Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Most of the Milky Way's ultra-faint dwarf galaxies may already be in the dark-matter collapse phase, with their varied densities tracing one gravothermal trajectory.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 18:48 UTC pith:7YTS3VPZ

load-bearing objection Plausible but not proven: the collapse-phase claim for most MW UFDs rests on per-object τ fits to a single simulated satellite track; the paper is honest about this and deserves refereeing, not rejection. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.04508 v2 pith:7YTS3VPZ submitted 2026-03-04 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAhep-ph

The dark fate of ultra-faint dwarfs: Gravothermal collapse in action

Moritz S. Fischer , Hai-Bo Yu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAhep-ph PACS 95.35.+d
keywords self-interacting dark matterultra-faint dwarf galaxiesgravothermal collapseMilky Way satellitesdark matter density profilestidal strippingdark matter cross-section
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to show that the Milky Way's ultra-faint dwarf galaxies—the most dark-matter-dominated systems known—are not a random scatter of densities but snapshots of one gravothermal life history that self-interacting dark matter imposes on every halo. In that history, dark-matter collisions first push the halo's centre into a low-density core, then the core gives way and the central density rises again, past its starting value. The paper's claim is that most ultra-faint dwarfs sit on the rising, collapse side of that curve, with the most tidally stretched satellites furthest along. If correct, the same physics would explain both dwarfs with cores and dwarfs that look too dense for ordinary cold dark matter, and a low-velocity self-interaction cross-section near 80 cm² per gram becomes plausible.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that gravothermal evolution of self-interacting dark matter halos produces exactly the diversity of dark-matter densities observed in the Milky Way's ultra-faint dwarfs. Comparing 35 spectroscopically studied UFDs with high-resolution simulations of one satellite halo, the authors find that most UFDs have densities above the maximum-core-expansion value, which they read as the signature that these halos have entered the collapse phase—central density increasing with time. The depth of collapse varies strongly from system to system, and the paper assigns each UFD a stage τ = t/t* by matching its average density within the half-light radius to the simulated density

What carries the argument

The central object is the gravothermal collapse time t* and the universal evolution curve it normalises: t* depends only on initial halo density, scale radius, and self-interaction cross-section, and the ratio τ = t/t* acts as a universal clock for core expansion followed by collapse. The paper projects every observed ultra-faint dwarf onto that clock by matching the average density within its half-light radius to a single high-resolution SIDM satellite simulation at different snapshots. The second piece of machinery is tidal stripping: for satellites on small-pericentre orbits, mass loss accelerates the evolution, so the same clock runs faster, which the paper uses to explain why the denses

Load-bearing premise

The argument leans on the assumption that one simulated satellite halo—a single NFW profile, a single orbit, a single mass—can stand in for all of the Milky Way's ultra-faint dwarfs, because gravothermal evolution is universal and tides only change the timing, not the shape of the inner density profile.

What would settle it

Take spectra of enough stars in Draco II and Phoenix II to measure their velocity dispersions tightly: if their dark-matter densities turn out to be far below the current upper limits, the claim that the highest-density UFDs are in collapse loses its sharpest support; if the densities land near the upper limits, the collapse interpretation is directly confirmed. Alternatively, a clean measurement of the τ distribution across a complete sample of UFDs—without the freedom to adjust each halo's concentration—would settle whether the spread really follows the one universal gravothermal curve.

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

If this is right

  • The observed spread in UFD central densities becomes a prediction, not a problem, for SIDM: low-density dwarfs are near core expansion, high-density dwarfs are deeper in collapse.
  • Future measurements of the densest candidates, Draco II and Phoenix II, near their current upper limits would provide a direct test of the collapse scenario.
  • A low-velocity cross-section around 80 cm² g⁻¹ becomes compatible with UFD kinematics, markedly larger than constraints that ignore gravothermal collapse.
  • The anti-correlation between pericentre distance and assigned collapse stage implies the Milky Way's satellite population can be used to calibrate how tides accelerate gravothermal evolution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the universal-clock mapping is taken literally, the distribution of τ across a complete, selection-function-corrected sample of UFDs should match a cosmological population of accreted halos with varying concentrations and orbits; a mismatch would point to missing physics such as velocity anisotropy or two-species dark matter.
  • The same ~80 cm² g⁻¹ cross-section at v ~ 20 km/s should leave traces elsewhere—for instance in the central densities of field dwarfs, in strong-lensing perturbers, or in cluster cores—so consistency checks across those independent probes are a natural next step.
  • The paper's matching procedure uses only the average density within the half-light radius; with better stellar samples, one could fit full inner density profiles, and a flat inner slope during collapse could be separated from the cusps of collisionless dark matter.
  • A sharp falsifier within the same framework: if a sizeable population of UFDs shows large τ but only moderate central densities, rather than the extreme densities one-species elastic SIDM predicts, that would favour scenarios where collapse is delayed or halted.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper compares the average dark-matter densities within the half-light radii of 35 Milky Way ultra-faint dwarfs (UFDs) with idealized N-body simulations of a single satellite halo in collisionless CDM, in SIDM with a constant cross-section (σ/mχ = 80 cm² g⁻¹), and in SIDM with a velocity-dependent cross-section. The authors assign each UFD a gravothermal stage τ = t/t* by matching its inferred density to the simulated central-density–time curve (Fig. 3). They conclude that most UFDs lie on the rising, collapse branch of the gravothermal sequence; that the spread in τ explains the diversity in UFD densities; and that satellites with smaller pericentre distances have evolved further, suggesting tidally accelerated collapse. On this basis they argue that large SIDM cross-sections of order 80 cm² g⁻¹ at low velocities are plausible.

Significance. The question is timely, and the paper has real strengths: the simulations use 10⁷ particles per halo, resolve sub-0.1 kpc scales, and are claimed to control energy conservation in the collapse regime; the compiled sample of 35 UFDs is current; and the paper makes a falsifiable prediction that measurements of Draco II and Phoenix II near their upper limits would favour collapse. If the central inference held, it would be an important step toward using UFD diversity as an SIDM probe. However, the analysis as presented is essentially a one-parameter-per-object mapping: each UFD's τ is chosen so that its density lies on one simulated track, and the non-monotonic density–τ relation leaves a degeneracy with the initial NFW cusp. The paper's own Section 5 concedes that a CDM-consistent system can always be matched to some collapse stage when only the average density is used. The manuscript therefore demonstrates plausibility, not a secure detection; a forward population model or a quantitative SIDM-vs-CDM comparison is needed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 3, Abstract] The headline claim that 'most UFDs have entered the collapse phase' is not independent of the fitting procedure. Each UFD is assigned a τ by matching its average density to the simulated ρ_cen(τ) curve, so the conclusion is a restatement of where the fitted τ values land. Because ρ_cen(τ) is non-monotonic (decreasing until τ ≈ 0.4, then increasing), a high-density UFD can be matched either on the initial NFW branch (τ ≈ 0) or on the collapse branch (τ ≳ 0.7). CDM halos give the same observable (Fig. 2, left), and Section 5 states that 'a single system that is consistent with CDM may always appear to be consistent with a specific state of the gravothermal collapse phase.' The abstract's definitive wording overstates the constraint; a Bayesian forward model with priors on infall time, concentration, and orbit, and a statistical SIDM/CDM comparison, is needed.
  2. [§2, §5, Fig. 1] The representativeness of the single simulated halo is load-bearing and is not demonstrated. The quoted universality of gravothermal evolution holds for isolated halos; for tidally interacting satellites the density–time track can depend on initial mass, concentration, and orbital history. The adopted track is one NFW halo (ρ0 = 4.42×10⁷ M⊙ kpc⁻³, rs = 1.28 kpc) on one orbit (peri ≈ 18 kpc, apo ≈ 142 kpc); Section 5 concedes 'we have considered only a single halo on a specific orbit.' Fig. 1 shows factor ~2–5 scatter in initial densities of cosmological progenitors, but the paper does not show that this scatter is absorbed by the τ renormalization. Since every τ in Fig. 3 and every lower-panel point in Fig. 5 is read off this single track, robustness to this scatter must be checked rather than assumed. Eq. (3) is the isolated-halo collapse time; the acknowledged tidal modification is not
  3. [§4, Fig. 5] The pericentre–τ correlation is not an independent test of tidally accelerated collapse. Because τ is defined by the density match, the lower panel of Fig. 5 is essentially a monotonic transformation of the density–pericentre anticorrelation in the upper panel (on the chosen branch). The text states that the lower panel uses 'the gravothermal evolution stage that we assigned to the UFDs in Fig. 3.' An independent test would require τ estimates from full profile shapes or a forward model predicting the joint distribution of density, size, and pericentre. The host-distance version in Appendix A has the same logical structure.
  4. [§2, Abstract] The cross-section normalization needs clarification. The abstract says σ/mχ ≈ 80 cm² g⁻¹ at v ≈ 20 km s⁻¹, but Eq. (2) with σ0/mχ = 6593.89 cm² g⁻¹ and w = 20 km s⁻¹ gives σ/mχ = 1648 cm² g⁻¹ at v = 20 km s⁻¹. If 'effective cross-section' is intended, the velocity averaging and the relation to Eq. (2) should be stated explicitly. This matters because the computed t* = 4.51 Gyr and the inferred collapse stages are tied to the cross-section scale.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] Typo: 'assoicated' should be 'associated'.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] Typo: 'collisonless' should be 'collisionless'.
  3. [§3, Figs. 3 and 5] Draco II and Phoenix II are upper limits, yet they are plotted without distinguishing markers in Fig. 5; the correlations may be influenced by limits. Please clarify and ideally propagate the uncertainty into the assigned τ values.
  4. [§6] Grammar: 'we also showed that that UFDs...' contains a duplicated 'that'.
  5. [Eq. (2)] Please define v precisely (relative velocity? one-dimensional dispersion?) and state how the 'effective cross-section of 80 cm²/g' follows from the stated parameters.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The collapse-phase assignment is constructed by fitting τ to each UFD's observed density on a single simulated track; the headline claim and the τ–pericentre correlation then restate the input density data rather than independently predicting them.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Fig. 3]
    "given that for the SIDM halos, the density gradient in the inner region is flat ... we assigned them a time τ such that they match the simulated central density."

    The paper's headline result—that most UFDs have passed maximum core expansion and entered the collapse phase—is obtained by assigning each UFD the τ value at which the single simulated density track matches the observed central density. The stage τ is therefore not a prediction from the model; it is fitted to the input density. Since the density–τ curve is non-monotonic (Fig. 3), a high-density UFD could be placed at τ≈0 (initial NFW cusp) or on the collapse branch (τ>0.7), and the paper does not supply a population prior to choose between these branches. The statement that 'most UFDs ... could be in the collapse phase' is thus built into the assignment procedure, not independently established.

  2. renaming known result [Section 4, Fig. 5 lower panel]
    "The lower panel gives the stage of the gravothermal evolution in terms of τ as assigned to the UFDs of our sample in Fig. 3."

    Because τ is assigned solely from the observed average density, and the upper panel of Fig. 5 already shows the known density–pericentre anti-correlation (Kaplinghat et al. 2019), the lower-panel τ–pericentre anti-correlation is the same density–pericentre correlation remapped through a monotone function on the collapse branch. It does not add independent evidence for tidally accelerated gravothermal collapse; it restates the input density–pericentre relation in the model's time units. The paper presents this remapping as an SIDM interpretation, but the correlation is forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper is not wholly circular: it uses an externally motivated SIDM simulation (Fischer et al. 2025) and compares it with independent stellar-kinematic data, and the density–pericentre anti-correlation is a real observational pattern. However, the central claim that most MW UFDs are in the gravothermal collapse phase is derived by matching each UFD's observed density to a single simulated halo's density–τ track, so the inferred τ distribution is a fitted quantity rather than a prediction. The non-monotonic density–τ relation means high density alone does not force the collapse branch; the paper chooses it without a forward-model population prior. The τ–pericentre correlation in Fig. 5 is similarly a remapping of the input density–pericentre correlation. The paper itself concedes in Sect. 5 that a single system consistent with CDM can always be made consistent with a specific collapse state when only the average density within the half-light radius is compared, and that only one halo on one orbit was simulated. These concessions confirm that the collapse-phase assignment is underdetermined and that the headline inference is substantially an artifact of the fitting procedure. Nevertheless, the simulation provides external physical content and the CDM comparison offers a baseline, so the circularity is partial rather than total. Score 5 reflects this: not a fully forced self-citation chain, but the main 'prediction' reduces to the fitted input density through a chosen branch of a non-monotonic track.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on a single pre-computed simulation suite and inherits its assumptions: NFW initial conditions, fixed orbit, DM-only evolution, and analytic collapse-time normalization. The strongest model-dependent input is the universality of gravothermal evolution under tides, which justifies mapping all UFDs onto one density-vs-τ curve. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Per-UFD gravothermal stage τ = ~0.37–0.85 (varies per object)
    Each UFD is assigned a τ by matching its observed average density within half-light radius to the simulated density-vs-time curve (Fig. 3). This is effectively a fitted parameter per object; 35 values are set.
  • SIDM cross-section σ/mχ (constant) = 80 cm² g⁻¹
    Adopted for simulation W; not fitted to UFD data in this paper, but chosen to make gravothermal collapse occur on relevant timescales. It is the model parameter the conclusion endorses.
  • Velocity-dependent cross-section parameters σ0/mχ and w = σ0/mχ = 6593.89 cm² g⁻¹, w = 20 km s⁻¹
    Parameters in Eq. (2) chosen so that σ/mχ ≈ 80 cm² g⁻¹ at v ≈ 20 km s⁻¹ and decreases at higher velocities.
  • β in collapse-time normalization = 0.704
    Value from the β_eff model of Mace et al. (2025), used in Eq. (3) to compute t*. Not fitted here, but affects the τ scale.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Gravothermal evolution of SIDM halos is universal when normalized by collapse time t*.
    Invoked in §2 to justify using a single simulated halo to represent all MW UFDs: 'the gravothermal evolution within the long-mean-free-path regime is known to be universal.'
  • domain assumption Tidal stripping/heating only alters the time evolution of the inner halo, not the qualitative density-profile shape.
    Stated in §2: tides 'do not affect the qualitative evolution of the inner region of the halo much, but mainly alter the time evolution.' This underpins the mapping of all UFDs onto one density-vs-τ curve.
  • domain assumption The Wolf et al. (2010) mass estimator gives an unbiased dynamical mass within the half-light radius for UFDs.
    Used in §3 to convert observed stellar kinematics to average DM densities within r_h.
  • domain assumption DM-only simulations are appropriate for UFDs; baryonic feedback and stellar mass are negligible for their DM distribution.
    Argued in §1: below M⋆ ≈ 10⁶ M⊙, supernovae feedback becomes negligible for core formation; UFDs are DM-dominated.
  • domain assumption The analytic collapse-time formula, Eq. (3), with β = 0.704, correctly normalizes the evolution of the simulated halo.
    Equation (3) from Balberg et al. (2002); Koda & Shapiro (2011); Essig et al. (2019), with β from Mace et al. (2025). The paper acknowledges that tidal mass loss modifies t*, but uses Eq. (3) 'for simplicity.'
  • domain assumption The initial NFW profile and orbital parameters of the simulated satellite are representative of UFD progenitors.
    The ICs are from a GD-1 perturber model (Fischer et al. 2025); Fig. 1 compares to 60 zoom-in halos, but only one orbit is simulated.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17755 in / 13807 out tokens · 129654 ms · 2026-08-02T18:48:10.665712+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Ultra-faint dwarf (UFD) galaxies are a promising probe for dark matter (DM) physics as they are the most DM-dominated systems known. The Milky Way (MW) hosts many UFDs for which the properties of their DM distribution have been inferred from measurements of their stellar kinematics. If DM has self-interactions beyond gravity, the UFD halos may undergo a gravothermal evolution, giving rise to a population of galaxies with more diverse DM density profiles. We investigate DM densities of MW UFDs in self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) models, with an aim of determining the stage of gravothermal evolution for their halos. Therefore, we employed idealised high-resolution SIDM N-body simulations targeted to a MW-like system and compared the properties of simulated satellites to those of the observed UFDs. We find that the gravothermal evolution of SIDM halos produces diverse DM distributions, aligning with observations of the MW UFDs. Most of the UFDs have high DM densities, indicating that their halos have passed the period of maximum core expansion and entered the collapse phase, i.e. their central density may increase with time. The depth to which they have evolved into the gravothermal collapse may vary strongly across the satellites. This allows SIDM to account for the diversity in their DM densities. Moreover, the acceleration of the gravothermal evolution by tidal stripping can help to explain the diversity of the UFDs, as the ones with smaller pericentre distances require having evolved further into the gravothermal catastrophe. Large SIDM cross-sections of $\sigma / m_\chi \approx$ 80 cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ at a velocity of $v \approx$ 20 km s$^{-1}$ are plausible, as the halo densities of MW UFDs are consistent with the gravothermal evolution predicted in SIDM, with most of them being in the collapse phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.04508 by Hai-Bo Yu, Moritz S. Fischer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Initial NFW density profile (as in Fischer et al. 2025) used for our simulations (black) and progenitor halos from a cosmological zoom-in simulation (blue). The latter are 60 halos from Yang et al. (2023) within a mass range of [5.6×108 , 5.6×109 ] M⊙, a subset of the halos shown by Zhang et al. (2025). The gray band indicates a density range between being a factor of five times lower and two times higher … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Average density as a function of radius. Left: collisonless run (simulation T by Fischer et al. 2025). Middle: velocity-independent run (simulation W by Fischer et al. 2025). Right: velocity-dependent run (simulation Y by Fischer et al. 2025). In the middle and right panels, the legend specifies the time relative to the collapse time (τ = t/t∗), as specified by Eq. (3). Whereas in the left panel, we show t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Central density as a function of time. The velocity-dependent run (simulation Y by Fischer et al. (2025)) is used to show the average central density of the halo within 0.03 kpc as a function of time rela￾tive to the collapse time (Eq. (3)). In addition, the same UFD satellite galaxies as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gravitational bound mass as a function of time. The bound mass for the different DM models, as indicated in the legend, is shown. The mass was computed by considering particles that initially belonged to the subhalo only and ignoring the host system. Given that for the SIDM halos, the density gradient in the inner region is flat (as can be seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlations of the MW UFDs with the pericentre distance of their orbit. Upper panel: The average density within the physical half￾light radius is displayed as a function of the pericentre to host distance. Middle panel: The physical half-light radius of the UFDs is shown. Lower panel: Stage of gravothermal evolution as a function of the peri￾centre distance. We use the gravothermal evolution stage that we… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Mergers Matter: Gravothermal Collapse in Dwarf Halos with Self-Interacting Dark Matter

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    SIDM simulations of dwarf halos show that quiescent merger histories produce gravothermal core collapse while sustained mergers prevent collapse and can yield central densities below gravothermal fluid model predictions.

  2. Dwarf Galaxy Constraints on Interacting Fermionic Dark Matter

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    MCMC fits of degenerate fermionic dark matter models to eight classical dwarf spheroidal galaxies constrain fermion masses to 100-300 eV and show current data do not strongly favor interacting over non-interacting equ...

  3. Gravothermal Collapse: Robust Against Baryonic Feedback

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R., Brewer, B

    Adams, T. R., Brewer, B. J., & Lewis, G. F. 2026, A Bayesian Exploration of the Mass of Ursa Major III: Kinematics, Rotation and their influence on the Mass to Light Ratio

    2026

  2. [2]

    K., et al

    Adhikari, S., Banerjee, A., Boddy, K. K., et al. 2025, Reviews of Modern Physics, 97, 045004

    2025

  3. [3]

    Amorisco, N. C. 2017, ApJ, 844, 64

    2017

  4. [4]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.13650

    Ando, S., Hayashi, K., Horigome, S., Ibe, M., & Shirai, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.13650

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    L., & Inagaki, S

    Balberg, S., Shapiro, S. L., & Inagaki, S. 2002, ApJ, 568, 475

    2002

  6. [6]

    & Spurzem, R

    Bettwieser, E. & Spurzem, R. 1986, A&A, 161, 102

    1986

  7. [7]

    W., & Ramani, H

    Bogorad, Z., Graham, P. W., & Ramani, H. 2025, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2025, 006

    2025

  8. [8]

    W., Price-Whelan, A

    Bonaca, A., Hogg, D. W., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Conroy, C. 2019, ApJ, 880, 38

    2019

  9. [9]

    S., Pace, A

    Bruce, J., Li, T. S., Pace, A. B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 167

    2023

  10. [10]

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

    2017

  11. [11]

    D., Zavala, J., Sales, L

    Burger, J. D., Zavala, J., Sales, L. V ., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3458–3481

    2022

  12. [12]

    B., Koposov, S

    Buttry, R., Pace, A. B., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1706

    2022

  13. [13]

    L., Grillmair, C

    Carlin, J. L., Grillmair, C. J., Muñoz, R. R., Nidever, D. L., & Majewski, S. R. 2009, ApJ, 702, L9

    2009

  14. [14]

    P., et al

    Cerny, W., Bissonette, D., Ji, A. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.02431

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    D., Li, T

    Cerny, W., Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 111

    2023

  16. [16]

    Cerny, W. et al. 2026, A Chemodynamical Census of the Milky Way’s Ultra-Faint Compact Satellites. I. A First Population-Level Look at the Internal Kinemat- ics and Metallicities of 19 Extremely-Low-Mass Halo Stellar Systems

    2026

  17. [17]

    T., van den Bosch, F

    Chiang, B. T., van den Bosch, F. C., & Schive, H.-Y . 2025, MNRAS, 544, 36

    2025

  18. [18]

    D., et al

    Chiti, A., Frebel, A., Simon, J. D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 392–400

    2021

  19. [19]

    D., Frebel, A., et al

    Chiti, A., Simon, J. D., Frebel, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 41

    2022

  20. [20]

    Correa, C. A. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 920

    2021

  21. [21]

    A., Schaller, M., Ploeckinger, S., et al

    Correa, C. A., Schaller, M., Ploeckinger, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3045

    2022

  22. [22]

    2025, The AIDA-TNG project: dark matter profiles and concentrations in alternative dark matter models

    Despali, G., Giocoli, C., Moscardini, L., et al. 2025, The AIDA-TNG project: dark matter profiles and concentrations in alternative dark matter models

    2025

  23. [23]

    Devlin, S., Baumgardt, H., & Sweet, S. M. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2485 2 https://github.com/apace7/local_volume_database Article number, page 7 of 9 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda

    2025

  24. [24]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 38

    Dutra, I., Natarajan, P., & Gilman, D. 2025, ApJ, 978, 38

    2025

  25. [25]

    2001, ApJ, 560, 636

    El-Zant, A., Shlosman, I., & Hoffman, Y . 2001, ApJ, 560, 636

    2001

  26. [26]

    Engelhardt, A., Munshi, F., Peter, A. H. G., et al. 2026, MARVELously Dark: the gravothermal evolution of dwarf halos in velocity-dependent SIDM

    2026

  27. [27]

    Enzi, W. J. R., Krawczyk, C. M., Ballard, D. J., & Collett, T. E. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 247

    2025

  28. [28]

    F., Peñarrubia, J., Famaey, B., & Ibata, R

    Errani, R., Navarro, J. F., Peñarrubia, J., Famaey, B., & Ibata, R. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 384

    2023

  29. [29]

    F., Smith, S

    Errani, R., Navarro, J. F., Smith, S. E. T., & McConnachie, A. W. 2024, ApJ, 965, 20

    2024

  30. [30]

    D., Yu, H.-B., & Zhong, Y .-M

    Essig, R., McDermott, S. D., Yu, H.-B., & Zhong, Y .-M. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 123, 121102

    2019

  31. [31]

    2021, Astrophys

    Feng, W.-X., Yu, H.-B., & Zhong, Y .-M. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 914, L26

    2021

  32. [32]

    2025, Dark Bondi Accretion Aided by Baryons and the Origin of JWST Little Red Dots

    Feng, W.-X., Yu, H.-B., & Zhong, Y .-M. 2025, Dark Bondi Accretion Aided by Baryons and the Origin of JWST Little Red Dots

    2025

  33. [33]

    S., Brüggen, M., Schmidt-Hoberg, K., et al

    Fischer, M. S., Brüggen, M., Schmidt-Hoberg, K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1923

    2022

  34. [34]

    S., Yu, H.-B., & Dolag, K

    Fischer, M. S., Yu, H.-B., & Dolag, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.06269

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Fisher, L. K. C., Goldstein, I. S., Kumar, J., & Strigari, L. E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.03823 Flammini Dotti, F., Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R., Carraro, G., Trani, A. A., & Spurzem, R. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.13049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    K., Carrera, R., Battaglia, G., & Taibi, S

    Fritz, T. K., Carrera, R., Battaglia, G., & Taibi, S. 2019, A&A, 623, A129

    2019

  37. [37]

    K., Kaplinghat, M., Outmezguine, N

    Gad-Nasr, S., Boddy, K. K., Kaplinghat, M., Outmezguine, N. J., & Sagunski, L. 2024, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2024, 131

    2024

  38. [38]

    2023, Phys

    Gilman, D., Zhong, Y .-M., & Bovy, J. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 103008

    2023

  39. [39]

    2012, MNRAS, 422, 1231

    Governato, F., Zolotov, A., Pontzen, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1231

    2012

  40. [40]

    Graham, P. W. & Ramani, H. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110

    2024

  41. [41]

    D., Das, P., Heber, D., & Izzard, R

    Gration, A., Hendriks, D. D., Das, P., Heber, D., & Izzard, R. G. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 1120

    2025

  42. [42]

    2026, Non-Equilibrium Relativistic Core Collapse of Self-Interacting Dark Matter Halos – Limits On Seed Black Hole Mass

    Gu, H.-P., Jiang, F., Chen, X., & Li, R. 2026, Non-Equilibrium Relativistic Core Collapse of Self-Interacting Dark Matter Halos – Limits On Seed Black Hole Mass

    2026

  43. [43]

    & May, S

    Gurian, J. & May, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.15903

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    T., Simon, J

    Hansen, T. T., Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 21

    2024

  45. [45]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  46. [46]

    Hayashi, K., Ferreira, E. G. M., & Chan, H. Y . J. 2021, ApJ, 912, L3

    2021

  47. [47]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 185

    Hayashi, K., Hirai, Y ., Chiba, M., & Ishiyama, T. 2023, ApJ, 953, 185

    2023

  48. [48]

    2021, Phys

    Hayashi, K., Ibe, M., Kobayashi, S., Nakayama, Y ., & Shirai, S. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103

    2021

  49. [49]

    E., Li, T

    Heiger, M. E., Li, T. S., Pace, A. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 234

    2024

  50. [50]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  51. [51]

    Huo, R., Yu, H.-B., & Zhong, Y .-M. 2020, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 06, 051 Häkkinen, J., Rawlings, A., Sawala, T., & Walker, M. G. 2025, Stellar cores live long and prosper in cuspy dark matter halos

    2020

  52. [52]

    A., Li, T

    Jenkins, S. A., Li, T. S., Pace, A. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 92

    2021

  53. [53]

    2026, An Enhanced Isothermal Jeans Approach to Constraining Dark Matter Self-Interactions from Galactic Kinematics

    Jia, Z., Jiang, F., Li, S., et al. 2026, An Enhanced Isothermal Jeans Approach to Constraining Dark Matter Self-Interactions from Galactic Kinematics

    2026

  54. [54]

    2026, ApJ, 996, L19

    Jiang, F., Jia, Z., Zheng, H., et al. 2026, ApJ, 996, L19

    2026

  55. [55]

    R., & Wu, C.-L

    Kahlhoefer, F., Kaplinghat, M., Slatyer, T. R., & Wu, C.-L. 2019, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 12, 010

    2019

  56. [56]

    & Sigurdson, K

    Kamionkowski, M. & Sigurdson, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.23705

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.04334

    Kamionkowski, M., Sigurdson, K., & Slone, O. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.04334

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 231

    Kaplinghat, M., Valli, M., & Yu, H.-B. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 231

    2019

  59. [59]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 16

    Kim, D., Jerjen, H., Geha, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 16

    2016

  60. [60]

    N., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Cohen, J

    Kirby, E. N., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Cohen, J. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 16

    2013

  61. [61]

    N., Simon, J

    Kirby, E. N., Simon, J. D., & Cohen, J. G. 2015, ApJ, 810, 56

    2015

  62. [62]

    & Shapiro, P

    Koda, J. & Shapiro, P. R. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1125

    2011

  63. [63]

    E., Nightingale, J

    Kollmann, K. E., Nightingale, J. W., Lisanti, M., Robertson, A., & Slone, O. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag066

    2026

  64. [64]

    & Yu, H.-B

    Kong, D. & Yu, H.-B. 2025, Physics of the Dark Universe, 48, 101939

    2025

  65. [65]

    M., Profumo, S., & Smyth, N

    Koulen, J. M., Profumo, S., & Smyth, N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.19015

    arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 388

    Kummer, J., Kahlhoefer, F., & Schmidt-Hoberg, K. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 388

    2018

  67. [67]

    S., Jia, Z., et al

    Li, S., Fischer, M. S., Jia, Z., et al. 2026, Testing the isothermal Jeans model for self-interacting dark matter halos in the collapse phase

    2026

  68. [68]

    Li, S. et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 201

    2025

  69. [69]

    S., Simon, J

    Li, T. S., Simon, J. D., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 8

    2017

  70. [70]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 2609–2627

    Longeard, N., Martin, N., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2609–2627

    2018

  71. [71]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.06198

    Lujan, N., Gebhardt, K., Anantua, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.06198

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    & Eggleton, P

    Lynden-Bell, D. & Eggleton, P. P. 1980, MNRAS, 191, 483

    1980

  73. [73]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.13004

    Mace, C., Yang, S., Carton Zeng, Z., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.13004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    C., Peter, A

    Mace, C., Zeng, Z. C., Peter, A. H. G., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 123024

    2024

  75. [75]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 1947

    Martizzi, D., Teyssier, R., & Moore, B. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1947

    2013

  76. [76]

    E., Gad-Nasr, S., Kaplinghat, M., & Vegetti, S

    Minor, Q. E., Gad-Nasr, S., Kaplinghat, M., & Vegetti, S. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1662

    2021

  77. [77]

    Nadler, E. O. 2025, ApJ, 983, L23

    2025

  78. [78]

    O., Yang, D., & Yu, H.-B

    Nadler, E. O., Yang, D., & Yu, H.-B. 2023, ApJ, 958, L39

    2023

  79. [79]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

    1996

  80. [80]

    M., Spergel, D

    Nibauer, J., Bonaca, A., Price-Whelan, A. M., Spergel, D. N., & Greene, J. E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.02247

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.