Ultralight fuzzy dark matter review

Andrew Eberhardt; Elisa G. M. Ferreira

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

Ultralight fuzzy dark matter review

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The simplest fuzzy dark matter model is now pushed to masses above 10⁻²⁰ eV by independent observations.

desk verdict A thorough, candid review of the fuzzy dark matter constraint space; the central claim that vanilla m ≈ 1e-22 eV is ruled out is probably right, but the dwarf-core constraints are less independent than the conclusions suggest. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00705 v1 pith:A7PWOK6T submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAhep-phhep-th

Andrew Eberhardt , Elisa G. M. Ferreira This is my paper

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-phhep-th

keywords ultralightdarkmatterfuzzyaxionssolitoniccoresLyman-alphaforestdwarfgalaxydynamicsSchrödinger-Poissonequationsconstraints

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This review tries to establish that the vanilla ultralight dark matter model—a single, classical, spin-0 field comprising all of the dark matter—is no longer viable at the historically favored mass of about $10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}$. A large set of independent observations, from the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest to the survival of ultra-faint dwarf galaxies, now pushes the allowed mass of that model above roughly $10^{-20}\,\mathrm{eV}$. The review argues this shifts the field's central task from constraining the vanilla model to characterizing its extensions: multiple fields, self-interactions, higher spins, and mixed models with cold dark matter. If this assessment is right, future constraints will be reported in a mass–fraction plane rather than as a single mass bound.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through two pieces of physics. The first is the 'quantum pressure' term in the fluid form of the Schrödinger-Poisson equations, a stress-like term proportional to $(\hbar/m)^2$ that suppresses structure formation below the de Broglie scale; this suppression shapes the transfer function, halo mass function, and Lyman-$\alpha$ signal that anchor the high-mass bounds. The second is the empirical core-halo scaling relation (Eqs. 83–84), fitted to dark-matter-only simulations, which maps the size and mass of the central solitonic core to the halo mass and the field mass; this relation is what converts observed dwarf-galaxy core sizes and stellar kinematics into bounds on $m$. Dynamical heating of stellar distributions by density granules, modeled with the same de Broglie-scale physics, supplies an independent route to the same mass bounds.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to run cosmological Schrödinger-Poisson simulations that include baryonic feedback across many formation histories and halo masses, then compare the resulting soliton core radius and core mass with the fitted scaling relations; if the scatter is large or baryons erase the cores, the dwarf-galaxy bounds that push $m$ above $10^{-19}\,\mathrm{eV}$ would not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The review's central claim is that the historically motivating mass of about $10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}$, which made fuzzy dark matter attractive as a solution to small-scale structure problems, is ruled out by a large number of independent observations, many drawn from the very small-scale probes the model was invented to address. For the vanilla model, current data require $m$ above roughly $10^{-20}\,\mathrm{eV}$: the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest gives $m > 2\times10^{-20}\,\mathrm{eV}$, the subhalo abundance analysis gives $m > 1.4\times10^{-20}\,\mathrm{eV}$, and dwarf-galaxy dynamical heating gives $m > 3\times10^{-19}\,\mathrm{eV}$ (Segue I and II) and $m > 10^{-19}\,\mathrm{eV}$ (Eridanus II). The review concludes that small-scale structure is therefore no longer a viable motivation for the vanilla model, and that the productive direction is the study of extensions and mixed models, whose phenomenology already shows qualitatively new behavior such as diverse halo cores and reduced density fluctuations.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions depend on the empirical core–halo scaling relations from dark-matter-only simulations being valid for halo masses, field masses, and redshifts far beyond the simulated range, and on the predicted cores being central and stationary in real galaxies with baryons.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The vanilla model, a single classical spin-0 field making up all dark matter, is bounded below by roughly 10⁻²⁰ eV, so the original 10⁻²² eV motivation is no longer viable.
Lyman-alpha and subhalo abundance analyses set the leading high-mass limits, while dwarf stellar dynamics currently provide the most stringent individual-object bounds.
Constraints are increasingly framed in a mass–fraction plane, because extensions and mixed models change what a given observation forbids.
Numerical work will lean more on approximation schemes, such as N-body runs with modified transfer functions, eigenvalue-constructed halos, and Gaussian random fields, as the required masses outpace direct Schrödinger-Poisson solvers.
Extensions such as multiple fields, self-interactions, and higher spins can weaken or reshape limits by reducing density fluctuations, altering cores, or changing halo-to-halo compositions.

Reading between the lines

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

If the vanilla lower bound continues to rise, the historically motivating small-scale structure problems become largely irrelevant to the model's viability; the remaining case for ultralight dark matter would rest on particle physics and on extended models.
The large dispersion in the core-halo relation across formation histories suggests that single-number dwarf bounds on m are overconfident; a distribution-aware reanalysis could shift the quoted limits by orders of magnitude.
A testable consequence of the review's reading is that a future detection of a solitonic core consistent with m ≲ 10⁻²⁰ eV would point to an extension (mixed or multi-field) rather than the vanilla model.
Comparing granule-heating and core-size constraints on the same dwarf galaxies could separate failures of the core-halo scaling assumption from genuine ultralight dark matter dynamics.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this arXiv item. First, it is an explicit review, not a new research claim: the novel content is the consolidated constraint map and the reading of the field. Second, the headline conclusion - that vanilla fuzzy dark matter at m ~ 1e-22 eV is ruled out and that the viable window sits above ~1e-20 eV - is not new, but the review marshals the evidence clearly and, for the most part, honestly.

What is actually good: the paper does a real service by gathering roughly 260 primary references and organizing them into a single map (Figures 10 and 11) that shows which probes constrain which mass/fraction combinations. The discussions of systematics are refreshingly candid: it flags the extrapolation of the core-halo relation in Section VII B 1, notes the unresolved m^3 vs m^{3/2} heating-slope discrepancy, and is explicit that the hollow-curve extensions to low dark-matter fractions are based on scaling arguments, not on simulations of mixed models. That kind of self-auditing is rare and worth crediting.

Where I would push back: the "large number of independent observations" claim in the conclusions is a bit looser than the evidence. The SPARC, MW dwarf, ultra-faint dwarf, and Leo II core constraints all route through the same Schive et al. empirical scaling relations (M_c-M_h and r_c-M_h). If that calibration shifts, those four constraints move together; they are not four independent votes. The stress-test note gets this right. That said, the central conclusion does not rest on that pillar alone: Lyman-alpha (m > 2e-20 eV), COZMIC subhalos (m > 1.4e-20 eV), Segue I/II, and Eri II heating bounds are independent of the core-halo relation and, taken at face value, still exclude 1e-22 eV. So the concern is real but not fatal to the main claim.

There are also small but annoying defects: several quoted bound values are malformed in the text (e.g., a missing exponent in the [28] constraint), the plot-code link is referenced without a URL, and the compiled data are only "available on request." None of these change the science, but they will need fixing in the published version.

For whom is this? A graduate student entering the field or an experimental colleague wanting the current constraint landscape in one place will get real value from it. It deserves a serious referee - but the referee should treat it as a review, not a research paper. I would accept it for review at a journal that publishes authoritative reviews, with the expectation that the typos get cleaned up and the "independence" language is tightened.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This review surveys ultralight dark matter (ULDM) in the observationally accessible mass range 10^-24 eV to 10^-18 eV. It covers the particle-physics and small-scale-structure motivations; the vanilla model of a single classical spin-0 field comprising all dark matter plus its extensions (multi-field, self-interacting, higher-spin, mixed models); the relevant phenomenology (quantum pressure, transfer-function suppression, solitonic cores, granular density fluctuations, dynamical heating, relativistic potentials, superradiance); numerical methods; and the current observational constraints. Its central assessment is that the historically motivated m ≈ 10^-22 eV vanilla model is now ruled out by many probes, that current lower bounds push the vanilla model above roughly 10^-20 eV (e.g., Lyman-alpha m > 2×10^-20 eV, COZMIC subhalos m > 1.4×10^-20 eV, Segue I/II m > 3×10^-19 eV, Eri II m > 10^-19 eV), and that the field's frontier lies in characterizing extensions and mixed models. A distinctive feature is the unusually candid treatment of systematics, including the extrapolated core-halo relation, the unresolved Eri II m^3 versus m^3/2 scaling, and the hollow curves in the mass-fraction plane that are not backed by mixed-model simulations.

Significance. If its synthesis is correct, this is a timely and useful reference: it organizes a rapidly fragmenting literature, separates probes by phenomenology and systematics, and explicitly identifies numerical and observational limitations. The conclusion about the vanilla model is consistent with the current literature and is robust to the main caveat identified by this reader: the Lyman-alpha, subhalo, strong-lensing, and dynamical-heating constraints independently exclude 10^-22 eV even if all core-halo-calibrated constraints are discarded. The paper also provides the code used to make Figure 11, which is a practical asset. Its main value is as a critical map of the constraint space rather than as a source of new bounds.

major comments (2)

[Section VIII; Section VII B 1; Eqs. (83)–(84)] The concluding claim that m ≈ 10^-22 eV is 'ruled out by a large number of independent observations [28–35]' overstates the independence of the dwarf-galaxy core constraints. SPARC [31], MW dwarfs [144], ultra-faint dwarfs [155], and Leo II [32] all convert observed core sizes into a field mass through the same empirical core-halo scaling relations, Eqs. (83)–(84), which are calibrated on a limited set of dark-matter-only simulations. The review itself documents the extrapolation, scatter, and baryonic caveats in Section VII B 1, so the issue is one of presentation rather than omission; nevertheless, the word 'independent' is not supported for these four probes collectively. I recommend that the authors state explicitly which conclusions survive if all core-halo-calibrated constraints are set aside. On the evidence presented, the remaining Lyman-alpha, COZMIC subhalo, strong-lensing, and dynamical-heating constraints would still exclude 10^-22 eV, so I expect the main conclusion to survive, but the claim of independence should be qualified.
[Section VIII; Fig. 11 caption] The review's forward-looking conclusion that future constraints will be mapped in the mass-fraction plane rests partly on curves that are explicitly marked as extrapolations: the hollow dynamical-heating extensions below Ω_dm use a ∝ m^3/2 scaling, the Eri II bound uses a different ∝ m^3 scaling, and the Figure 11 caption states that in none of these cases were mixed-model simulations actually run. This does not invalidate the qualitative conclusion, but the main text should make plain that these are exploratory projections rather than measured bounds. As written, the conclusions risk treating the mass-fraction plane as more established than the underlying methods warrant.

minor comments (4)

[Sections V D 4 and V E; Section IV B 1; Section VI A 1] There are several typos and misspellings: 'pular timing' should be 'pulsar timing' in the Section V E heading and 'muilti-field' in Section IV B 1, and 'specious' in Section VI A 1 should be 'spurious'.
[Section VII A 1] The sentence 'The resulting constraint was set at 2.9 × 19−21 eV at 95% confidence' appears to have lost the exponent base and should read '2.9 × 10^-21 eV'; the nearby statement that 'the constraint is presented as an upper bound' is ambiguous because the actual result is a lower bound on m.
[Section VII B 4] In the Leo II discussion, 'at least m >2.2 × 10−21 eV' and the following '2 × 1023 eV' need correct exponent formatting: the latter should presumably be '2 × 10^-23 eV'.
[Section V B, Eq. (78)] The symbols m_22 and k_J are used in the fitting function x = 1.61 m_22^{-1/18} k/k_J without being defined at that point; m_22 is defined only later in Section V C, and k_J is introduced only implicitly through r_J. Please define both at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's central status claim is a synthesis of external, independent constraints, and the flagged core-halo caveat is a shared systematic rather than a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

This is a review article rather than a derivation paper: it performs no fits and constructs no new predictions from its own parameters. The load-bearing conclusion that m ~ 10^-22 eV vanilla ULDM is disfavored and current probes push m > ~10^-20 eV rests on a suite of externally derived constraints (Lyman-alpha [230]; COZMIC [29]; Segue I/II [41]; Eri II [42]; SPARC [31]; Leo II [32]; UVLF; strong lensing), each computed in independent papers with independent data and methods. The one constraint in the cited list with a review coauthor (Powell et al. [34], with E. G. M. Ferreira) is not load-bearing: removing it leaves the Lyman-alpha, COZMIC, and dynamical-heating bounds untouched, and those alone exclude 10^-22 eV. The extensive self-citations in Sections IV C, V D, and V H concern quantum corrections, granule phenomenology, and pulsar-timing estimates that are not inputs to the central status claim. The core-halo scaling relations (Eqs. 83-84) used by dwarf-core constraints are empirical fits from external simulations (Schive et al.), not from this review; the paper explicitly flags in Section VII B 1 that these predictions are 'extrapolated from empirical fitting relations in dark matter only simulations' and may be modified by baryons, and Section V C notes the large dispersion of the Mc-Mh relation across formation histories. That is an acknowledged shared systematic across four dwarf-core bounds, but it does not make the review's own argument circular, since the conclusion survives on transfer-function and dynamical-heating constraints that are independent of the Mc-Mh relation. No equation in the review reduces to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. The review is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The review introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or entities of its own; everything in the ledger is inherited from the cited literature, which is appropriate for a review. The ledger records the load-bearing inherited quantities on which the review's status assessment depends: the field mass m, the fitted core-halo and soliton profile relations, and the untested analytic scalings used to extend heating constraints to lower ULDM fractions. No new particle, mediator, force, or dimension is postulated, so invented_entities is empty.

free parameters (4)

ULDM field mass m = constraint bounds quoted per probe across 10^-24 to 10^-18 eV
The single parameter of the vanilla model and the axis of the entire review. It is not fitted by this paper, but every quoted constraint is a bound on m, and the review's status assessment is a statement about this parameter.
Core-halo scaling relation coefficients (Schive et al.) = rc ~ 1.6 m22^-1 (Mh/10^9 M_sun)^-1/3 kpc; Mc ~ (1/4) a^-1/2 (Mh/Mmin,0)^1/3 Mmin,0 (Eqs. 83-84)
Empirical fits to dark-matter-only Schrodinger-Poisson simulations [146, 147]. The dwarf-galaxy core constraints ([31], [32], [144], [155]) inherit these fits, and the review itself flags extrapolation beyond the simulated parameter space as a dominant systematic.
Soliton profile shape parameters = rho_c = 1.9 a^-1 m22^-2 (x_c/kpc)^-4 / (1 + 9.1e-2 (x/x_c)^2)^8 (Eq. 82)
Fitted to simulation [146] and used throughout Section VII B to compare predicted cored profiles with observed dwarf galaxy stellar kinematics.
Heating-rate scaling exponents for hollow-curve extensions = m^(3/2) for most probes, m^3 for Eri II
Analytic scalings used to extend dynamical-heating constraints to ULDM fractions below Omega_dm in Figure 11. The review states no mixed-model simulations were run to test them, and the Eri II slope discrepancy is reported but unresolved.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption ULDM is a bosonic field produced non-thermally with occupation number per de Broglie wavelength much larger than unity, justifying the classical Schrodinger-Poisson description.
Stated in Sections II and IV C. The review notes the classical approximation remains debated, with quantum breaktime and decoherence timescales not fully mapped, so all constraints built on SP dynamics inherit this assumption.
domain assumption Cold dark matter behavior is recovered on scales well above the de Broglie wavelength, so N-body runs with modified transfer functions capture ULDM structure growth.
Used in the Section VII A halo mass function constraints [28-30]. The review notes nonlinear ULDM dynamics are not included at the subhalo level, and cites comparisons corroborating the approximation in limited regimes.
domain assumption Empirical core-halo relations and core profiles from dark-matter-only simulations hold for real halos with baryons, at halo masses, field masses, and redshifts beyond the simulated range.
Explicitly flagged by the review in Section VII B 1: extrapolation errors, baryonic core reshaping [153, 224], and core motion [210] are caveats on the SPARC, MW satellite, ultra-faint dwarf, and Leo II constraints.
standard math Standard Einstein, Klein-Gordon, and Vlasov-Poisson formalisms apply to the ULDM field in the weak-gravity, non-relativistic limit.
Used throughout Sections IV to VI for the Schrodinger-Poisson equations, the relativistic potential (Section V E), superradiance (Section V F), and the Wigner/Husimi phase space derivations (Section V A 2).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultralight fuzzy dark matter review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7PWOK6T

@misc{pith2026250700705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultralight fuzzy dark matter review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7PWOK6T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00705}
}

abstract

Ultralight dark matter refers to the lightest potential dark matter candidates. We will focus on the mass range that has been studied using astrophysical and cosmological observations, corresponding to a mass $10^{-24} \, \mathrm{eV} \lesssim m \lesssim 10^{-18} \, \mathrm{eV}$. We will discuss the motivations for this mass range. The most studied model in this range corresponds to a minimally coupled, single, classical, spin-0 field comprising all dark matter. However, the work exploring extensions of this model (for example, higher spin, self-coupled, multiple field, and mixed models) will be one of the focuses of this review. The phenomenology associated with ultralight dark matter is rich and includes linear effects on the primordial power spectrum, core structures forming at the center of halos, nonlinear effects resulting in heating of stellar distributions, and non-relativistic effects relating to pulsar signals and black hole superradiance, to name a few. This set of effects has been studied using an equally extensive set of numerical tools. We will summarize the most common ones and discuss their applications and limitations. Ultralight dark matter also has a wide variety of observational constraints, including halo mass functions, the Lyman-alpha forest, halo density profiles, stellar dynamics, and black hole spins. We will review them focusing on the observations made, the method of study, and the major systematics. We will end with a discussion of the current status of the field and future work needed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00705 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Two simulation of the gravitational collapse of an initial over-density in a single spatial dimension. Two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Phase space for two simulations of the gravitational collapse of an initial overdensity in a single spatial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Figure provided by Ethan Nadler[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. A density slice through an ultralight dark matter halo. The log density is plotted. The solitonic core is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Figure taken from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Eigenspectrum of halo generated using eigenvalue decomposition method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Constraints on the mass of the ultralight dark matter particle assuming that all of dark matter is described [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Ultralight dark matter constraints as a function of the mass and density. Hollow lines indicate prospective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. Comparison between mass of ULDM, de Broglie time, and de Broglie wavelength for a Milky Way-like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

Stone Skipping Black Holes in Ultralight Dark Matter Solitons
astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

Black holes in ultralight dark matter solitons undergo quasi-periodic stone-skipping orbits driven by soliton dipole excitations, modifying inspiral dynamics when the black hole is much lighter than the soliton.
Cosmo-SPINN: Fuzzy Dark Matter Simulations with Physics-Informed Generative Networks
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Physics-informed generative U-Nets evolve and super-resolve fuzzy dark matter fields under Schrödinger–Poisson constraints with far less supervised data than pure data-driven baselines.
Extreme mass-ratio inspirals into Newtonian Proca stars
gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

For Newtonian Proca stars, a perturbing object on a circular orbit loses nearly the same energy in the vector ground state as in the scalar boson-star ground state (within ~20%), while the spherical excited Proca stat...
Fuzzy dark matter soliton core hosting a supermassive black hole as a dense low-mass perturber in strong gravitational lensing
astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A soliton core of fuzzy dark matter, compressed by an embedded supermassive black hole, reproduces the observed mass profile of the ~10^6 Msun perturber in JVAS B1938+666 for FDM mass ~3.6e-21 eV and subhalo mass ~7e6 Msun.
Fuzzy Dark Matter and the Impact of Core--Halo Diversity on Its Particle Mass Constraints
astro-ph.GA 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Allowing diversity in the core–halo relation of fuzzy dark matter opens up a low particle-mass window around 10^-22 eV alongside the previously favored 10^-20 eV range.
Dark Matter Deficient Galaxies as Probes of Dark Matter
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The separability condition εχ/εb ≤ μcrit/μi translates dark-matter-deficient galaxies into conditional constraints on dark-matter–baryon scattering, dissipative dark matter fractions, and fuzzy dark matter escape.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

276 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

[28]

Svrcek and E

P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Journal of High Energy Physics 2006, 051–051 (2006)

2006
[31]

Tremaine and J

S. Tremaine and J. E. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 407 (1979)

1979
[144]

X. Li, L. Hui, and G. L. Bryan, Physical Review D 99 (2019), 10.1103/physrevd.99.063509

doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.063509 2019
[155]

K. K. Rogers and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L012018 (2025), arXiv:2311.16377 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025
[32]

W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158 (2000)

2000
[1]

random walk

SPARC catalog Comparisons of the rotation curves predicted for these cores and the observed rotation curves are used to place constraints on the ultralight dark matter mass in [31, 39]. The central argument made is that the specific kinetic energy in the soliton and the halo is the same [39, 40], i.e. K/Ms ≈ K/Mhalo . (169) The empirical scaling relations...
[2]

TheMHI −Mh relation is inferred from simulations [220]

HI observations Similar work was done using simulation-informed halo mass functions and comparisons with those observa- tionally inferred from HI surveys, ALF ALF A, and W ALLABY in [30]. TheMHI −Mh relation is inferred from simulations [220]. As a result, the largest source of systematic uncertainty was determined to be whether simulated data may predict...
[3]

Observations of high redshift galaxies are compared with the expected suppression of the halo mass function

Ultraviolet luminosity function The ultraviolet luminosity function was studied [205–209]. Observations of high redshift galaxies are compared with the expected suppression of the halo mass function. The modeling of the halo mass function is generally done semi-analytically. Data is taken from the Hubble frontier fields, producing a constraint of 1.5 × 10...

Show all 276 references

[4]

Milky-way dwarf satellites A study comparing the density profiles of Milky Way dwarf satellites was carried out in [144]. Using the core mass relation derived in [147] it was argued that the mass of the satellites (Fornax, Sculptor) necessary to produce cores consistent with o...
[5]

In [155], a full Jeans analysis was performed using stellar kinematic data from 18 UFD galaxies in the Milky Way to constrain the mass of fuzzy dark matter (FDM)

Ultra-faint dwarfs Ultra-faint dwarf (UFD) galaxies are ideal laboratories for testing dark matter models, as they are among the most dark matter–dominated systems known in the Universe, thus less affected by baryonic feedback. In [155], a full Jeans analysis was performed usi...
[6]

Data used to derive Leo II stellar kinematics is described in [229]

Leo II A comparison of observations of stellar kinematic data in Leo II and ultralight dark matter halos con- structed via the eigenvalue decomposition method (see Section VI B 1) was performed in [32]. Data used to derive Leo II stellar kinematics is described in [229]. This ...

2023
[7]

resonate bands

Eri II This effect was studied in the context of a star cluster in the Milky Way satellite Eridanus II [42]. Analytic estimates of the heating rate of this star cluster concluded that the survival (i.e. the object was not completely disrupted by the gravitational kicks of gran...
[8]

Ultralight dark matter halos were generated using the eigenvalue method described in Section VI B 1 and simulated using the method described in Section VI C 1

Segue I, II The ultra-faint dwarf satellite galaxies, Segue I and II, were studied in the context of ultralight dark matter in [41]. Ultralight dark matter halos were generated using the eigenvalue method described in Section VI B 1 and simulated using the method described in ...
[9]

Analytic estimates of the effect of dynamical heating on the Milky Way disc set a lower bound on the ultralight dark matter mass at 6 × 10−23 eV

Heating of Milky Way disc Dynamical heating due to ultralight dark matter fluctuations was studied in the context of the Milky Way disc in [165]. Analytic estimates of the effect of dynamical heating on the Milky Way disc set a lower bound on the ultralight dark matter mass at...
[10]

quantumness

Fornax, Carina, and Leo II The impact of ultralight dark matter dynamical heating on the stellar distributions of the Fornax, Carina, and Leo II dwarf galaxies was studied in [35]. They ran simulations of ultralight dark matter halos matching the observed dwarf galaxy paramete...
[11]

principal

Penrose-Onsager criterion The Penrose-Onsager (PO) criterion is the statement that there exists a complex vector zi such that [267] ⟨ˆa† i ˆaj⟩ = ⃗ z† i ⃗ zj . (B1) 52 Where ˆa† i and ˆai are the creation and annihilation operators, respectively, for the ith momentum modes. Th...
[12]

(B2) Where the first term in the series on the right-hand side of the equation is the classical equations of motion and the next term is the lowest order quantum correction

Q factor The equations of motion for the expectation value of the field operator (i.e., the classical field) can be written in terms of the classical equations of motion plus a series of terms proportional the higher order moments of the field (see for example [64]), in moment...
[13]

This metric of classicality is common in quantum optics and has also been studied in the case 53 of ultralight dark matter [75]

Squeezing Quantum squeezing is present when the uncertainty of some operator becomes smaller than the vacuum state. This metric of classicality is common in quantum optics and has also been studied in the case 53 of ultralight dark matter [75]. For some operator ˆO with [ ˆO, ...
[14]

Aghanim, Y

N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, R. Battye, K. Benabed, J.-P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, M. Bucher, C. Bu...

2020
[15]

V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford, Jr., Astrophys. J. 159, 379 (1970)

1970
[16]

K. C. Freeman, Astrophys. J. 160, 811 (1970)

1970
[17]

Zwicky, Helv

F. Zwicky, Helv. Phys. Acta 6, 110 (1933)

1933
[18]

Smith, Astrophys

S. Smith, Astrophys. J. 83, 23 (1936)

1936
[19]

C. L. Bennett, D. Larson, J. L. Weiland, N. Jarosik, G. Hinshaw, N. Odegard, K. M. Smith, R. S. Hill, B. Gold, M. Halpern, E. Komatsu, M. R. Nolta, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, E. Wollack, J. Dunkley, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, G. S. Tucker, and E. L. Wright, Astrophysical Jo...

2013 arXiv
[20]

Hoekstra, H

H. Hoekstra, H. K. C. Yee, and M. D. Gladders, The Astrophysical Journal 606, 67 (2004)

2004
[21]

Clowe, M

D. Clowe, M. Bradaˇ c, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky, The Astro- physical Journal 648, L109–L113 (2006)

2006
[22]

Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 48, 495 (2010)

2010
[23]

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977). 54

1977
[24]

J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 103 (1979)

1979
[25]

A force beyond the standard model - status of the quest for hidden photons,

J. Jaeckel, “A force beyond the standard model - status of the quest for hidden photons,” (2013), arXiv:1303.1821 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[26]

Fabbrichesi, E

M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi, The Physics of the Dark Photon: A Primer (Springer Inter- national Publishing, 2021)

2021
[27]

Arvanitaki, S

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

2010
[29]

Halverson, C

J. Halverson, C. Long, B. Nelson, and G. Salinas, Phys. Rev. D 99, 086014 (2019)

2019
[30]

T. C. Bachlechner, K. Eckerle, O. Janssen, and M. Kleban, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019, 062 (2019)

2019
[33]

D. H. Weinberg, J. S. Bullock, F. Governato, R. Kuzio de Naray, and A. H. G. Peter, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 12249 (2015), https://www.pnas.org/content/112/40/12249.full.pdf

2015
[34]

J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 55, 343–387 (2017)

2017
[36]

Persic, P

M. Persic, P. Salucci, and F. Stel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 281, 27 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9506004

1996 arXiv
[37]

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

2004 arXiv
[38]

A. A. Klypin, A. V. Kravtsov, O. Valenzuela, and F. Prada, Astrophys. J. 522, 82 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9901240

1999
[39]

Moore, Nature (London) 370, 629 (1994)

B. Moore, Nature (London) 370, 629 (1994)

1994
[40]

Boylan-Kolchin, J

M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 415, 1 (2011), arXiv:1103.0007

2011 arXiv
[41]

Nadler, A

E. Nadler, A. Drlica-Wagner, K. Bechtol, S. Mau, R. Wechsler, V. Gluscevic, K. Boddy, A. Pace, T. Li, M. McNanna, A. Riley, J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, Y.-Y. Mao, G. Green, D. Burke, A. Peter, B. Jain, T. Abbott, M. Aguena, S. Allam, J. Annis, S. Avila, D. Brooks, M. Carrasco Kind, ...

2021
[42]

Cozmic. i. cosmological zoom-in simulations with initial conditions beyond cdm,

E. O. Nadler, R. An, V. Gluscevic, A. Benson, and X. Du, “Cozmic. i. cosmological zoom-in simulations with initial conditions beyond cdm,” (2024), arXiv:2410.03635 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[43]

J. T. Garland, K. L. Masters, and D. Grin, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 535, 1338 (2024), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/535/2/1338/60541065/stae2370.pdf

2024
[44]

N. Bar, K. Blum, and C. Sun, Phys. Rev. D 105, 083015 (2022)

2022
[45]

Dwarf galaxies imply dark matter is heavier than 2.2 × 10−21 eV,

T. Zimmermann, J. Alvey, D. J. E. Marsh, M. Fairbairn, and J. I. Read, “Dwarf galaxies imply dark matter is heavier than 2.2 × 10−21 eV,” (2025), arXiv:2405.20374 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[46]

K. K. Rogers and H. V. Peiris, Physical Review Letters 126 (2021), 10.1103/physrevlett.126.071302

2021 doi
[47]

D. M. Powell, S. Vegetti, J. P. McKean, S. D. M. White, E. G. M. Ferreira, S. May, and C. Spingola, (2023), arXiv:2302.10941 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[48]

Ultra-light dark matter simulations and stellar dynamics: Tension in dwarf galaxies for m <5 × 10−21 ev,

L. Teodori, A. Caputo, and K. Blum, “Ultra-light dark matter simulations and stellar dynamics: Tension in dwarf galaxies for m <5 × 10−21 ev,” (2025), arXiv:2501.07631 [astro-ph.GA]

2025
[50]

Armengaud, N

E. Armengaud, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, D. J. E. Marsh, and J. Baur, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 471, 4606–4614 (2017)

2017
[52]

N. Bar, D. Blas, K. Blum, and S. Sibiryakov, Physical Review D 98 (2018), 10.1103/physrevd.98.083027

2018 doi
[53]

N. Bar, K. Blum, J. Eby, and R. Sato, Phys. Rev. D 99, 103020 (2019)

2019
[54]

Not so fuzzy: excluding fdm with sizes and stellar kinematics of ultra-faint dwarf galaxies,

N. Dalal and A. Kravtsov, “Not so fuzzy: excluding fdm with sizes and stellar kinematics of ultra-faint dwarf galaxies,” (2022), arXiv:2203.05750 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[55]

D. J. E. Marsh and J. C. Niemeyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 051103 (2019)

2019
[56]

D. D. Chowdhury, F. C. van den Bosch, P. van Dokkum, V. H. Robles, H.-Y. Schive, and T. Chiueh, The Astrophysical Journal 949, 68 (2023). 55

2023
[57]

N. K. Porayko, X. Zhu, Y. Levin, L. Hui, G. Hobbs, A. Grudskaya, K. Postnov, M. Bailes, N. R. Bhat, W. Coles, S. Dai, J. Dempsey, M. J. Keith, M. Kerr, M. Kramer, P. D. Lasky, R. N. Manchester, S. Os lowski, A. Parthasarathy, V. Ravi, D. J. Reardon, P. A. Rosado, C. J. Russell...

2018 doi
[58]

Kim and A

H. Kim and A. Mitridate, Phys. Rev. D 109, 055017 (2024)

2024
[59]

Eberhardt, Q

A. Eberhardt, Q. Liang, and E. G. M. Ferreira, (2024), arXiv:2411.18051 [astro-ph.CO]

2024
[60]

L. O. T´ ellez-Tovar, T. Matos, and J. A. V´ azquez, Phys. Rev. D106, 123501 (2022), arXiv:2112.09337 [astro- ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[61]

Street, N

L. Street, N. Y. Gnedin, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043007 (2022), arXiv:2204.01871 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[62]

H.-K. Guo, K. Sinha, C. Sun, J. Swaim, and D. Vagie, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021, 028 (2021), arXiv:2010.15977 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[63]

H. N. Luu, S. H. H. Tye, and T. Broadhurst, Physics of the Dark Universe 30, 100636 (2020), arXiv:1811.03771 [astro-ph.GA]

2020 arXiv
[64]

Huang, H.-Y

H. Huang, H.-Y. Schive, and T. Chiueh, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 522, 515 (2023), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/522/1/515/49913421/stad998.pdf

2023
[66]

S. M. L. Vogt, D. J. E. Marsh, and A. Lagu¨ e, Phys. Rev. D107, 063526 (2023), arXiv:2209.13445 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[67]

Chen and J

C.-B. Chen and J. Soda, (2023), arXiv:2303.00999 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[68]

Gosenca, A

M. Gosenca, A. Eberhardt, Y. Wang, B. Eggemeier, E. Kendall, J. L. Zagorac, and R. Easther, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083014 (2023), arXiv:2301.07114 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[69]

A. E. Mirasola, N. Musoke, M. C. Neyrinck, C. Prescod-Weinstein, and J. L. Zagorac, (2024), arXiv:2410.02663 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[70]

H. N. Luu, P. Mocz, M. Vogelsberger, S. May, J. Borrow, S.-H. H. Tye, and T. Broadhurst, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 527, 4162–4172 (2023)

2023
[71]

Diverse dark matter haloes in two-field fuzzy dark matter,

H. N. Luu, P. Mocz, M. Vogelsberger, A. Pozo, T. Broadhurst, S. H. H. Tye, T. Liu, L. W. H. Fung, G. F. Smoot, R. Emami, and L. Hernquist, “Diverse dark matter haloes in two-field fuzzy dark matter,” (2024), arXiv:2408.00827 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[72]

Glennon, E

N. Glennon, E. O. Nadler, N. Musoke, A. Banerjee, C. Prescod-Weinstein, and R. H. Wechsler, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123540 (2022), arXiv:2205.10336 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[73]

Glennon, N

N. Glennon, N. Musoke, E. O. Nadler, C. Prescod-Weinstein, and R. H. Wechsler, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063501 (2024), arXiv:2312.07684 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[74]

M. A. Amin, M. Jain, R. Karur, and P. Mocz, JCAP 08, 014 (2022), arXiv:2203.11935 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[75]

M. A. Amin, A. J. Long, and E. D. Schiappacasse, (2023), arXiv:2301.11470 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[76]

Eberhardt, A

A. Eberhardt, A. Zamora, M. Kopp, and T. Abel, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083527 (2024), arXiv:2310.07119 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[77]

Eberhardt, M

A. Eberhardt, M. Kopp, A. Zamora, and T. Abel, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083007 (2021)

2021
[78]

Eberhardt, A

A. Eberhardt, A. Zamora, M. Kopp, and T. Abel, Phys. Rev. D 105, 036012 (2022)

2022
[79]

Eberhardt, M

A. Eberhardt, M. Kopp, and T. Abel, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103002 (2022)

2022
[80]

Testing the mean field theory of scalar field dark matter,

A. Eberhardt, A. Zamora, M. Kopp, and T. Abel, “Testing the mean field theory of scalar field dark matter,” (2022)

2022
[81]

Sikivie and E

P. Sikivie and E. M. Todarello, Physics Letters B 770, 331 (2017)

2017
[82]

M. P. Hertzberg, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016, 037 (2016)

2016
[83]

Allali and M

I. Allali and M. P. Hertzberg, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020, 056 (2020)

2020
[84]

I. J. Allali and M. P. Hertzberg, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104053 (2021)

2021
[85]

I. J. Allali and M. P. Hertzberg, Physical Review Letters 127 (2021), 10.1103/physrevlett.127.031301

2021 doi
[86]

E. W. Lentz, T. R. Quinn, and L. J. Rosenberg, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 5944 (2020), arXiv:1904.06948 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[87]

E. W. Lentz, T. R. Quinn, and L. J. Rosenberg, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485, 1809 (2019), arXiv:1810.09226 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[88]

M. Kopp, V. Fragkos, and I. Pikovski, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043517 (2022), arXiv:2105.13451 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[89]

Bernal, R

J.-D. Bernal, R. B. Petery, K. J. Joven, and S. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 111, 032003 (2025), arXiv:2406.10412 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[90]

E. G. M. Ferreira, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 29 (2021), 10.1007/s00159-021-00135-6

2021 doi
[91]

Hui, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 59, 247–289 (2021)

L. Hui, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 59, 247–289 (2021)

2021
[92]

Chadha-Day, J

F. Chadha-Day, J. Ellis, and D. J. E. Marsh, Sci. Adv. 8, abj3618 (2022), arXiv:2105.01406 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[93]

Berezhiani and J

L. Berezhiani and J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. D 92, 103510 (2015), arXiv:1507.01019 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[94]

Berezhiani and J

L. Berezhiani and J. Khoury, Phys. Lett. B 753, 639 (2016), arXiv:1506.07877 [astro-ph.CO]. 56

2016 arXiv
[95]

D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept. 643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[96]

Abel et al

C. Abel et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 081803 (2020), arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]

2020 arXiv
[97]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

1978
[98]

Wilczek, Phys

F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

1978
[99]

Preskill, M

J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

1983
[100]

L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B 120, 133 (1983)

1983
[101]

Dine and W

M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B 120, 137 (1983)

1983
[102]

R. L. Davis and E. P. S. Shellard, Nucl. Phys. B 324, 167 (1989)

1989
[103]

R. A. Battye and E. P. S. Shellard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2954 (1994), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 76, 2203–2204 (1996)], arXiv:astro-ph/9403018

1994 arXiv
[104]

Hiramatsu, M

T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 85, 105020 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 86, 089902 (2012)], arXiv:1202.5851 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[105]

Kawasaki, K

M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 91, 065014 (2015), arXiv:1412.0789 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[106]

Svrcek and E

P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP 06, 051 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605206

2006 arXiv
[107]

Arvanitaki, S

A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[108]

M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, SUPERSTRING THEORY. VOL. 2: LOOP AMPLITUDES, ANOMALIES AND PHENOMENOLOGY (1988)

1988
[109]

Dine, Supersymmetry and String Theory : Beyond the Standard Model (Oxford University Press, 2016)

M. Dine, Supersymmetry and String Theory : Beyond the Standard Model (Oxford University Press, 2016)

2016
[110]

Cyncynates, T

D. Cyncynates, T. Giurgica-Tiron, O. Simon, and J. O. Thompson, Physical Review D 105 (2022), 10.1103/physrevd.105.055005

2022 doi
[111]

J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025

1996 arXiv
[112]

M. G. Walker and J. Pe˜ narrubia, The Astrophysical Journal742, 20 (2011)

2011
[113]

Dubinski and R

J. Dubinski and R. G. Carlberg, Astrophys. J. 378, 496 (1991)

1991
[114]

Gordon, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik40, 117 (1926)

W. Gordon, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik40, 117 (1926)

1926
[115]

Klein, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik37, 895 (1926)

O. Klein, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik37, 895 (1926)

1926
[116]

Davoudiasl, P

H. Davoudiasl, P. B. Denton, and D. A. McGady, Phys. Rev. D 103, 055014 (2021), arXiv:2008.06505 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[117]

Dwarf galaxies united by dark bosons,

A. Pozo, T. Broadhurst, G. F. Smoot, T. Chiueh, H. N. Luu, M. Vogelsberger, and P. Mocz, “Dwarf galaxies united by dark bosons,” (2024), arXiv:2302.00181 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[118]

C. A. Painter, M. Boylan-Kolchin, P. Mocz, and M. Vogelsberger, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 533, 2454 (2024), arXiv:2402.16945 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[119]

Desjacques, A

V. Desjacques, A. Kehagias, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D 97, 023529 (2018)

2018
[120]

P. Mocz, A. Fialkov, M. Vogelsberger, M. Boylan-Kolchin, P.-H. Chavanis, M. A. Amin, S. Bose, T. Dome, L. Hernquist, L. Lancaster, M. Notis, C. Painter, V. H. Robles, and J. Zavala, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 521, 2608 (2023), https://academic.oup.com/mn...

2023
[121]

Dawoodbhoy, P

T. Dawoodbhoy, P. R. Shapiro, and T. Rindler-Daller, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 506, 2418 (2021), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/506/2/2418/39136139/stab1859.pdf

2021
[122]

J. Chen, X. Du, E. W. Lentz, D. J. E. Marsh, and J. C. Niemeyer, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083022 (2021)

2021
[123]

P. R. Shapiro, T. Dawoodbhoy, and T. Rindler-Daller, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 509, 145 (2021), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/509/1/145/41103328/stab2884.pdf

2021
[124]

M. A. Amin and P. Mocz, Phys. Rev. D 100, 063507 (2019)

2019
[125]

Glennon and C

N. Glennon and C. Prescod-Weinstein, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083532 (2021)

2021
[126]

M. Jain, M. A. Amin, and H. Pu, Physical Review E 108 (2023), 10.1103/physreve.108.055305

2023 doi
[127]

Sikivie and Q

P. Sikivie and Q. Yang, Physical Review Letters 103 (2009), 10.1103/physrevlett.103.111301

2009 doi
[129]

Erken, P

O. Erken, P. Sikivie, H. Tam, and Q. Yang, Physical Review D 85 (2012), 10.1103/physrevd.85.063520

2012 doi
[130]

Noumi, K

T. Noumi, K. Saikawa, R. Sato, and M. Yamaguchi, Physical Review D 89 (2014), 10.1103/physrevd.89.065012

2014 doi
[131]

Density perturbations in axion-like particles: classical vs quantum field treatment,

S. S. Chakrabarty, “Density perturbations in axion-like particles: classical vs quantum field treatment,” (2021), arXiv:2105.09749 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[132]

Dvali, C

G. Dvali, C. Gomez, and S. Zell, JCAP 06, 028 (2017), arXiv:1701.08776 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[133]

Dvali and S

G. Dvali and S. Zell, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018, 064 (2018)

2018
[134]

Wigner, Phys

E. Wigner, Phys. Rev. 40, 749 (1932)

1932
[135]

W. H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 715 (2003)

2003
[136]

Eberhardt, A

A. Eberhardt, A. Banerjee, M. Kopp, and T. Abel, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043011 (2020)

2020
[137]

Garny and T

M. Garny and T. Konstandin, JCAP 1801, 009 (2018), arXiv:1710.04846 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[138]

M. Kopp, K. Vattis, and C. Skordis, Physics Review D 96, 123532 (2017), arXiv:1711.00140 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[139]

Davies and L

G. Davies and L. M. Widrow, The Astrophysical Journal 485, 484 (1997). 57

1997
[140]

L. M. Widrow and N. Kaiser, The Astrophysical Journal 416, L71 (1993)

1993
[141]

Uhlemann, M

C. Uhlemann, M. Kopp, and T. Haugg, Phys. Rev. D90, 023517 (2014), arXiv:1403.5567 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[142]

P. Mocz, L. Lancaster, A. Fialkov, F. Becerra, and P.-H. Chavanis, Phys. Rev. D 97, 083519 (2018)

2018
[143]

Madelung, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik40, 322 (1927)

E. Madelung, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik40, 322 (1927)

1927
[145]

Mocz and S

P. Mocz and S. Succi, Phys. Rev. E 91, 053304 (2015)

2015
[146]

Veltmaat and J

J. Veltmaat and J. C. Niemeyer, Physical Review D 94 (2016), 10.1103/physrevd.94.123523

2016 doi
[147]

HUSIMI, Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan

K. HUSIMI, Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan. 3rd Series 22, 264 (1940)

1940
[148]

M. Y. Khlopov, B. A. Malomed, and Y. B. Zeldovich, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 215, 575 (1985), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/215/4/575/4082842/mnras215-0575.pdf

1985
[149]

Hlozek, D

R. Hlozek, D. Grin, D. J. Marsh, and P. G. Ferreira, Physical Review D 91 (2015), 10.1103/physrevd.91.103512

2015 doi
[150]

R. Liu, W. Hu, and D. Grin, (2024), arXiv:2412.15192 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[151]

Poulin, T

V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, D. Grin, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083525 (2018), arXiv:1806.10608 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[152]

T. L. Smith, V. Poulin, and M. A. Amin, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063523 (2020), arXiv:1908.06995 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[153]

Cookmeyer, D

J. Cookmeyer, D. Grin, and T. L. Smith, Physical Review D 101 (2020), 10.1103/physrevd.101.023501

2020 doi
[154]

Hloˇ zek, D

R. Hloˇ zek, D. J. E. Marsh, D. Grin, R. Allison, J. Dunkley, and E. Calabrese, Phys. Rev. D 95, 123511 (2017)

2017
[156]

Lagu¨ e, B

A. Lagu¨ e, B. Schwabe, R. Hloˇ zek, D. J. E. Marsh, and K. K. Rogers, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043507 (2024)

2024
[157]

Safarzadeh and D

M. Safarzadeh and D. N. Spergel, The Astrophysical Journal 893, 21 (2020)

2020
[158]

Lin and X

H.-N. Lin and X. Li, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 487, 5679–5684 (2019)

2019
[159]

Schive, M.-H

H.-Y. Schive, M.-H. Liao, T.-P. Woo, S.-K. Wong, T. Chiueh, T. Broadhurst, and W.-Y. P. Hwang, Physical Review Letters 113 (2014), 10.1103/physrevlett.113.261302

2014 doi
[160]

Schive, T

H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Nature Phys. 10, 496 (2014), arXiv:1406.6586 [astro-ph.GA]

2014 arXiv
[161]

P. Mocz, M. Vogelsberger, V. H. Robles, J. Zavala, M. Boylan-Kolchin, A. Fialkov, and L. Hernquist, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 471, 4559–4570 (2017)

2017
[162]

Manita, T

Y. Manita, T. Takahashi, and A. Taruya, (2024), arXiv:2411.14614 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[164]

Chen, H.-Y

S.-R. Chen, H.-Y. Schive, and T. Chiueh, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 468, 1338–1348 (2017)

2017
[165]

H. Y. J. Chan, E. G. M. Ferreira, S. May, K. Hayashi, and M. Chiba, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 511, 943 (2022), arXiv:2110.11882 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[166]

Veltmaat, B

J. Veltmaat, B. Schwabe, and J. C. Niemeyer, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083518 (2020), arXiv:1911.09614 [astro- ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[167]

Levkov, A

D. Levkov, A. Panin, and I. Tkachev, Physical Review Letters 121 (2018), 10.1103/physrevlett.121.151301

2018 doi
[168]

Hayashi, E

K. Hayashi, E. G. M. Ferreira, and H. Y. J. Chan, Astrophys. J. Lett. 912, L3 (2021), arXiv:2102.05300 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[169]

T. Dome, S. May, A. Lagu¨ e, D. J. E. Marsh, S. Johnston, S. Bose, A. Tocher, and A. Fialkov, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 537, 252 (2025), arXiv:2409.11469 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[170]

Schwabe, M

B. Schwabe, M. Gosenca, C. Behrens, J. C. Niemeyer, and R. Easther, Physical Review D 102 (2020), 10.1103/physrevd.102.083518

2020 doi
[171]

T. S. Li, J. D. Simon, A. Drlica-Wagner, K. Bechtol, M. Y. Wang, J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, J. Frieman, J. L. Marshall, D. J. James, L. Strigari, A. B. Pace, E. Balbinot, Y. Zhang, T. M. C. Abbott, S. Allam, A. Benoit-L´ evy, G. M. Bernstein, E. Bertin, D. Brooks, D. L. Burke, A. C...

2017
[172]

Crnojevi´ c, D

D. Crnojevi´ c, D. J. Sand, D. Zaritsky, K. Spekkens, B. Willman, and J. R. Hargis, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 824, L14 (2016)

2016
[173]

X. Du, B. Schwabe, J. C. Niemeyer, and D. B¨ urger, Phys. Rev. D 97, 063507 (2018)

2018
[174]

Edwards, E

F. Edwards, E. Kendall, S. Hotchkiss, and R. Easther, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018, 027–027 (2018)

2018
[175]

Nori and M

M. Nori and M. Baldi, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 478, 3935 (2018), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/478/3/3935/25079820/sty1224.pdf

2018
[176]

P. Mocz, A. Fialkov, M. Vogelsberger, F. Becerra, M. A. Amin, S. Bose, M. Boylan-Kolchin, P.-H. Chavanis, L. Hernquist, L. Lancaster, F. Marinacci, V. H. Robles, and J. Zavala, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 141301 (2019). 58

2019
[177]

Zimmermann, D

T. Zimmermann, D. J. E. Marsh, K. K. Rogers, H. A. Winther, and S. Shen, (2024), arXiv:2412.10829 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[178]

B. V. Church, P. Mocz, and J. P. Ostriker, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 485, 2861–2876 (2019)

2019
[179]

Kim, Phys

H. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083031 (2024)

2024
[180]

Astrometric detection of ultralight dark matter,

J. A. Dror and S. Verner, “Astrometric detection of ultralight dark matter,” (2024), arXiv:2406.03526 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[181]

Eberhardt, E

A. Eberhardt, E. Ferreira, W. Luo, S. Lin, and Y. Li, (2025), arXiv:2502.20697 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[182]

J. H. H. Chan, H.-Y. Schive, S.-K. Wong, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 111102 (2020)

2020
[183]

G. d. Furlanetto, R. Della Monica, and I. De Martino, Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 075011 (2025), arXiv:2410.18659 [astro-ph.GA]

2025 arXiv
[184]

Dalal, J

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

2021
[185]

X. Li, L. Hui, and T. D. Yavetz, Physical Review D 103 (2021), 10.1103/physrevd.103.023508

2021 doi
[186]

J. L. Zagorac, I. Sands, N. Padmanabhan, and R. Easther, Physical Review D 105 (2022), 10.1103/phys- revd.105.103506

2022 doi
[187]

Zupancic and L

B. Zupancic and L. M. Widrow, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 527, 6189 (2023), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/527/3/6189/54022942/stad3620.pdf

2023
[188]

Khmelnitsky and V

A. Khmelnitsky and V. Rubakov, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014, 019–019 (2014)

2014
[189]

Budker, J

D. Budker, J. Eby, M. Gorghetto, M. Jiang, and G. Perez, JCAP 12, 021 (2023), arXiv:2306.12477 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[190]

Banerjee, D

A. Banerjee, D. Budker, J. Eby, V. V. Flambaum, H. Kim, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. Perez, JHEP 09, 004 (2020), arXiv:1912.04295 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[191]

Minami and E

Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 221301 (2020), arXiv:2011.11254 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[192]

J. R. Eskilt and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063503 (2022), arXiv:2205.13962 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[193]

J. R. Eskilt et al. (Cosmoglobe), Astron. Astrophys. 679, A144 (2023), arXiv:2305.02268 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[194]

BICEP2 and Keck Array Collaborations, Phys. Rev. D 96, 102003 (2017), 1705.02523

2017 arXiv
[195]

BICEP2 and Keck Array Collaborations, Astrophys. J. 949, 43 (2023), 2210.08038

2023
[196]

Namikawa et al

T. Namikawa et al. , Phys. Rev. D 101, 083527 (2020), arXiv:2001.10465 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[197]

Bianchini et al

F. Bianchini et al. (SPT), Phys. Rev. D 102, 083504 (2020), arXiv:2006.08061 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[198]

Bortolami, M

M. Bortolami, M. Billi, A. Gruppuso, P. Natoli, and L. Pagano, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 09, 075 (2022), 2206.01635

2022 arXiv
[199]

Zagatti, M

G. Zagatti, M. Bortolami, A. Gruppuso, P. Natoli, L. Pagano, and G. Fabbian, (2024), 2401.11973

2024 arXiv
[200]

Namikawa, Phys

T. Namikawa, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123521 (2024), 2404.13771

2024 arXiv
[201]

Greco, N

A. Greco, N. Bartolo, and A. Gruppuso, JCAP 05, 026 (2023), arXiv:2211.06380 [astro-ph.CO]

2023
[202]

Adachi et al

S. Adachi et al. , Phys. Rev. D 110, 063013 (2024), arXiv:2403.02096

2024 arXiv
[203]

Zhang, E

D. Zhang, E. G. M. Ferreira, I. Obata, and T. Namikawa, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103525 (2024), arXiv:2408.08063 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[204]

D. J. E. Marsh, Annalen Phys. 536, 2200609 (2024), arXiv:2211.13602 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[205]

A hybrid scheme for fuzzy dark matter simulations combining the schr¨ odinger and hamilton-jacobi-madelung equations,

A. Kunkel, H. Y. J. Chan, H.-Y. Schive, H. Huang, and P.-Y. Liao, “A hybrid scheme for fuzzy dark matter simulations combining the schr¨ odinger and hamilton-jacobi-madelung equations,” (2024), arXiv:2411.17288 [astro-ph.IM]

2024 arXiv
[206]

Schwabe, J

B. Schwabe, J. C. Niemeyer, and J. F. Engels, Physical Review D 94 (2016), 10.1103/physrevd.94.043513

2016 doi
[207]

May and V

S. May and V. Springel, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 506, 2603–2618 (2021)

2021
[208]

Felder and I

G. Felder and I. Tkachev, Computer Physics Communications 178, 929–932 (2008)

2008
[209]

J. T. Giblin, L. Hui, E. A. Lim, and I.-S. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 82, 045019 (2010)

2010
[210]

M. A. Amin, R. Easther, H. Finkel, R. Flauger, and M. P. Hertzberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 241302 (2012)

2012
[211]

Helfer, D

T. Helfer, D. J. Marsh, K. Clough, M. Fairbairn, E. A. Lim, and R. Becerril, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2017, 055–055 (2017)

2017
[212]

J. Y. Widdicombe, T. Helfer, and E. A. Lim, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020, 027 (2020)

2020
[213]

Buschmann, J

M. Buschmann, J. W. Foster, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 161103 (2020)

2020
[214]

Ling and M

S. Ling and M. A. Amin, JCAP 02, 025 (2025), arXiv:2408.05591 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[215]

Schive, J

H.-Y. Schive, J. A. ZuHone, N. J. Goldbaum, M. J. Turk, M. Gaspari, and C.-Y. Cheng, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 481, 4815–4840 (2018)

2018
[216]

Schutz, Phys

K. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123026 (2020)

2020
[217]

M. Nori, R. Murgia, V. Irˇ siˇ c, M. Baldi, and M. Viel, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society482, 3227 (2018), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/482/3/3227/26653692/sty2888.pdf

2018
[218]

Sipple, A

J. Sipple, A. Lidz, D. Grin, and G. Sun, (2024), arXiv:2407.17059 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[219]

High-redshift, small-scale tests of ultralight axion dark matter using hubble and webb galaxy uv luminosities,

H. Winch, K. K. Rogers, R. Hloˇ zek, and D. J. E. Marsh, “High-redshift, small-scale tests of ultralight axion dark matter using hubble and webb galaxy uv luminosities,” (2025), arXiv:2404.11071 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[220]

Ni, M.-Y

Y. Ni, M.-Y. Wang, Y. Feng, and T. DiMatteo, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 488, 5551 (2019), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/488/4/5551/29184488/stz2085.pdf. 59

2019
[221]

P. S. Corasaniti, S. Agarwal, D. J. E. Marsh, and S. Das, Phys. Rev. D 95, 083512 (2017)

2017
[222]

Schive, T

H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, T. Broadhurst, and K.-W. Huang, Astrophys. J. 818, 89 (2016), arXiv:1508.04621 [astro-ph.GA]

2016 arXiv
[223]

Schive, T

H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 201301 (2020)

2020
[224]

Davoudiasl and P

H. Davoudiasl and P. B. Denton, Physical Review Letters 123 (2019), 10.1103/physrevlett.123.021102

2019 doi
[225]

M. J. Stott and D. J. Marsh, Physical Review D 98 (2018), 10.1103/physrevd.98.083006

2018 doi
[226]

L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Physical Review D 95 (2017), 10.1103/physrevd.95.043541

2017 doi
[227]

Drlica-Wagner, K

A. Drlica-Wagner, K. Bechtol, S. Mau, M. McNanna, E. O. Nadler, A. B. Pace, T. S. Li, A. Pieres, E. Rozo, J. D. Simon, A. R. Walker, R. H. Wechsler, T. M. C. Abbott, S. Allam, J. Annis, E. Bertin, D. Brooks, D. L. Burke, A. C. Rosell, M. Carrasco Kind, J. Carretero, M. Costanz...

2020
[228]

T. M. C. Abbott, F. B. Abdalla, S. Allam, A. Amara, J. Annis, J. Asorey, S. Avila, O. Ballester, M. Banerji, W. Barkhouse, L. Baruah, M. Baumer, K. Bechtol, M. R. Becker, A. Benoit-L´ evy, G. M. Bernstein, E. Bertin, J. Blazek, S. Bocquet, D. Brooks, D. Brout, E. Buckley-Geer,...

2018
[229]

The pan-starrs1 surveys,

K. C. Chambers, E. A. Magnier, N. Metcalfe, H. A. Flewelling, M. E. Huber, C. Z. Waters, L. Denneau, P. W. Draper, D. Farrow, D. P. Finkbeiner, C. Holmberg, J. Koppenhoefer, P. A. Price, A. Rest, R. P. Saglia, E. F. Schlafly, S. J. Smartt, W. Sweeney, R. J. Wainscoat, W. S. Bu...

2019 arXiv
[230]

Banik, J

N. Banik, J. Bovy, G. Bertone, D. Erkal, and T. de Boer, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021, 043 (2021). 60

2021
[231]

Gilman, S

D. Gilman, S. Birrer, A. Nierenberg, T. Treu, X. Du, and A. Benson, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 491, 6077–6101 (2019)

2019
[232]

Gough and C

A. Gough and C. Uhlemann, Open J. Astrophys. 7, 2024 (2024), arXiv:2405.15852 [astro-ph.CO]

2024
[233]

Villaescusa-Navarro, S

F. Villaescusa-Navarro, S. Genel, E. Castorina, A. Obuljen, D. N. Spergel, L. Hernquist, D. Nelson, I. P. Carucci, A. Pillepich, F. Marinacci, B. Diemer, M. Vogelsberger, R. Weinberger, and R. Pakmor, The Astrophysical Journal 866, 135 (2018)

2018
[234]

M. P. Haynes, R. Giovanelli, B. R. Kent, E. A. K. Adams, T. J. Balonek, D. W. Craig, D. Fertig, R. Finn, C. Giovanardi, G. Hallenbeck, K. M. Hess, G. L. Hoffman, S. Huang, M. G. Jones, R. A. Koopmann, D. A. Kornreich, L. Leisman, J. Miller, C. Moorman, J. O’Connor, A. O’Donogh...

2018
[235]

B. S. Koribalski, L. Staveley-Smith, T. Westmeier, P. Serra, K. Spekkens, O. I. Wong, K. Lee-Waddell, C. D. P. Lagos, D. Obreschkow, E. V. Ryan-Weber, M. Zwaan, V. Kilborn, G. Bekiaris, K. Bekki, F. Bigiel, A. Boselli, A. Bosma, B. Catinella, G. Chauhan, M. E. Cluver, M. Colle...

2020
[236]

Lelli, S

F. Lelli, S. S. McGaugh, and J. M. Schombert, The Astronomical Journal 152, 157 (2016)

2016
[237]

J. H. H. Chan, H.-Y. Schive, T.-P. Woo, and T. Chiueh, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 478, 2686–2699 (2018)

2018
[238]

V. M. Gorkavenko, O. V. Barabash, T. V. Gorkavenko, O. M. Teslyk, A. O. Zaporozhchenko, J. Jia, A. I. Yakimenko, and E. V. Gorbar, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 235013 (2024), arXiv:2408.00104 [astro-ph.GA]

2024 arXiv
[239]

Lancaster, C

L. Lancaster, C. Giovanetti, P. Mocz, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, and D. N. Spergel, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020, 001–001 (2020)

2020
[240]

Wang and R

Y. Wang and R. Easther, Physical Review D 105 (2022), 10.1103/physrevd.105.063523

2022 doi
[241]

R. Boey, Y. Wang, E. Kendall, and R. Easther, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103526 (2024), arXiv:2403.09038 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[242]

M. E. Spencer, M. Mateo, M. G. Walker, E. W. Olszewski, A. W. McConnachie, E. N. Kirby, and A. Koch, The Astronomical Journal 153, 254 (2017)

2017
[243]

K. K. Rogers and H. V. Peiris, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 071302 (2021), arXiv:2007.12705 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[244]

Irˇ siˇ c, M

V. Irˇ siˇ c, M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, J. S. Bolton, and G. D. Becker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 031302 (2017), arXiv:1703.04683 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[245]

Armengaud, N

E. Armengaud, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, D. J. E. Marsh, and J. Baur, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471, 4606 (2017), arXiv:1703.09126 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[246]

Kobayashi, R

T. Kobayashi, R. Murgia, A. De Simone, V. Irˇ siˇ c, and M. Viel, Phys. Rev. D 96, 123514 (2017), arXiv:1708.00015 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[247]

L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro- ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[248]

Laroche, D

A. Laroche, D. Gilman, X. Li, J. Bovy, and X. Du, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 1867 (2022), arXiv:2206.11269 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[249]

Amruth et al

A. Amruth et al. , Nature Astron. 7, 736 (2023), arXiv:2304.09895 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[250]

A. Basu, J. Goswami, D. J. Schwarz, and Y. Urakawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 191102 (2021), arXiv:2007.01440 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[251]

J. D. Simon, M. Geha, Q. E. Minor, G. D. Martinez, E. N. Kirby, J. S. Bullock, M. Kaplinghat, L. E. Strigari, B. Willman, P. I. Choi, E. J. Tollerud, and J. Wolf, The Astrophysical Journal 733, 46 (2011)

2011
[252]

E. N. Kirby, M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. G. Cohen, M. Geha, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat, The Astrophysical Journal 770, 16 (2013)

2013
[253]

Binney, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 401, 2318 (2010)

J. Binney, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 401, 2318 (2010)

2010
[254]

H.-Y. Yang, B. T. Chiang, G.-M. Su, H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, and J. P. Ostriker, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 530, 129 (2024), arXiv:2403.09845 [astro-ph.GA]

2024 arXiv
[255]

B. T. Chiang, J. P. Ostriker, and H.-Y. Schive, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 518, 4045 (2022), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/518/3/4045/47588944/stac3358.pdf

2022
[256]

M. G. Walker, M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, J. Pe˜ narrubia, N. W. Evans, and G. Gilmore, The Astrophysical Journal 704, 1274 (2009)

2009
[257]

A. Koch, J. T. Kleyna, M. I. Wilkinson, E. K. Grebel, G. F. Gilmore, N. W. Evans, R. F. G. Wyse, and D. R. Harbeck, The Astronomical Journal 134, 566 (2007). 61

2007
[258]

D. Blas, S. Gasparotto, and R. Vicente, Phys. Rev. D 111, 042008 (2025)

2025
[259]

P. Brax, P. Valageas, C. Burrage, and J. A. R. Cembranos, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083515 (2024)

2024
[260]

Arvanitaki and S

A. Arvanitaki and S. Dubovsky, Phys. Rev. D 83, 044026 (2011), arXiv:1004.3558

2011 arXiv
[261]

Baryakhtar, R

M. Baryakhtar, R. Lasenby, and M. Teo, Phys. Rev. D 96, 035019 (2017), arXiv:1704.05081 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[262]

Brito, S

R. Brito, S. Grillo, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 211101 (2020), arXiv:2002.04055

2020 arXiv
[263]

Cardoso, C

V. Cardoso, C. F. B. Macedo, P. Pani, and V. Ferrari, JCAP 05, 054 (2016), [Erratum: JCAP 04, E01 (2020)], arXiv:1604.07845 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[264]

N. P. Branco, R. Z. Ferreira, and J. a. G. Rosa, JCAP 04, 003 (2023), arXiv:2301.01780 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[265]

Calz` a, J

M. Calz` a, J. a. G. Rosa, and F. Serrano, JHEP 05, 140 (2024), arXiv:2306.09430 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[266]

Yoshino and H

H. Yoshino and H. Kodama, Prog. Theor. Phys. 128, 153 (2012), arXiv:1203.5070 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[267]

Kawasaki, F

M. Kawasaki, F. Takahashi, and M. Yamada, Phys. Lett. B 753, 677 (2016), arXiv:1511.05030 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[268]

Baryakhtar, M

M. Baryakhtar, M. Galanis, R. Lasenby, and O. Simon, Phys. Rev. D 103, 095019 (2021), arXiv:2011.11646 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[269]

Collaviti, L

S. Collaviti, L. Sun, M. Galanis, and M. Baryakhtar, Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 025006 (2025), arXiv:2407.04304 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[270]

Xie and F

N. Xie and F. P. Huang, (2025), arXiv:2503.10347 [hep-ph]

2025
[271]

Hlozek, D

R. Hlozek, D. Grin, D. J. E. Marsh, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 91, 103512 (2015), arXiv:1410.2896 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[272]

Hloˇ zek, D

R. Hloˇ zek, D. J. E. Marsh, D. Grin, R. Allison, J. Dunkley, and E. Calabrese, Phys. Rev. D 95, 123511 (2017), arXiv:1607.08208 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[273]

Hlozek, D

R. Hlozek, D. J. E. Marsh, and D. Grin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 476, 3063 (2018), arXiv:1708.05681 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[274]

Lagu¨ e, J

A. Lagu¨ e, J. R. Bond, R. Hloˇ zek, D. J. E. Marsh, and L. S¨ oding, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 2391 (2021), arXiv:2004.08482 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[275]

K. K. Rogers, R. Hloˇ zek, A. Lagu¨ e, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, G. Cabass, K. Akitsu, and D. J. E. Marsh, JCAP 06, 023 (2023), arXiv:2301.08361 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[276]

Calabrese et al

E. Calabrese et al. (ACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[277]

Amruth, T

A. Amruth, T. Broadhurst, J. Lim, M. Oguri, G. F. Smoot, J. M. Diego, E. Leung, R. Emami, J. Li, T. Chiueh, H.-Y. Schive, M. C. H. Yeung, and S. K. Li, Nature Astronomy 7, 736–747 (2023)

2023
[278]

A. Lapi, T. Ronconi, L. Boco, F. Shankar, N. Krachmalnicoff, C. Baccigalupi, and L. Danese, Universe 8 (2022), 10.3390/universe8090476

2022 doi
[279]

Dark matter search results from 4.2 tonne-years of exposure of the lux-zeplin (lz) experiment,

J. Aalbers, D. S. Akerib, A. K. A. Musalhi, F. Alder, C. S. Amarasinghe, A. Ames, T. J. Anderson, N. Angelides, H. M. Ara´ ujo, J. E. Armstrong, M. Arthurs, A. Baker, S. Balashov, J. Bang, J. W. Bargemann, E. E. Barillier, D. Bauer, K. Beattie, T. Benson, A. Bhatti, A. Biekert...

2024 arXiv
[280]

Penrose and L

O. Penrose and L. Onsager, Physical Review 104, 576 (1956)

1956
[281]

A. J. Leggett, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 307 (2001)

2001
[282]

P. D. Drummond and Z. Ficek, Quantum squeezing, Vol. 27 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013). 63

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [28]

Svrcek and E

P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Journal of High Energy Physics 2006, 051–051 (2006)

2006

[2] [31]

Tremaine and J

S. Tremaine and J. E. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 407 (1979)

1979

[3] [144]

X. Li, L. Hui, and G. L. Bryan, Physical Review D 99 (2019), 10.1103/physrevd.99.063509

doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.063509 2019

[4] [155]

K. K. Rogers and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L012018 (2025), arXiv:2311.16377 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2025

[5] [32]

W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158 (2000)

2000

[6] [1]

random walk

SPARC catalog Comparisons of the rotation curves predicted for these cores and the observed rotation curves are used to place constraints on the ultralight dark matter mass in [31, 39]. The central argument made is that the specific kinetic energy in the soliton and the halo is the same [39, 40], i.e. K/Ms ≈ K/Mhalo . (169) The empirical scaling relations...

[7] [2]

TheMHI −Mh relation is inferred from simulations [220]

HI observations Similar work was done using simulation-informed halo mass functions and comparisons with those observa- tionally inferred from HI surveys, ALF ALF A, and W ALLABY in [30]. TheMHI −Mh relation is inferred from simulations [220]. As a result, the largest source of systematic uncertainty was determined to be whether simulated data may predict...

[8] [3]

Observations of high redshift galaxies are compared with the expected suppression of the halo mass function

Ultraviolet luminosity function The ultraviolet luminosity function was studied [205–209]. Observations of high redshift galaxies are compared with the expected suppression of the halo mass function. The modeling of the halo mass function is generally done semi-analytically. Data is taken from the Hubble frontier fields, producing a constraint of 1.5 × 10...