Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Shape Shifting Light Dark Matter Solitons

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Fuzzy dark matter solitons, sharpened by a central black hole, are captured by five Gaussians; dwarf galaxy kinematics then favor one particle mass near $10^{-22}$ eV/c^2.

desk verdict A genuinely useful variational tool for soliton shapes around point masses, saddled to an observational analysis whose kinematic bridge is too fragile to carry the universal-mass claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01282 v3 pith:SVBU74RJ submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.GA

Dor Ben-Amotz This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA PACS 95.35.+d
keywords fuzzydarkmattersolitonsSchrödinger-Poissonequationultralightbosonsdwarfspheroidalgalaxiesultra-faintcentralblackholesvelocitydispersionscaling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the cored solitons predicted for fuzzy (Bose–Einstein condensate) dark matter are not fixed in shape: when a central point mass such as a black hole sits in the middle, the soliton narrows and the core sharpens into a cusp, and the full sequence of shapes can be written in closed form as a sum of five Gaussians. From that ansatz the author derives scaling relations that turn two observed numbers, stellar velocity dispersion and half-light radius, into predictions for the soliton's size, central density, and total mass at any soliton mass fraction. Applied to dwarf spheroidal (dSph) and ultra-faint dwarf (UFD) galaxies, the relations reinterpret the same data that previously looked like evidence for different dark matter particle masses in different galaxies as evidence for one universal particle mass, $m_0 \approx 1.5\times10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}/c^2$ to within a factor of 2, at the price of requiring supermassive black holes in many UFDs or a dark matter velocity dispersion larger than the stellar one. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns galaxy kinematics into a direct, analytic probe of the dark matter particle mass and of hidden central black holes.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the five-Gaussian ansatz $\Psi_{5G}(x)$, a wavefunction written as one normalized sum of five Gaussians whose coefficients are optimized numerically to minimize the ground-state energy while enforcing the virial theorem at each soliton mass fraction $F$ (with $F=1$ self-gravitating and $F\to0$ hydrogenic). It reduces the Schrödinger–Poisson ground state to a few closed-form functions of $F$, such as $x_c(F)$, $\nu_{-3}(F)$, and $\rho_0(F)$, which feed Eqs. (26)–(29) and convert observed velocity dispersion $\sigma$ and half-light radius $R_{1/2}$ into soliton radius, core density, total mass, and particle mass $m_0$. The kinematic bridge $\sqrt{3}\,\sigma\approx\sigma_*\approx v_{\rm rot}(r_{-3})\approx\sigma_S$ and the $M_{1/2}\approx 4\sigma^2 R_{1/2}/G$ estimator are what connect those soliton relations to real galaxies.

What would settle it

Measure the dark matter density slope inside roughly $0.2$ kpc of a dwarf galaxy such as Draco with proper-motion and line-of-sight data: a genuinely cusped slope steeper than the cored profiles predicted for $0.9\le F\le 1$, with no central black hole able to produce the cusp, would falsify the universal-soliton claim. Alternatively, a survey that rules out central black holes above about $10^6\,M_\odot$ in several UFDs while keeping the stellar and dark matter dispersions equal would break the single-mass interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ground-state Schrödinger–Poisson solitons around a central point mass are accurately represented over the entire mass-fraction range $0\le F\le 1$ by $\Psi_{5G}$, a sum of five Gaussians with numerically optimized amplitudes and widths, and that this representation makes every shape-dependent property—radius, density, mass, energy, velocity—available as closed-form functions of $F$ and of the observed velocity dispersion. On the observational side, the paper claims that the measured $\sigma$, core radius, and half-light radius of dwarf spheroidal and ultra-faint dwarf galaxies, combined with the $M_{1/2}$ estimator of [28], are consistent with a single ultralight particle mass $m_0 \approx 1.5\times10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}/c^2$ within a factor of 2, provided either that most UFDs host central black holes with masses of order $M_{1/2}$, or that the soliton's velocity dispersion exceeds the stellar dispersion. The paper further claims an upper bound $m_0 \lesssim 3\times10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}/c^2$ and a lower bound not much below $10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}/c^2$, and it presents Fornax as a validation case and Draco as a semi-quantitative but partly cusped test case.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed stellar velocity dispersion, core radius, and half-light radius measure the dark matter soliton's own velocity dispersion, core radius, and enclosed mass, so that the stars and the soliton trace the same spherical, isotropic distribution; if they do not, every inferred black hole mass and particle mass shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the single-mass interpretation holds, dSph and UFD galaxies do not require different dark matter particle species; all are compatible with $m_0$ within roughly $1$–$3\times10^{-22}$ eV/c^2, with a best value near $1.5\times10^{-22}$.
  • If $\sigma_S=\sigma_*$ is retained, many UFD galaxies must contain central black holes whose masses are comparable to the observed $M_{1/2}$, sometimes exceeding $10^6\,M_\odot$, so high-resolution stellar kinematics near UFD centers become a black-hole search.
  • If those black holes are absent, then the soliton velocity dispersion must exceed the stellar dispersion, by up to roughly two orders of magnitude for UFDs, implying that stars are not good tracers of the dark matter core's internal kinematics.
  • The derivations place an upper bound $m_0 \lesssim 3\times10^{-22}$ eV/c^2 from the requirement that predicted enclosed mass not exceed observed $M_{1/2}$, and a lower bound near $10^{-22}$ eV/c^2 from total-mass constraints.
  • Fornax validates the machinery: the two independent scaling expressions give $m_0\approx10^{-22}$ eV/c^2 and reproduce the observed central density, while Draco's inner density data sit in partial tension with the cored predictions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the $F$-dependent profiles could be inverted to turn a single galaxy's black-hole mass upper limit into a lower limit on $m_0$, something the paper only does globally across the sample.
  • Beyond the paper: if the $\sigma_S>\sigma_*$ branch is right, the stellar half-light radius is not a proxy for the soliton core, and the $M_{1/2}$ estimator's spherical-isotropic assumption becomes the dominant systematic; an anisotropic Jeans model relaxing Eq. (15) would be the direct test.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper's evaporation speculation implies a testable trend—older dwarf cores should be systematically wider and less dense than younger ones at fixed mass, connecting the static soliton profiles to the cosmic evolution of core size.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a variational solution of the Schrödinger–Poisson equation for a ground-state fuzzy dark matter soliton surrounding a central point mass, representing the wavefunction as a sum of five Gaussians with F-dependent coefficients. It derives closed-form F-dependent scaling relations that express soliton size, core density, and total mass in terms of the observed stellar velocity dispersion and half-light radius, using a chain of assumptions (Eq. 15) that equates the line-of-sight dispersion, 3D stellar dispersion, tracer rotational velocity, and soliton dispersion. The relations are applied to dwarf spheroidal (dSph) and ultra-faint dwarf (UFD) galaxies, leading to two self-consistency scenarios: either each galaxy’s soliton mass fraction F (i.e., central black hole mass) is adjusted to match M1/2, or F ≈ 0.999 and the soliton velocity dispersion σ_S is adjusted, with m0 near 10^-22 eV/c^2. A Draco reanalysis and a speculative discussion of soliton evaporation are also included. The abstract claims consistency with a universal particle mass m0 ≈ 1.5×10^-22 eV/c^2 to within a factor of 2.

Significance. The variational five-Gaussian representation is a genuine and useful contribution: it reproduces the exact hydrogenic limit and the known self-gravitating soliton solution, spans the entire 0 ≤ F ≤ 1 range, and supplies tabulated coefficients and polynomial fits, so the shape-shifting prediction is reproducible. The scaling relations in Eqs. (26)–(29) are convenient closed-form tools for future fuzzy-dark-matter modeling. If the observational bridge were justified, the universal-mass scenario would be interesting and relevant to current dwarf-galaxy dark matter debates. However, the observational conclusions are not currently supported because the bridge assumption is contradicted by the paper’s own fits, and the abstract’s claim of a spherical-isotropic Jeans validation is not backed by any Jeans equation in the body. The paper is best evaluated as a theoretical tool paper with an illustrative, heavily caveated application.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (15); Tables IV–V] The equality chain √3σ ≈ σ* ≈ v_rot(r−3) ≈ σ_S is the only bridge connecting observed line-of-sight dispersions to the soliton properties used in Eqs. (26)–(29), and it is internally contradicted by the paper’s own universal-m0 fits. In the F = 0.999 scenario of Table V, the fitted σ_S/σ* ratios are 137 (Segue I), 115 (Wilman I), and 142 (Leo V), so the third equality in Eq. (15) is violated by two orders of magnitude. The same scenario also predicts rc,S/rc,* of order 10–30, so the identification of the observed stellar core radius with the soliton core radius used in Fig. 3 is not self-consistent. The abstract states that the applications were validated using a spherical-isotropic Jeans analysis, but the manuscript contains no Jeans equation; the only mass constraint used is the Wolf et al. estimator, Eq. (16), which is itself a mass-model assumption. A full spherical Jeans solution with the predicted soliton mass profile and an explicit stellar density tracer is therefore required before any claim about a universal m0 can be supported.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 4; Tables IV–IX] The two universal-m0 scenarios are designed to reproduce M1/2 by construction, so their agreement with M1/2 is not an independent prediction. In the first scenario (σ_S = σ*, F adjusted), UFDs require F ≈ 0.99 and a central black hole mass comparable to M1/2 (e.g., Segue I: M_BH ≈ 4.5×10^5 M⊙ versus M1/2 ≈ 4.5×10^5 M⊙), meaning the chosen black hole does essentially all of the work. In the second scenario (F = 0.999, σ_S adjusted), σ_S is a per-galaxy free parameter tuned to hit M1/2. Consequently the m0 range quoted in the abstract is an assumed input, not an output; the tables demonstrate internal consistency of two fitting procedures, not a measurement of m0. The derived upper bound m0 ≲ 3×10^-22 eV/c^2 inherits this circularity and should be presented as a condition of the model, not as an observational constraint.
  3. [Section V, Fig. 5] The Draco comparison is not a critical test as presented. For each F, both m0 and σ_S are optimized to satisfy the two mass constraints M1/2 and M(r < 0.9 kpc), so the model has as many free parameters as constraints; the semi-quantitative agreement in Fig. 5 therefore carries little falsifying power. Moreover, the predicted central density profile is cored whereas the Vitral et al. profile is cusped at r < 0.2 kpc, a discrepancy the paper acknowledges in Section VI and proposes to resolve by reanalyzing the Draco data. That unresolved tension should be reported as such, and the abstract’s statement that the Draco results are consistent with a universal m0 should be softened accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section I] The phrase “NSF–like halo” should be “NFW-like halo.”
  2. [Section V and Fig. 5] There are typos in “Darco’s properties” and “adn” in the Section V text; these should be corrected to “Draco” and “and.”
  3. [Table VII caption] The caption of Table VII says the predictions assume m0 = 3×10^-22 eV/c^2, but the table header states m0 = 2×10^-22 eV/c^2; the caption and header must be reconciled.
  4. [Section III] The Fornax validation is based on a single galaxy and assumes F = 1, so it cannot by itself validate the σ_S ≈ σ* approximation for the F-dependent, UFD regime where the paper later finds σ_S/σ* ≫ 1.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 5G soliton shapes are genuinely derived, but the universal-m0 'consistency' is achieved by per-galaxy fits of F or σS against the same M1/2 used as input, so those particular predictions reduce to construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V, Fig. 4c and Tables IV–V (scenario 'Optimize F with σ = σS = σ*')]
    "The purple points are the central black hole masses required in order to obtain predictions that are self-consistent with the observed R1/2 and M1/2 obtained using Eq. 16 (represented by the diagonal black line). Note that for most of these galaxies the predicted soliton mass within r1/2 is much less than M1/2, thus implying that the galaxies contain an additional central mass comparable to M1/2."

    M1/2 is first derived from observed σ and R1/2 via Eq. 16, then F is adjusted so that the predicted enclosed mass M(r1/2) = M[F fS(r1/2) + (1−F)] equals that same M1/2. The black hole mass M• = (1−F)M is therefore the residual mass required to fill the gap between the chosen soliton mass and the input M1/2. Because F is a free parameter optimized per galaxy, the conclusion that many UFDs 'may contain supermassive black holes' is not predicted from the model; it is the fitted residual. The same procedure would produce consistency for any m0 by choosing F, so it cannot independently validate the claimed universal m0.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V, Fig. 4d and Tables IV–V (scenario 'Optimize σ = σS ≠ σ* with F = 0.999')]
    "With these constraints, self-consistent M1/2 predictions are obtained by relaxing the assumption that σS = σ∗ and adjusting the value of σS to obtain predictions that agree with the observed M1/2."

    Here σS is the free parameter, and the condition M(r1/2) = M1/2 determines σS uniquely. The extracted result that σS > σ∗, sometimes enormously so (e.g., Segue I has σS/σ∗ ≈ 137 in Table V), is therefore a restatement of the fitted value rather than an independent implication. Since σS can be chosen freely, the model is guaranteed to reproduce the input M1/2; the statement that dSph and UFD galaxies are 'consistent' with a single m0 ≈ 1e−22 eV/c2 under this scenario is by construction. This fitted scenario also abandons the Eq. 15 chain (σS ≈ σ∗) that was used to derive the scaling relations, so it cannot serve as validation of that chain.

full rationale

The genuinely non-circular core of the paper is the numerical solution of the Schrödinger–Poisson equation as a sum of five Gaussians with optimized coefficients. This is checked against the exact hydrogenic limit at F → 0, against the virial theorem, and against the Schive/Gaussian approximations at F = 1; those results do not reduce to the paper's inputs. The scaling relations Eqs. 26–29 also follow algebraically from the soliton solution plus the stated kinematic identifiers in Eq. 15. What is circular is the galactic application used to support the headline 'universal m0 ≈ 1.5e−22 eV/c2': in the two universal-mass scenarios, either F or σS is tuned per galaxy to force the predicted M(r1/2) to equal the observationally inferred M1/2 of Eq. 16. The black-hole masses in Fig. 4c and the σS/σ∗ ratios in Fig. 4d are thus fitted residuals, not predictions, and the claimed consistency with a single particle mass is purchased by that fitting freedom. The paper itself acknowledges that the σS ≈ σ∗ approximation 'may not hold if the soliton and stellar distributions have significantly different radii,' and its own F = 0.999 fits require σS/σ∗ up to ~137 for UFDs, so the scaling relations and the fitted scenario are not mutually validating. The m0 upper bound m0 <~ 3e−22 eV/c2 is less circular, since it follows from inequalities (predicted enclosed mass cannot exceed total mass; core radii cannot be negative), though it is still model-dependent. There is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem; the main circularity is the fitted-input-as-prediction structure of the two universal-m0 scenarios.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model leans on the Hartree approximation, spherical isotropy, and a central-point-mass idealization. Application to data adds the velocity-dispersion equality chain plus per-galaxy parameters F and sigma_S, both fitted to the observed M1/2. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • F (soliton mass fraction) per galaxy = 0.79 to 0.99 for dSphs and UFDs in scenario c
    Adjusted per galaxy to force M(r1/2) to equal the observationally derived M1/2, so the resulting black hole masses are fitted rather than predicted.
  • sigma_S (soliton velocity dispersion) per galaxy = up to about 100 times the stellar sigma for UFDs
    Adjusted in scenario d with F fixed near 1 to match M1/2, which directly encodes the sigma_S > sigma* interpretation.
  • m0 (ultralight particle mass) = 1, 2, and 3 x 1e-22 eV/c2 sampled; also galaxy-by-galaxy optimized in Table III
    The universal-mass 'prediction' uses a small set of hand-picked masses and then fits per-galaxy parameters to the data, rather than deriving m0 from a free fit.
  • Gaussian coefficients c1..c9 and their F-polynomial fits = Tabulated in Appendix Eq. A.10 and A.11
    Numerically optimized to minimize the ground-state energy under the virial constraint; these are representation parameters, not physical constants, but they are fitted quantities.
  • M_bullet (central black hole mass) per galaxy = Derived from F and M; ranges up to ~1e7 M_sun
    Effectively a free parameter in scenario c because it is set by matching M1/2 after choosing m0.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hartree mean-field approximation neglecting particle exchange symmetry
    Invoked in Section II with citation [30] to justify the single-particle Schrödinger-Poisson equation for the BEC ground state.
  • domain assumption Ground-state soliton only, no excited states or surrounding NFW-like halo tails
    Stated in Section I as a scope restriction; the model applies only to dwarf galaxies whose stars are embedded in the soliton core.
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry and isotropic stellar velocity dispersion
    Taken from Wolf et al. (ref. [28]) via Eq. 16, and used throughout the M1/2 self-consistency constraints.
  • ad hoc to paper Eq. 15 equality chain sqrt(3) sigma = sigma* = v_rot(r_minus3) = sigma_S
    This is the key bridge between observed line-of-sight stellar dispersion and soliton properties; the paper flags it as approximate but then builds the m0 bounds and F interpretations on it.
  • domain assumption Central point mass idealization for the stellar distribution
    The paper assumes the stellar mass can be represented as a point mass at the center; the Discussion acknowledges real stellar distributions have finite width.
  • standard math Virial theorem constraint as implemented from Membrado and Pacheco (ref. [47])
    Used in the Appendix to guide the numerical optimization of the Gaussian coefficients.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shape Shifting Light Dark Matter Solitons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SVBU74RJ

@misc{pith2026250601282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shape Shifting Light Dark Matter Solitons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SVBU74RJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01282}
}
abstract

Dark matter consisting of a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) of ultralight particles forms solitons whose cored shape becomes increasingly cusped under the influence of a central point mass, such as a supermassive black hole. Here we present a unified analytic description of the resulting shape changes as a function of soliton mass fraction, spanning the hydrogenic to self-gravitating soliton limits. Solutions of the Schr\"{o}dinger-Poisson equation are expressed as a sum of five Gaussians with numerically optimised coefficients, yielding closed-form expressions for soliton shape-dependent properties. Moreover, new mass-fraction-dependent scaling relations are used to approximate soliton size, density, and total mass directly in terms of observed stellar velocity dispersion and half-light radius. Applications to dwarf spheroidal (dSph) and ultra-faint dwarf (UFD) galaxies -- validated using a spherical-isotropic Jeans analysis -- show that the observed stellar density, velocity and enclosed mass are consistent either with dSph and UFD galaxies having different ultralight dark matter particle masses and no black holes, or with a single universal ultralight dark matter particle mass, requiring the presence of supermassive black holes in many UFD galaxies. These results, combined with a more detailed analysis of the radially resolved stellar velocity dispersions of Draco (dSph) and Segue~I (UFD), are found to be consistent with a universal ultralight dark matter particle mass of $m_0 \approx 1.5\times 10^{-22}$\,eV/c$^2$, to within a factor of~2. The results demonstrate the utility of soliton shape-shifting predictions in constraining dwarf galaxy dark matter profiles and revealing the possible presence of central black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01282 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    best model

    ρ0 is the maximum density of the soliton per unit volume (in whatever mass and volume units are used to express M and a3 0). The value of ρ0 is determined by normalizing ρ(r) such that R ∞ 0 ρ(x)4πx2dx = 1. The resulting values of ρ0 for the Schive, Gaussian, and 5G approximations are 0.004400, 0.003379, and 0.004397, respectively (all pertaining to a sel...

    work page arXiv

  2. [2]

    dSph and UFD Observed and Predicted Properties The following tables contain galactic observational data and predicted properties used in generating the dSph and UFD results shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Tables I and II contain observed and observationally derived properties of dSph and UFD galaxies, obtained from the observational results compiled ref. [ 3] (an...

    work page

  3. [3]

    1 and 2, and the Poisson equation relation between ρ and the self-gravitating contribution to the soliton potential energy

    Theoretical Details and Numerical Results The following is a more detailed description of the connection between Eqs. 1 and 2, and the Poisson equation relation between ρ and the self-gravitating contribution to the soliton potential energy. This is followed by an explanation of the proper application of the virial theorem as a constraint when solving Eq....

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    J. C. Niemeyer, Small-scale structure of fuzzy and axion-like dark matter, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics113(2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Eberhardt and E

    A. Eberhardt and E. G. Ferreira, Ultralight fuzzy dark matter review, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.00705 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Matos, L

    T. Matos, L. A. Urena-Lopez, and J.-W. Lee, Short review of the main achievements of the scalar field, fuzzy, ultralight, wave, BEC dark matter model, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences11(2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    A. Pozo, T. Broadhurst, G. F. Smoot, T. Chiueh, H. N. Luu, M. Vogelsberger, and P. Mocz, Dwarf galaxies united by dark bosons, Phys. Rev. D109(2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, The structure of cold dark matter halos, The Astrophysical Journal462, 563 (1996)

    1996

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Fuzzy cold dark matter: The wave properties of ultralight particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1158 (2000)

    2000

  2. [10]

    F ρ0(F) [ν−3(F)] 4 # m2 0 σ4 (28) 15 M(M ⊙)≈7.718×10 −16

    The inset panels in (a)–(c) show the same results plotted on a logarithmic scale. The dashed and dotted F= 0 curves pertain to the exact hydrogenic and approximate 5G predictions, respectively. 14 The ρ(r) predictions in Fig. 2a show how the cored (flat-top) shape of self-grav...

    2024

  3. [11]

    N. Bar, D. Blas, K. Blum, and S. Sibiryakov, Galactic rotation curves versus ultralight dark matter: Implications of the soliton-host halo relation, Phys. Rev. D98(2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Schive, T

    H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Cosmic structure as the quantum interference of a coherent dark wave, Nat. Phys.10, 496 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    L. J. Chang and L. Necib, Dark matter density profiles in dwarf galaxies: Linking jeans modelling systematics and observation, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 507, 4715 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Kauffmann, S

    G. Kauffmann, S. D. M. White, and B. Guiderdoni, The formation and evolution of galaxies within merging dark matter haloes, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society264, 201 (1993)

    1993

  7. [15]

    A. Pozo, T. Broadhurst, I. de Martino, T. Chiueh, G. F. Smoot, S. Bonoli, and R. Angulo, Detection of a universal core-halo transition in dwarf galaxies as predicted by Bose-Einstein dark matter, Phys. Rev. D110(2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    N. C. Relatores, A. B. Newman, J. D. Simon, R. S. Ellis, P. Truong, L. Blitz, A. Bolatto, C. Martin, M. Matuszewski, P. Morrissey, and J. D. Neill, The dark matter distributions in low-mass disk galaxies. II. the inner density profiles, The Astrophysical Journal887(2019). 42

    2019

  9. [17]

    Moore, Evidence against dissipation-less dark matter from observations of galaxy haloes, Nature370, 629 (1994)

    B. Moore, Evidence against dissipation-less dark matter from observations of galaxy haloes, Nature370, 629 (1994)

    1994

  10. [18]

    Pils and T

    K. Pils and T. Rindler-Daller, Orbits and adiabatic contraction in scalar-field dark matter halos: Revisiting the cusp-core problem in dwarf galaxies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society514, 1990 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    E. Y. Davies and P. Mocz, Fuzzy dark matter soliton cores around supermassive black holes, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society492, 5721 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    P. Mocz, A. Fialkov, M. Vogelsberger, F. Becerra, X. Shen, V. H. Robles, M. A. Amin, J. Zavala, M. Boylan-Kolchin, S. Bose, F. Marinacci, P.-H. Chavanis, L. Lancaster, and L. Hernquist, Galaxy formation with BECDM-II. cosmic filaments and first galaxies, Monthly Notices of the...

    2020

  13. [21]

    Veltmaat, B

    J. Veltmaat, B. Schwabe, and J. C. Niemeyer, Baryon-driven growth of solitonic cores in fuzzy dark matter halos, Phys. Rev. D101(2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Korshynska, O

    K. Korshynska, O. O. Prykhodko, E. V. Gorbar, J. Jia, and A. I. Yakimenko, Vortex lines in ultralight bosonic dark matter around rotating supermassive black holes, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    M. J. Bustamante-Rosell, E. Noyola, K. Gebhardt, M. H. Fabricius, X. Mazzalay, J. Thomas, and G. Zeimann, Dynamical analysis of the dark matter and central black hole mass in the dwarf spheroidal leo i, The Astrophysical Journal921(2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    A. E. Reines, Hunting for massive black holes in dwarf galaxies, Nature Astronomy6, 26 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Aditya and A

    K. Aditya and A. Mangalam, Can dwarf spheroidal galaxies host a central black hole?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14146 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    I. S. Goldstein, S. M. Koushiappas, and M. G. Walker, Viability of ultralight Bosonic dark matter in dwarf galaxies, Phys. Rev. D106(2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    K. K. Rogers and H. V. Peiris, Strong bound on canonical ultralight axion dark matter from the lyman-alpha forest, Phys Rev Lett126, 071302 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Sipple, A

    J. Sipple, A. Lidz, D. Grin, and G. Sun, Fuzzy dark matter constraints from the hubble frontier fields, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society538, 1830 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    S. May, N. Dalal, and A. Kravtsov, Updated bounds on ultra-light dark matter from the tiniest galaxies, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02781 (2025). 43

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    R. Liu, W. Hu, and H. Xiao, Warm and fuzzy dark matter: Free streaming of wave dark matter, Phys. Rev. D111(2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Lazar and J

    A. Lazar and J. S. Bullock, Accurate mass estimates from the proper motions of dispersion- supported galaxies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society493, 5825 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    J. Wolf, G. D. Martinez, J. S. Bullock, M. Kaplinghat, M. Geha, R. R. Munoz, J. D. Simon, and F. F. Avedo, Accurate masses for dispersion-supported galaxies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society406, 1220 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    P. Y. Liao, G. M. Su, H. Y. Schive, A. Kunkel, H. Huang, and T. Chiueh, Deciphering the soliton-halo relation in fuzzy dark matter, Phys Rev Lett135, 061002 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Chavanis, The quantum HMF model: II

    P.-H. Chavanis, The quantum HMF model: II. bosons, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2011(2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Ben-Amotz,Understanding physical chemistry(John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2014)

    D. Ben-Amotz,Understanding physical chemistry(John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Membrado, A

    M. Membrado, A. F. Pacheco, and J. Sanudo, Hartree solutions for the self-Yukawian boson sphere, Phys Rev A Gen Phys39, 4207 (1989)

    1989

  29. [37]

    Serra, T

    P. Serra, T. Oosterloo, M. Cappellari, M. den Heijer, and G. I. G. Jozsa, Linear relation between hi circular velocity and stellar velocity dispersion in early-type galaxies, and slope of the density profiles, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society460, 1382 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    J. D. Simon, The faintest dwarf galaxies, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics57, 375 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Ruffini and S

    R. Ruffini and S. Bonazzola, Systems of self-gravitating particles in general relativity and the concept of an equation of state, Physical Review187, 1767 (1969)

    1969

  32. [40]

    Chavanis, Mass-radius relation of newtonian self-gravitating bose-einstein condensates with short-range interactions

    P.-H. Chavanis, Mass-radius relation of newtonian self-gravitating bose-einstein condensates with short-range interactions. i. analytical results, Phys. Rev. D84, 043531 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    Chavanis, Predictive model of bec dark matter halos with a solitonic core and an isothermal atmosphere, Phys

    P.-H. Chavanis, Predictive model of bec dark matter halos with a solitonic core and an isothermal atmosphere, Phys. Rev. D100, 083022 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Rindler-Daller, On particle scattering in Gross-Pitaevskii theory and implications for dark matter halos, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences10(2023)

    T. Rindler-Daller, On particle scattering in Gross-Pitaevskii theory and implications for dark matter halos, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences10(2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Pascale, L

    R. Pascale, L. Posti, C. Nipoti, and J. Binney, Action-based dynamical models of dwarf spheroidal galaxies: Application to Fornax, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 480, 927 (2018). 44

    2018

  36. [44]

    Vitral, R

    E. Vitral, R. P. van der Marel, S. T. Sohn, M. Libralato, A. del Pino, L. L. Watkins, A. Bellini, M. G. Walker, G. Besla, M. S. Pawlowski, and G. A. Mamon, HSTPROMO internal proper- motion kinematics of dwarf spheroidal galaxies. i. velocity anisotropy and dark matter cusp slo...

    2024

  37. [45]

    U. Ural, M. I. Wilkinson, J. I. Read, and M. G. Walker, A low pre-infall mass for the carina dwarf galaxy from disequilibrium modelling, Nat Commun6, 7599 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    L. M. Valenzuela, R.-S. Remus, K. Dolag, and B. A. Seidel, Galaxy shapes in magneticum. i. connecting stellar and dark matter shapes to dynamical and morphological galaxy properties and the large-scale structure, Astronomy & Astrophysics690(2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    L. H. Cooke, R. C. Levy, A. D. Bolatto, J. D. Simon, A. B. Newman, P. Teuben, B. D. Davey, M. Wright, E. Tarantino, L. Lenkic, and V. Villanueva, Cuspy dark matter density profiles in massive dwarf galaxies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society512, 1012 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Zimmermann, J

    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, Phys Rev Lett134, 151001 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    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, First star-forming structures in fuzzy cosmic filaments, Phys Rev Lett123, 141301 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Sharma, P

    G. Sharma, P. Salucci, and G. van de Ven, Observational evidence of evolving dark matter profiles at z≤1, Astronomy & Astrophysics659(2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Membrado and A

    M. Membrado and A. F. Pacheco, Bose-Einstein condensate haloes embedded in dark energy, Astronomy & Astrophysics611(2018). 45

    2018

Pith tools

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