholt, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.533, 3263 (2024), arXiv:2404.19069 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Minor, S

    Q. Minor, S. Gad-Nasr, M. Kaplinghat, and S. Vegetti, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society507, 1662 (2021). 6

    2021

  38. [38]

    W. J. R. Enzi, C. M. Krawczyk, D. J. Ballard, and T. E. Collett, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.540, 247 (2025), arXiv:2411.08565 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Despali, F

    G. Despali, F. M. Heinze, C. D. Fassnacht, S. Veg- etti, C. Spingola, R. Klessen, and M. Tajalli, Astron. Astrophys.699, A222 (2025), arXiv:2407.12910 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Yu, Phys

    H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 141001 (2026), arXiv:2510.11006 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Vegetti, S

    S. Vegetti, S. D. M. White, J. P. McKean, D. M. Pow- ell, C. Spingola, D. Massari, G. Despali, and C. D. Fass- nacht, Nature Astron.10, 440 (2026), arXiv:2601.02466 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Tulin and H.-B

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rept.730, 1 (2018), arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    Adhikariet al., Rev

    S. Adhikariet al., Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 045004 (2025), arXiv:2207.10638 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    D. N. Spergel and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 3760 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9909386

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  45. [45]

    Balberg, S

    S. Balberg, S. L. Shapiro, and S. Inagaki, Astrophys. J. 568, 475 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0110561

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  46. [46]

    Essig, S

    R. Essig, S. D. Mcdermott, H.-B. Yu, and Y.-M. Zhong, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 121102 (2019), arXiv:1809.01144 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    Sameie, H.-B

    O. Sameie, H.-B. Yu, L. V. Sales, M. Vogelsberger, and J. Zavala, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 141102 (2020), arXiv:1904.07872 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Z. C. Zeng, A. H. G. Peter, X. Du, A. Benson, S. Kim, F. Jiang, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, and M. Vogels- berger, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.513, 4845 (2022), arXiv:2110.00259 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    E. O. Nadler, D. Yang, and H.-B. Yu, Astrophys. J. Lett.958, L39 (2023), arXiv:2306.01830 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    H. C. Turner, M. R. Lovell, J. Zavala, and M. Vogels- berger, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety505, 5327 (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    C. A. Correa, M. Schaller, S. Ploeckinger, N. Anau Mon- tel, C. Weniger, and S. Ando, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 3045 (2022), arXiv:2206.11298 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    D. Yang, E. O. Nadler, and H.-B. Yu, Astrophys. J.949, 67 (2023), arXiv:2211.13768 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    M. S. Fischer, L. Kasselmann, M. Br¨ uggen, K. Dolag, F. Kahlhoefer, A. Ragagnin, A. Robertson, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.529, 2327 (2024), arXiv:2310.07750 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    E. O. Nadler, D. Kong, D. Yang, and H.-B. Yu, As- trophys. J.991, 69 (2025), arXiv:2503.10748 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Despali, L

    G. Despali, L. Moscardini, D. Nelson, A. Pillepich, V. Springel, and M. Vogelsberger, Astron. Astrophys. 697, A213 (2025), arXiv:2501.12439 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Engelhardt, F

    A. Engelhardt, F. Munshi, A. H. G. Peter, E. O. Nadler, A. Cruz, A. M. Brooks, Z. C. Zeng, T. R. Quinn, and B. Keith, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.23264 (2026), arXiv:2601.23264 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    Zhang, H.-B

    X. Zhang, H.-B. Yu, D. Yang, and E. O. Nadler, Astro- physical Journal Letters978, L23 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    D. Kong, E. O. Nadler, and H.-B. Yu, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.01491 (2025), arXiv:2510.01491 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Liet al., arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2504.11800 [astro-ph.GA]

    S. Liet al., arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2504.11800 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    M. G. Roberts, M. Kaplinghat, M. Valli, and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. D111, 103041 (2025), arXiv:2407.15005 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Kong and H.-B

    D. Kong and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101939 (2025), arXiv:2501.06413 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Zavala, M

    J. Zavala, M. R. Lovell, M. Vogelsberger, and J. D. Burger, Phys. Rev. D100, 063007 (2019), arXiv:1904.09998 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    Nishikawa, K

    H. Nishikawa, K. K. Boddy, and M. Kaplinghat, Phys. Rev. D101, 063009 (2020), arXiv:1901.00499 [astro- ph.GA]

    arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    C. A. Correa, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.503, 920 (2021), arXiv:2007.02958 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    Slone, F

    O. Slone, F. Jiang, M. Lisanti, and M. Kaplinghat, Phys. Rev. D107, 043014 (2023), arXiv:2108.03243 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    M. S. Fischer and H.-B. Yu, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2603.04508 (2026), arXiv:2603.04508 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Balberg and S

    S. Balberg and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 101301 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0111176

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  68. [68]

    Pollack, D

    J. Pollack, D. N. Spergel, and P. J. Steinhardt, As- trophys. J.804, 131 (2015), arXiv:1501.00017 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  69. [69]

    Feng, H.-B

    W.-X. Feng, H.-B. Yu, and Y.-M. Zhong, Astrophys. J. Lett.914, L26 (2021), arXiv:2010.15132 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    Feng, H.-B

    W.-X. Feng, H.-B. Yu, and Y.-M. Zhong, JCAP05(05), 036, arXiv:2108.11967 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  71. [71]

    Gad-Nasr, K

    S. Gad-Nasr, K. K. Boddy, M. Kaplinghat, N. J. Outmezguine, and L. Sagunski, JCAP05(05), 131, arXiv:2312.09296 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv

  72. [72]

    Jiang, Z

    F. Jiang, Z. Jia, H. Zheng, L. C. Ho, K. Inayoshi, X. Shen, M. Vogelsberger, and W.-X. Feng, Astro- phys. J. Lett.996, L19 (2026), arXiv:2503.23710 [astro- ph.GA]

    arXiv 2026

  73. [73]

    Feng, H.-B

    W.-X. Feng, H.-B. Yu, and Y.-M. Zhong, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.17641 (2025), arXiv:2506.17641 [astro- ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    T. Shen, X. Shen, H. Xiao, M. Vogelsberger, and F. Jiang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2504.00075 (2025), arXiv:2504.00075 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    M. G. Roberts, L. Braff, A. Garg, S. Profumo, and T. Jeltema, JCAP05(05), 003, arXiv:2507.03230 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv

  76. [76]

    H.-P. Gu, F. Jiang, X. Chen, and R. Li, Phys. Rev. D 113, 103038 (2026), arXiv:2601.17117 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  77. [77]

    Diemer and M

    B. Diemer and M. Joyce, Astrophys. J.871, 168 (2019), arXiv:1809.07326 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J.490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  79. [79]

    Torrealba, S

    G. Torrealba, S. E. Koposov, V. Belokurov, and M. Ir- win, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.459, 2370 (2016), arXiv:1601.07178

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  80. [80]

    Caldwell, M

    N. Caldwell, M. G. Walker, M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, S. Koposov, V. Belokurov, G. Torrealba, A. Geringer- Sameth, and C. I. Johnson, Astrophys. J.839, 20 (2017), arXiv:1612.06398 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.