Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 81 references

The Sagittarius stellar stream embedded in a fermionic dark matter halo

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spherical halos built from a quantum-statistical fermionic dark matter model reproduce only the trailing arm of the Sagittarius stream, failing on the leading tail across all allowed mass profiles.

desk verdict Useful first test of fermionic RAR halos against the Sgr stream, with a clean negative result that is slightly overgeneralized beyond the sparse parameter coverage. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15550 v1 pith:DFUP6IR7 submitted 2025-05-21 astro-ph.GA

Santiago Collazo , Martín F. Mestre , Carlos R. Argüelles This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords SagittariusstreamstellarfermionicdarkmatterRARmodelMilkyWayhalotidaldisruptionsprayalgorithmshape
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 paper tests, for the first time, a dark matter halo model built from quantum statistical mechanics and thermodynamics—the Ruffini-Argüelles-Rueda (RAR) model, a spherical self-gravitating gas of neutral fermions—against the full 6D phase-space observations of the Sagittarius stellar stream. The authors construct both host and progenitor halos with this model plus baryonic components, generate tidal debris with a spray algorithm using roughly $10^{5}$ particles, and compare the predicted stream with observed positions, proper motions, and line-of-sight velocities. Their central finding is that, within the observationally allowed range of enclosed Milky Way masses, no spherical fermionic halo—neither those with polytropic tails nor those with power-law-like tails—can match the stream's leading arm; only the trailing arm is reproduced. The paper concludes that reproducing the whole stream requires abandoning spherical symmetry and including the Large Magellanic Cloud as a perturber. If right, this sets a concrete boundary on where this first-principles dark matter model can be applied and what extensions it needs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Ruffini-Argüelles-Rueda (RAR) model: a spherical, self-gravitating system of neutral fermions in thermodynamic equilibrium, described by a Fermi-Dirac distribution function with a cutoff, and solved through the Einstein equations in spherical symmetry. The physics of fermion degeneracy creates a dense compact core at the center, while particle escape gives a finite halo whose outer tail is polytropic for a 56 keV particle mass and power-law-like for a 20 keV mass. The tidal debris is generated with a spray algorithm that ejects $10^{5}$ stars from the two Lagrange points, using the Gajda–Lokas tidal radius prescription, and the halo parameters are fixed by fitting the enclosed mass profiles to three values at 12, 40, and 80 kpc taken from Gibbons et al. (2014). The comparison dataset is the 6D phase-space track of the stream from Vasiliev et al. (2021) and the analytic proper-motion and velocity curves of Ibata et al. (2020).

What would settle it

Measure the Milky Way's enclosed mass at 12, 40, and 80 kiloparsecs independently of the Sagittarius stream—using other stellar streams, globular clusters, or Gaia astrometry—and check whether the values in Gibbons et al. (2014) that anchor all four halos are correct; alternatively, construct a spherical fermionic halo with an enclosed-mass profile inside the observational error bars that reproduces the leading arm's distance trend and proper motions. If such a profile exists, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across four dark matter halo models—three fermionic RAR halos (RAR 1, RAR 2 at 56 keV, RAR 3 at 20 keV) and one Burkert profile—the paper finds that none can reproduce the observed leading arm of the Sagittarius stream, while all four reproduce the trailing arm. The failing leading tail sits closer to the Galactic center than the data, its proper motions and line-of-sight velocities deviate from the observed fits, and the predicted heliocentric opening angle between the arms is too large. The result holds whether the fermionic halo develops a polytropic outer tail or a power-law-like tail similar to Burkert, and across the range of enclosed Milky Way masses allowed by apocenter-based constraints. The authors read this as a firm limitation on applying the first-principles fermionic halo model to the outer Milky Way, and conclude that reproducing the full stream requires going beyond spherical symmetry, for example by adding the Large Magellanic Cloud as a perturber.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three values for how much dark matter the Milky Way contains inside 12, 40, and 80 kiloparsecs, taken from Gibbons et al. (2014), correctly bracket the allowed mass in the region where the Sagittarius stream moves; if that mass range is wrong or too narrow, the leading-tail failure does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The trailing arm of the Sagittarius stream is reproduced by all four spherical halo models, so it is a robust probe of the Milky Way's total enclosed mass in the 10–80 kpc region.
  • The leading arm, in contrast, rejects every spherical halo tested, which means that no spherically symmetric dark matter distribution can simultaneously satisfy the stream's distance, proper-motion, and velocity data.
  • Power-law-like halo tails (RAR 3 and Burkert) come slightly closer to the leading-arm data than polytropic tails, pointing toward higher enclosed masses in the 30–60 kpc range as a partial remedy.
  • A first-principles fermionic halo that reproduces the whole stream must abandon spherical symmetry and incorporate the gravitational influence of the Large Magellanic Cloud, as phenomenological models already do.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to rerun this spray algorithm with a mildly triaxial or oblate version of the RAR profile, or with an added LMC perturber, to see whether the leading tail can be recovered while keeping the trailing-arm fit intact.
  • The pattern of failure suggests the leading tail of Sagittarius is a sharper discriminator of halo asphericity than the Galactic rotation curve, which these same fermionic models fit well; streams may therefore be the better observable for pinning down the halo shape.
  • If a non-spherical version of the RAR model succeeds, it would simultaneously keep the dense fermion-core explanation of the Galactic center and resolve the stream discrepancy, linking the central and outer halo with one particle mass.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs Milky Way and Sagittarius dwarf models with dark matter halos described by the Ruffini-Argüelles-Rueda (RAR) fermionic model, a first-principles core-halo profile derived from quantum statistical mechanics. It generates Sgr tidal debris with a spray algorithm using roughly 10^5 particles, including the self-gravity of the progenitor, and compares the resulting streams with the full 6D observational dataset of Ibata et al. (2020) and Vasiliev et al. (2021). Four host halo models are tested: three RAR halos (RAR 1 and RAR 2 with m = 56 keV and polytropic tails; RAR 3 with m = 20 keV and a power-law-like tail) and a Burkert halo, with the latter three fitted to enclosed-mass values from Gibbons et al. (2014). The main finding is that all four models reproduce the trailing arm in phase space but fail to match the distance trend, proper motions, and line-of-sight velocities of the leading tail, leading the authors to conclude that spherical fermionic halos require further sophistication such as LMC perturbations or triaxiality.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a valuable first application of a first-principles fermionic dark matter model to the Sagittarius stream, complementing previous phenomenological halo studies. The paper makes a genuinely falsifiable prediction: for the tested RAR configurations, the leading tail discrepancy persists while the trailing arm is broadly consistent. Its strengths include the use of full 6D data, the comparison of two physically distinct halo-tail families, the inclusion of the progenitor's self-gravity, and the independent RAR 1 model, which was not fitted to Sgr stream data yet also fails on the leading tail. The central claim, however, is stated more broadly than the evidence: the paper tests only four discrete models, not the full observationally allowed mass window, and several of those models are fitted to stream-derived mass constraints.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 6; Sec. 3.1] The headline conclusion that 'within the observationally allowed span of enclosed masses where the stream moves, neither the power-law-like nor the polytropic behaviour of the fermionic halo models can answer for the observed trend of the leading tail' is stronger than the sampling supports. Only three RAR models and one Burkert model are simulated (Table 4), and the three RAR models are three discrete points in the four-dimensional parameter space (theta0, W0, beta0, m), selected to pass through the specific mass triples in Table 3. The paper itself notes that CPU time precludes a Monte Carlo scan (Sec. 3.1), so the data demonstrate a null result for these four models, not for the full 2-sigma allowed mass window of Gibbons et al. (2014). I request either a softened conclusion ('for the four tested models') or an explicit sparse exploration of the allowed M(r) window, such as bracketing models at the lower and upper 2-sigma bounds of M(12), M(40), and M(80), to substantiate the universality claim.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Table 3, Sec. 5] The independence of the test is weaker than presented for RAR 2, RAR 3, and the Burkert model. These halos are fitted to the enclosed masses M(12), M(40), and M(80) that Gibbons et al. (2014) derived from the same Sgr apocenter distances used to define the stream morphology in Table 7, so the agreement of these models with the observed leading-arm apocenter is partly by construction. The main negative result, namely the leading-arm distance trend and proper-motion discrepancies, is not a fitting target, and RAR 1 is an independent configuration that also fails, so the conclusion is not circular in its central part. Still, the paper should identify for each model which quantities are independent predictions and which are inherited from the fitting targets, so the reader can gauge the strength of the test.
  3. [Sec. 5, Figs. 7-8, Table 7] The quantitative support for the negative result lacks uncertainty estimates. The Gaussian fits to the mock stream tails in Fig. 8 and the resulting apocentric distances in Table 7 are quoted without error bars, and the choice of ejection-time cuts (t > -2 Gyr for the leading tail and t < -2 Gyr for the trailing tail) is not varied. Because the central claim is a null result that depends on the size of the discrepancy relative to the model's internal scatter, the authors should provide at least a bootstrap estimate over the ~10^5 ejected stars or a sensitivity test with respect to the time cuts. Without this, a reader cannot assess whether, for example, the RAR 3 and Burkert leading tails are discrepant at a robust level or only at a level comparable to the realization noise.
  4. [Sec. 5, Table 7] The statement in Sec. 5 that the four models 'agree very well with the observations' for the trailing arm is stronger than the quantitative summary in Table 7. The predicted trailing apocentric distances are a_T = 62-76 kpc, whereas the observed values quoted in the paper are a_T = 102.5 +/- 2.5 kpc (Belokurov et al. 2014) and 98.95 +/- 1.3 kpc (Hernitschek et al. 2017), i.e., the models are low by roughly 25-35%. The proper-motion and distance tracks may agree in shape over the plotted longitude range, but calling this 'reproducing the trailing arm' obscures a large apocenter mismatch; please either quantify the sense in which the trailing arm is reproduced or qualify the claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reads 'with∼ 105 particles'; this should be 'with ~10^5 particles'.
  2. [Table 3 note] The note says RAR 1 'fulfills the specific values at four different radii,' but RAR 1 was not fitted to these values; please distinguish fitted constraints (RAR 2, RAR 3, Burkert) from a posteriori values of an independently chosen model (RAR 1).
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The sentence 'These selected masses ... belong to 2 sigma mass dispersion interval' should specify whether this is a marginal 2-sigma interval for each mass or a joint 2-sigma region, since the three mass points are correlated through the same stream model.
  4. [Sec. 2, Table 6] Table 6 reports model circular velocities at the Sun of 199.4-215.0 km/s, while Sec. 2 adopts a fixed solar azimuthal velocity of 255.2 km/s and calls v_c(R_sun) model dependent; please clarify whether the table entries are total circular velocities and how the fixed solar motion remains consistent with the models.
  5. [Sec. 6 and Abstract] The phrase 'answer for the observed trend' should be 'account for the observed trend' in both places.
  6. [References] The reference list entry 'GRA VITY Collaboration' should be 'GRAVITY Collaboration'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partially fitted potential inputs; the leading-tail negative result is independent, so circularity is partial rather than total.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.1 (Table 3 and differential-evolution fits), compared in Sec. 5]
    "The DM models RAR 2 and RAR 3 are asked to fulfill (within 2σ dispersion) with selected accumulated total mass values as inferred in Gibbons et al. (2014) from the observed apocentric distances of the leading and trailing arms of the stream and their opening angle ... To find the best values of the free parameters in the RAR and Burkert models, we used a differential evolution algorithm to fit the predicted enclosed mass to the values in Table 3."

    RAR 2, RAR 3, and Burkert are constructed by fitting M(12 kpc), M(40 kpc), and M(80 kpc) to values that Gibbons et al. inferred from the same Sgr stream's apocentric distances and opening angle. The resulting Galactic potentials therefore encode the stream's own large-scale radial-mass information before any simulation is run. When the simulations then reproduce trailing-arm features and the overall orbit, this agreement is partly inherited from the fitted input, not independently predicted. The leading-tail discrepancy, however, is not part of the fitting target, and RAR 1 (fixed by independent rotation-curve/S-star data) also fails; hence the central negative result retains independent content.

full rationale

The core circularity concern is confined to the three stream-fitted mass models. The paper is transparent about the fitting: RAR 2, RAR 3, and the Burkert profile are adjusted with differential evolution to enclosed-mass constraints at 12, 40, and 80 kpc that ultimately derive from the Sgr stream apocenters, so their later agreement with the trailing arm is partly built in. This is a genuine fitted-input-called-prediction element and prevents a score of 0. The main conclusion is nevertheless not circular in its decisive part: the leading-tail mismatch is not a fitting target, and the same qualitative failure occurs for RAR 1, whose parameters were adopted from independent Milky Way rotation-curve and S-cluster analyses rather than from the Sgr stream. The RAR model itself is borrowed from the authors' prior work, but here it is used as a theory to be tested against external 6D stream data, not assumed true to derive the result; prior self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing for the Sgr leading-tail claim. The paper also honestly discloses that CPU time prevented Monte Carlo sampling; the phrase within the observationally allowed span of enclosed masses is therefore broader than the four discrete simulated models support. That is a claim-strength limitation, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 24 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a pre-existing fermionic dark matter construction (the RAR model), on literature values for the Milky Way baryonic components and mass constraints, and on modeling choices for the spray algorithm. No new entities are introduced by this paper, but every RAR halo needs several fitted parameters, and the mass constraints used for fitting derive partly from the same stream observables.

free parameters (24)
  • RAR 1 fermion mass m = 56 keV
    Core-halo parameters from Becerra-Vergara et al. (2020, 2021), used as an independent Milky Way RAR setup.
  • RAR 1 degeneracy parameter theta0 = 37.766
    Adopted from previously published Milky Way fit.
  • RAR 1 cutoff parameter W0 = 66.341
    Adopted from previously published Milky Way fit.
  • RAR 1 temperature parameter beta0 = 1.198e-5
    Adopted from previously published Milky Way fit.
  • RAR 2 fermion mass m = 56 keV
    Chosen to produce a compact degenerate core; fit to enclosed mass targets in Table 3.
  • RAR 2 degeneracy parameter theta0 = 37.416
    Fit with differential evolution to Milky Way enclosed masses.
  • RAR 2 cutoff parameter W0 = 65.745
    Fit with differential evolution to Milky Way enclosed masses.
  • RAR 2 temperature parameter beta0 = 1.208e-5
    Fit with differential evolution to Milky Way enclosed masses.
  • RAR 3 fermion mass m = 20 keV
    Lower mass chosen to produce a power-law-like outer tail similar to Burkert.
  • RAR 3 degeneracy parameter theta0 = 34.417
    Fit with differential evolution to Milky Way enclosed masses.
  • RAR 3 cutoff parameter W0 = 68.835
    Fit with differential evolution to Milky Way enclosed masses.
  • RAR 3 temperature parameter beta0 = 1.274e-7
    Fit with differential evolution to Milky Way enclosed masses.
  • Sgr56 fermion mass m = 56 keV
    Progenitor halo used for the RAR 1 and RAR 2 host cases.
  • Sgr56 degeneracy parameter theta0 = 31.611
    Fit to Sagittarius enclosed mass constraints.
  • Sgr56 cutoff parameter W0 = 56.065
    Fit to Sagittarius enclosed mass constraints.
  • Sgr56 temperature parameter beta0 = 2.436e-8
    Fit to Sagittarius enclosed mass constraints.
  • Sgr20 fermion mass m = 20 keV
    Progenitor halo used for the RAR 3 and Burkert host cases.
  • Sgr20 degeneracy parameter theta0 = 25.919
    Fit to Sagittarius enclosed mass constraints.
  • Sgr20 cutoff parameter W0 = 52.236
    Fit to Sagittarius enclosed mass constraints.
  • Sgr20 temperature parameter beta0 = 2.312e-9
    Fit to Sagittarius enclosed mass constraints.
  • Burkert central density rho0 = 2.197e7 M_sun/kpc^3
    Fit to the enclosed mass values of Table 3.
  • Burkert scale radius r0 = 10.087 kpc
    Fit to the enclosed mass values of Table 3.
  • Progenitor initial Galactocentric distance per model = 24.57, 25.64, 25.88, 25.3 kpc
    Varied per model in Table 6 to produce approximately the same apocenter as Law et al. (2005).
  • Backward integration time per model = -3.0, -3.22, -2.7, -2.75 Gyr
    Adjusted per model to reach similar initial positions for the spray algorithm.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The RAR fermionic distribution function, derived from a maximum entropy production principle, is a valid description of galactic dark matter halos for both host and satellite.
    Invoked in Sec. 3.1; not derived in this paper, taken from Arguelles et al. (2018) and prior works by the same group.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way and Sgr dark matter halos are spherically symmetric for the purpose of stream generation.
    Used throughout Secs. 3.1 and 4; this is the assumption the paper ultimately calls into question.
  • domain assumption The enclosed mass constraints from Gibbons et al. (2014) in Table 3 define the observationally allowed mass range in the 10-60 kpc radial window.
    Used as fitting targets for RAR 2, RAR 3, and Burkert profiles in Sec. 3.1.
  • domain assumption A time-independent combined potential with a constant-mass progenitor and no LMC is sufficient to generate a realistic Sgr stream for comparison.
    The spray algorithm in Sec. 4 neglects progenitor mass loss and LMC; the authors later argue LMC is needed, so this is a limitation of the tested setup.
  • domain assumption The Gajda and Lokas (2016) tidal radius formula, with p(r) computed from the DM component only, is accurate for locating the Lagrange points.
    Introduced in Sec. 4, Eq. (7), with an explicit discussion of the spherical-symmetry mismatch with the baryonic disks.
  • standard math The TOV equilibrium and Fermi-Dirac equation of state used in the RAR model are solved correctly.
    Numerical solution details are referenced to Mestre et al. (2024), not shown in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Sagittarius stellar stream embedded in a fermionic dark matter halo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DFUP6IR7

@misc{pith2026250515550,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Sagittarius stellar stream embedded in a fermionic dark matter halo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DFUP6IR7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15550}
}
abstract

Stellar streams are essential tracers of the gravitational potential of the Milky Way, with key implications to the problem of dark matter (DM) model distributions, either within or beyond phenomenological $\Lambda$CDM halos. For the first time in the literature, a DM halo model based on first physical principles such as quantum statistical mechanics and thermodynamics is used to try to reproduce the 6D observations of the Sagittarius (Sgr) stream. We model both DM haloes, the one of Sgr dwarf and the one of its host with a spherical self-gravitating system of neutral fermions which accounts for the effects of particles escape and fermion degeneracy, the latter causing a high-density core at the center of the halo. Full baryonic components for each galaxy are also considered. We use a spray algorithm with $\sim 10^{5}$ particles to generate the Sgr tidal debris, which evolves in the gravitational potential of the host-progenitor system, to compare with the full phase-space data of the stream. We repeat this kind of simulations for different parameter setups of the fermionic model including the particle mass, with special attention to test different DM halo morphologies allowed by the physics. We find that across the different families of fermionic halo models, they can only reproduce the trailing arm of the Sgr stream. Within the observationally allowed span of enclosed masses where the stream moves, neither the power-law like, nor the polytropic behaviour of the fermionic halo models can answer for the observed trend of the leading tail. A conclusion which is shared by former analysis using other type of spherically symmetric haloes. We conclude that further model sophistications such as abandoning spherical symmetry and including the Large Magellanic Cloud perturber are needed for a proper modelisation of the overall Milky Way potential within this kind of first principle halo models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15550 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Best-fit proper motions (upper panel) and line of sight veloc￾ity (middle panel) functions described by the expressions given in Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively. Their coefficients are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: RAR enclosed mass profiles corresponding to the best-fit parameters given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Tidal radius evolution for each model of gravitational potential considered in this work. The time intervals where each one is computed differ according to the parameters given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Orbits of the Sgr dSph integrated backward in time projected in the x−z plane of the Galactocentric system. The orbits corresponding to the four models under consideration are shown. The black dot denotes the region where the backward integrations start. of stars that …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Streams of stars projected in the x − z plane at present, color coded by the ejection time. The black dots represent the x − z coordinates of the Vasiliev et al. (2021) stars. The green solid lines indicate the orbit of the satellite in its corresponding gravitational …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Streams of stars in the D − Λ⊙ space at present color coded by the ejection time. The black solid curve represents the distance trend of the Vasiliev et al. (2021) stars, while the shaded region is the distance error, both quantities being moving means as a function of…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Analytic functions tracing the Galactocentric distance of both main tails of the Sgr stellar stream, the leading one (left plot) and the trailing one (right plot). Every curve is a Gaussian function, whose maximum represents the value of its corresponding apocentric di…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Circular velocity profiles for each DM model studied in this work. The shaded gray region represents the zone where the progeni￾tor moves along its way around the Milky Way. The shaded blue region denotes the reproduced 95% confidence region of the best-fit circular ve…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mock stream star µB⊙ components at present, color coded by the ejection time. The solid black line represents the sigma-clipping fitted line computed by I+2020. The light-blue shaded region is the confidence interval shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Line of sight velocity component of the stars of the four predicted streams at present, color coded with their ejection time. The solid black line represents the fitted line of sight velocity as a function of Λ⊙ computed by I+2020, based on the Law & Majewski (2010) m…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, , 635, L3

    Antoja , T., Ramos , P., Mateu , C., et al. 2020, , 635, L3

    2020

  2. [2]

    R., Becerra-Vergara , E

    Arg \"u elles , C. R., Becerra-Vergara , E. A., Rueda , J. A., & Ruffini , R. 2023 a , Universe, 9, 197

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    R., Boshkayev , K., Krut , A., et al

    Arg \"u elles , C. R., Boshkayev , K., Krut , A., et al. 2023 b , , 523, 2209

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Arg \"u elles , C. R. & Collazo , S. 2023, Universe, 9, 372

    2023

  5. [5]

    R., D \' az , M

    Arg \"u elles , C. R., D \' az , M. I., Krut , A., & Yunis , R. 2021, , 502, 4227

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    R., Mestre , M

    Arg \"u elles , C. R., Mestre , M. F., Becerra-Vergara , E. A., et al. 2022, , 511, L35

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    R., Rueda , J

    Arg \"u elles , C. R., Rueda , J. A., & Ruffini , R. 2024, , 961, L10

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    2018, Physics of the Dark Universe, 21, 82

    Argüelles, C., Krut, A., Rueda, J., & Ruffini, R. 2018, Physics of the Dark Universe, 21, 82

    work page 2018

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    2019, Physics of the Dark Universe, 24, 100278

    Argüelles, C., Krut, A., Rueda, J., & Ruffini, R. 2019, Physics of the Dark Universe, 24, 100278

    2019

  2. [10]

    A., Arg\"uelles , C

    Becerra-Vergara , E. A., Arg\"uelles , C. R., Krut , A., Rueda , J. A., & Ruffini , R. 2020, A&A, 641, A34

    2020

  3. [11]

    A., Arg \"u elles , C

    Becerra-Vergara , E. A., Arg \"u elles , C. R., Krut , A., Rueda , J. A., & Ruffini , R. 2021, , 505, L64

    2021

  4. [12]

    W., Irwin, M

    Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., Irwin, M. J., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 658, 337

    2007

  5. [13]

    E., Evans , N

    Belokurov , V., Koposov , S. E., Evans , N. W., et al. 2014, , 437, 116

    2014

  6. [14]

    & Hogg , D

    Bonaca , A. & Hogg , D. W. 2018, , 867, 101

    2018

  7. [15]

    & Price-Whelan , A

    Bonaca , A. & Price-Whelan , A. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19410

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bowden , A., Belokurov , V., & Evans , N. W. 2015, , 449, 1391

    2015

  9. [17]

    1995, , 447, L25

    Burkert , A. 1995, , 447, L25

    1995

  10. [18]

    2004, Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 332, 89

    Chavanis , P.-H. 2004, Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 332, 89

    2004

  11. [19]

    P., Ro s kar , R., Valluri , M., et al

    Debattista , V. P., Ro s kar , R., Valluri , M., et al. 2013, , 434, 2971

    2013

  12. [20]

    & Widrow , L

    Deg , N. & Widrow , L. 2013, , 428, 912

    2013

  13. [21]

    Dierickx , M. I. P. & Loeb , A. 2017, , 836, 92

    2017

  14. [22]

    I., Majewski, S

    Dinescu, D. I., Majewski, S. R., Girard, T. M., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 575, L67

    2002

  15. [23]

    A., Huang, S., & Weinberg, M

    Fardal, M. A., Huang, S., & Weinberg, M. D. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 301

    2015

  16. [24]

    A., van der Marel , R

    Fardal , M. A., van der Marel , R. P., Law , D. R., et al. 2019, , 483, 4724

    2019

  17. [25]

    & Lokas , E

    Gajda , G. & Lokas , E. L. 2016, , 819, 20

    2016

  18. [26]

    Gibbons, S. L. J., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 3788

    2014

  19. [27]

    , Amorim, A

    GRAVITY Collaboration , Abuter, R. , Amorim, A. , et al. 2018, A&A, 615, L15

    2018

  20. [28]

    Grillmair, C. J. & Dionatos, O. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 643, L17

    2006

  21. [29]

    M., Sheffield , A

    Hawkins , K., Price-Whelan , A. M., Sheffield , A. A., et al. 2023, , 948, 123

    2023

  22. [30]

    2004, , 610, L97

    Helmi , A. 2004, , 610, L97

    2004

  23. [31]

    2017, , 850, 96

    Hernitschek , N., Sesar , B., Rix , H.-W., et al. 2017, , 850, 96

    2017

  24. [32]

    Huxor , A. P. & Grebel , E. K. 2015, , 453, 2653

    2015

  25. [33]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, L19

    Ibata, R., Bellazzini, M., Thomas, G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, L19

    2020

  26. [34]

    F., Irwin , M., Totten , E., & Quinn , T

    Ibata , R., Lewis , G. F., Irwin , M., Totten , E., & Quinn , T. 2001, , 551, 294

    2001

  27. [35]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 967, 89

    Ibata , R., Malhan , K., Tenachi , W., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 967, 89

    2024

  28. [36]

    A., Gilmore , G., & Irwin , M

    Ibata , R. A., Gilmore , G., & Irwin , M. J. 1994, , 370, 194

    1994

  29. [37]

    A., Wyse , R

    Ibata , R. A., Wyse , R. F. G., Gilmore , G., Irwin , M. J., & Suntzeff , N. B. 1997, , 113, 634

    1997

  30. [38]

    V., Law , D

    Johnston , K. V., Law , D. R., & Majewski , S. R. 2005, , 619, 800

    2005

  31. [39]

    E., Belokurov , V., & Evans , N

    Koposov , S. E., Belokurov , V., & Evans , N. W. 2013, , 766, 79

    2013

  32. [40]

    E., Belokurov, V., Evans, N

    Koposov, S. E., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 80

    2012

  33. [41]

    E., Belokurov , V., Li , T

    Koposov , S. E., Belokurov , V., Li , T. S., et al. 2019, , 485, 4726

    2019

  34. [42]

    R., Chavanis , P

    Krut , A., Arg \"u elles , C. R., Chavanis , P. H., Rueda , J. A., & Ruffini , R. 2023, , 945, 1

    2023

  35. [43]

    K \"u pper , A. H. W., Lane , R. R., & Heggie , D. C. 2012, , 420, 2700

    2012

  36. [44]

    R., Johnston , K

    Law , D. R., Johnston , K. V., & Majewski , S. R. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 619, 807

    2005

  37. [45]

    Law, D. R. & Majewski, S. R. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 229

    2010

  38. [46]

    R., Majewski , S

    Law , D. R., Majewski , S. R., & Johnston , K. V. 2009, , 703, L67

    2009

  39. [47]

    S., Koposov , S

    Li , T. S., Koposov , S. E., Zucker , D. B., et al. 2019, , 490, 3508

    2019

  40. [48]

    2017, , 468, 97

    Luque , E., Pieres , A., Santiago , B., et al. 2017, , 468, 97

    2017

  41. [49]

    R., Kunkel , W

    Majewski , S. R., Kunkel , W. E., Law , D. R., et al. 2004, , 128, 245

    2004

  42. [50]

    R., Siegel , M

    Majewski , S. R., Siegel , M. H., Kunkel , W. E., et al. 1999, , 118, 1709

    1999

  43. [51]

    R., Skrutskie, M

    Majewski, S. R., Skrutskie, M. F., Weinberg, M. D., & Ostheimer, J. C. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 599, 1082

    2003

  44. [52]

    & Ibata, R

    Malhan, K. & Ibata, R. A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 4063

    2018

  45. [53]

    W., & Morrison, H

    Mateo, M., Olszewski, E. W., & Morrison, H. L. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 508, L55

    1998

  46. [54]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 5225

    Mateu , C. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 5225

    2023

  47. [55]

    F., Arg \"u elles , C

    Mestre , M. F., Arg \"u elles , C. R., Carpintero , D. D., Crespi , V., & Krut , A. 2024, , 689, A194

    2024

  48. [56]

    K., Alonso-Garc \' a , J., Lucas , P

    Minniti , D., Saito , R. K., Alonso-Garc \' a , J., Lucas , P. W., & Hempel , M. 2011, , 733, L43

    2011

  49. [57]

    & Nagai , R

    Miyamoto , M. & Nagai , R. 1975, , 27, 533

    1975

  50. [58]

    J., Yanny , B., Cole , N., et al

    Newberg , H. J., Yanny , B., Cole , N., et al. 2007, , 668, 221

    2007

  51. [59]

    J., Yanny , B., Grebel , E

    Newberg , H. J., Yanny , B., Grebel , E. K., et al. 2003, , 596, L191

    2003

  52. [60]

    J., Yanny , B., Rockosi , C., et al

    Newberg , H. J., Yanny , B., Rockosi , C., et al. 2002, , 569, 245

    2002

  53. [61]

    R., Vieyro , F

    Pelle , J., Arg \"u elles , C. R., Vieyro , F. L., et al. 2024, , 534, 1217

    2024

  54. [62]

    2017, A&A, 598, A66

    Pouliasis , E., Di Matteo , P., & Haywood , M. 2017, A&A, 598, A66

    2017

  55. [63]

    2020, , 638, A104

    Ramos , P., Mateu , C., Antoja , T., et al. 2020, , 638, A104

    2020

  56. [64]

    J., Menten , K

    Reid , M. J., Menten , K. M., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2014, , 783, 130

    2014

  57. [65]

    H., Lora, V., Matos, T., & Sánchez-Salcedo, F

    Robles, V. H., Lora, V., Matos, T., & Sánchez-Salcedo, F. J. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 810, 99

    2015

  58. [66]

    R., & Rueda , J

    Ruffini , R., Arg \"u elles , C. R., & Rueda , J. A. 2015, , 451, 622

    2015

  59. [67]

    E., Drew , J

    Sale , S. E., Drew , J. E., Knigge , C., et al. 2010, , 402, 713

    2010

  60. [68]

    2010, , 403, 1829

    Sch \"o nrich , R., Binney , J., & Dehnen , W. 2010, , 403, 1829

    2010

  61. [69]

    T., Bell , E

    Slater , C. T., Bell , E. F., Schlafly , E. F., et al. 2013, , 762, 6

    2013

  62. [70]

    2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 65, 118

    Sofue, Y. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 65, 118

    2013

  63. [71]

    2005, , 364, 1105

    Springel , V. 2005, , 364, 1105

    2005

  64. [72]

    Totten, E. J. & Irwin, M. J. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 294, 1

    1998

  65. [73]

    Varghese, A., Ibata, R., & Lewis, G. F. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 198

    2011

  66. [74]

    & Belokurov, V

    Vasiliev, E. & Belokurov, V. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 4162

    2020

  67. [75]

    2021, , 501, 2279

    Vasiliev , E., Belokurov , V., & Erkal , D. 2021, , 501, 2279

    2021

  68. [76]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  69. [77]

    G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E

    Walker, M. G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E. W., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 704, 1274

    2009

  70. [78]

    2022, , 940, L3

    Wang , H.-F., Hammer , F., Yang , Y.-B., & Wang , J.-L. 2022, , 940, L3

    2022

  71. [79]

    J., Johnson , J

    Yanny , B., Newberg , H. J., Johnson , J. A., et al. 2009, , 700, 1282

    2009

  72. [80]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  73. [81]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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