Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

The Radial Acceleration Relation in Galaxies and Clusters from a Two-Component, Virial-Motivated Framework

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the radial acceleration relation in galaxies, clusters, and weak-lensing data emerges from standard dark matter via a two-component virial theorem with a scale-dependent baryon–dark-matter coupling.

desk verdict The VIM's 'local interaction acceleration' has the wrong units (m^-1 s^-2), so the paper's central claim fails; the CIA is a useful fitting formula but not a derived physical model. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29314 v1 pith:NBUKQTS5 submitted 2026-07-31 astro-ph.GA

Christine C. Dantas (INPE/Brazil) , Andre L. B. Ribeiro (UESC/Brazil) , Hugo V. Capelato (Universidade Cidade de Sao Paulo/Brazil) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords radialaccelerationrelationtwo-componentvirialtheoremdarkmatterhalosbaryon-darkcouplinggalaxyclustersweakgravitationallensingscaleΛCDM
topics Dark Matter
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 is trying to establish that the radial acceleration relation (RAR) — the tight correlation between observed and baryon-only acceleration — can be reproduced across galaxies, brightest cluster galaxies, galaxy clusters, and weak-lensing measurements without modified gravity or exotic baryon–dark-matter physics. The proposed mechanism is the two-component virial theorem (2VT), which adds an interaction term to the usual virial relation for a baryonic system embedded in a dark-matter halo. At galaxy and cluster scales, the dark-matter contribution is approximated as a constant additive acceleration (the CIA model), which yields the RAR's small scatter, its characteristic acceleration scale, and the predictive role of baryons. At the very low accelerations probed by weak-lensing data, that constant approximation fails and a radially resolved version (the VIM) takes over, fitting the data with a standard dark-matter density profile. If right, the RAR is an emergent, environment-dependent outcome of ΛCDM rather than evidence for new gravity.

What carries the argument

The two-component virial theorem (2VT), extended from the scalar virial theorem, defines a global acceleration scale g2VT(rB) = gvir,B(rB) + R gD(rB) at the baryonic gravitational radius, where R is a dimensionless geometrical parameter weighting the dark-matter contribution by the baryonic mass distribution. The CIA promotes the R gD term to a per-system constant gint = G aM, giving a one-parameter additive model; the VIM derives a local interaction acceleration from the radial derivative of the baryon–dark-matter interaction energy, producing a radius-dependent term that depends on the chosen dark-matter density profile. The 2VT sets the global scale, the CIA supplies the leading-order con

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the dark-matter contribution across the baryonic region of an individual galaxy — for example, from resolved rotation-curve decomposition — showing that the dark-matter acceleration changes by more than a factor of a few where the baryonic acceleration changes by orders of magnitude would break the constant-interaction approximation. Likewise, weak-lensing RAR data that continue to flatten rather than turn downward below 10^-14 m/s^2 would falsify the VIM's cuspy-halo prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed acceleration in a baryonic system embedded in a dark-matter halo is the Newtonian baryonic acceleration plus a geometric, baryon-weighted dark-matter contribution, and that this sum, evaluated either as a global constant or as a local radial term, reproduces the RAR across many orders of magnitude in acceleration. The constant-interaction model writes gobs = gB + gint, with gint = G aM, and fits early-type galaxies, late-type galaxies, dwarf spheroidals, brightest cluster galaxies, and intracluster regions; the virial-motivated interaction model replaces gint with a local term that depends on the enclosed dark-matter mass and local dark-matter density,

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the dark-matter contribution to the observed acceleration is nearly constant across the radii sampled within each galaxy, backed by an approximation of constant dark-matter density inside the baryonic region; if the real halo contribution varies strongly there, the CIA's single-constant fits become fitting artifacts rather than a test of the two-component virial theorem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The RAR's small scatter follows because, within each system, the dark-matter contribution is nearly constant, so the baryonic acceleration alone predicts the total acceleration up to a fixed offset.
  • The characteristic acceleration scale is not a fundamental constant in this framework; it emerges as the normalization of the baryon–dark-matter coupling and can differ between system types.
  • The cluster RAR's slope-1/2 power law is an emergent projection of a family of CIA curves with scale-dependent G, not a change in the gravitational law.
  • The VIM predicts a mild downturn in the RAR below roughly 10^-14 m/s^2 for a cuspy halo profile, offering a nontrivial test that future weak-lensing surveys can confirm or refute.
  • G varies with environment: it is higher in brightest cluster galaxies and clusters than in isolated galaxies, and decreases with radius inside clusters, so the RAR carries information about the dark-matter halo rather than a universal law.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If G tracks the halo's central density and concentration, then at fixed baryonic mass, galaxies with more concentrated halos should sit systematically above the mean RAR; this correlation could be searched for in large samples with independent concentration estimates.
  • The framework implies that the RAR is not strictly universal: systems in dense environments should show a different normalization than field galaxies, a prediction testable with cluster weak-lensing and satellite-galaxy kinematics.
  • The VIM's low-acceleration downturn, if confirmed, would discriminate against scale-free modified-gravity formulations that predict continued flattening, since the downturn here stems from the local structure of the dark-matter halo.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The authors compile radial-acceleration-relation (RAR) measurements from early-type galaxies, brightest cluster galaxies, galaxy clusters, and isolated-galaxy weak lensing, and interpret them with two models: the Constant-Interaction Approximation (CIA), g_CIA = g_B + g_int with g_int = G a_M, and the Virial-Motivated Interaction Model (VIM), g_VIM = g_B + g_BD(r). The two-component virial theorem (2VT) is invoked to set the scale of g_int and to motivate the local interaction term. The paper reports that the CIA reproduces the RAR for galaxies, BCGs, and clusters with a scale-dependent G, and that the VIM reproduces the low-acceleration weak-lensing RAR for an NFW-like profile. It concludes that the RAR is an emergent, environment-dependent outcome within a baryon-DM coupling framework. The central interpretive claim is that the RAR's small scatter, characteristic acceleration scale, and baryonic predictive power follow from the 2VT without modified gravity or exotic microphysics.

Significance. The dataset compilation and transparent chi-square fits (e.g., NFW VIM: chi^2/dof = 1.68, Table 1) are useful, and the paper is honest about the CIA breakdown at very low accelerations. If the 2VT link were made quantitative, a scale-dependent baryon-DM coupling parameter would be an interesting target for future lensing and kinematic surveys. As it stands, however, the VIM contains a dimensional inconsistency and the CIA's characteristic scale is inserted as a fitted constant, so the central interpretive claims are not established. The paper is better viewed as an empirical additive-acceleration description than as a physical derivation from the 2VT.

major comments (4)
  1. [App. A.5, Eqs. (A33)-(A34); Table 1; Fig. 4] Dimensional check: W_BD has dimensions of energy, so dW_BD/dr has dimensions of force (M L T^-2). Dividing by 4 pi r^2 and by M_B(<r) yields L^-1 T^-2, i.e., m^-1 s^-2, not m s^-2. The explicit formula (A34) has the same units. Thus g_BD is not an acceleration and cannot be added to g_B in Eq. (A35). The VIM fits to the Mistele et al. RAR are therefore dimensionally inconsistent. Correcting the definition (e.g., removing the 1/(4 pi r^2) factor) would change the fits and requires a full refit.
  2. [Sec. 3.4 and App. A.3, Eqs. (9), (A20), (A21)] The CIA interaction term is specified as g_int = G a_M with G fitted. The 2VT identification g_int = R g_D(r_B) is not used quantitatively: neither R nor g_D(r_B) is computed from the baryonic or DM mass distributions. The paper itself notes the degeneracy in separating G. Hence g_B + g_int is a generic additive fit, not a test of the 2VT. Moreover, the same constant-density approximation gives g_D(r) proportional to r (Eq. A19), not a constant; the constant-interaction step therefore needs independent support.
  3. [Sec. 5, first bullet; App. A.4; Eq. (A20)] The horizontal tail and the transition scale are built in: g_CIA = g_B + g_int asymptotes to g_int when g_B goes to 0. Calling a_M 'emergent' from Eq. (9) is circular, since g_int is normalized to a_M by choosing G. The small-scatter claim is likewise not demonstrated: one G value per population is assigned post hoc, and no predicted scatter from variations in baryonic structure or halo properties is calculated.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 2 right panel; Fig. 3; App. A.3] The CIA approximation assumes g_int is constant within individual systems over the sampled radial range. For intracluster data, however, the fits assign a different G to each radial aperture (R = 100, 200, 400, 600 kpc), effectively averaging over systems at fixed radius. The resulting G(R) trend is therefore a restatement of the data, not a test of constancy within each system. To support the cluster interpretation, the paper should check the constancy of g_D(r) within each cluster's baryonic region using the fitted halo parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Notation] G denotes both the gravitational constant (Eqs. A5, A12) and the CIA parameter (Eq. 9); R denotes both the 2VT geometrical parameter and a cluster-centric radius. These should be distinguished throughout.
  2. [Fig. 3] The axis labels and fitted equations contain rendered placeholder symbols for exponents; the 'virtual connection' line should be removed or clearly labeled as purely illustrative, with no quantitative weight.
  3. [Sec. 3.5] No confidence bands or parameter covariances are reported for the VIM fits. With only 15 data points and 3 free parameters, the quoted differences in alpha among profiles would be more convincing with a likelihood contour or covariance matrix.
  4. [Table 1] The Burkert profile returns alpha = 1.0000 exactly, which suggests a boundary hit; state whether bounds were imposed and whether the boundary is saturated.
  5. [Sec. 5, first bullet] The 'small intrinsic scatter' is claimed as explained, but no scatter measure or comparison is provided. Quantify the scatter predicted by the model, or soften the claim.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The VIM's RAR 'downturn prediction' is a χ² fit to the very Mistele et al. data it is tested against, and the CIA's characteristic scale is inserted by definition (g_int = G a_M) before being declared 'emergent' — partial circularity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.5 (VIM fitting procedure); Sec. 6 (Conclusions)]
    "The parameters of the model (namely, the central DM density ρ0, the scale radius rs, and the dimensionless interaction parameter α; c.f. Eq. A31) were determined by a direct χ2 minimization against the RAR data of Mistele et al. (2024). [...] The downturn in the RAR shown by the VIM is compatible with recent findings (Mistele et al. 2024), which nevertheless are under investigation. This behavior thus provides a further nontrivial test of the predictions of the VIM."

    The VIM's free parameters (ρ0, rs, α) are obtained by χ²-minimizing the VIM curve against the very Mistele et al. (2024) RAR data, and the resulting curves are then plotted against those same data (Fig. 4). The 'downturn' presented as 'a further nontrivial test of the predictions of the VIM' is therefore the fitted model evaluated on its own fitting data, not an out-of-sample prediction. The agreement (χ²/dof ≈ 1.7 for NFW) is a fit statistic for a 3-parameter curve through ~12 points; calling the resulting shape a 'prediction' or 'nontrivial test' renames a fit as a falsifiable forecast.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 3.4 (Eq. 9); Sec. 5, bullet 'A characteristic acceleration scale aM']
    "We do not assume any fixed value for gD, as done previously. Instead, we express the effective interaction term in units of aM , writing gint = G aM . [...] In this sense, the acceleration scale aM emerges naturally through the normalization of the interaction term, reflecting the underlying baryon–DM coupling rather than representing a fundamental constant."

    The characteristic scale a_M (Milgrom's empirical scale) is inserted by definition as the unit of the interaction term (Eq. 9: g_int = G·a_M). The CIA's transition and horizontal-tail levels are then set by the fitted constant g_int; claiming that a_M 'emerges naturally through the normalization of the interaction term' inverts the derivation: the empirical scale is an input, not an output. Likewise, the tight scatter is 'explained' by the model's definitional one-to-one relation g_obs = g_B + const, and the horizontal tail is a property of adding a fitted constant. The RAR's empirical features are therefore accounted for by construction after fitting G to each dataset.

full rationale

The central claims reduce to their inputs in two places, warranting a partial-circularity score of 6. (1) VIM: ρ0, rs, and α are χ²-fitted to the Mistele et al. (2024) RAR data (Sec. 3.5); the resulting downturn, shown against the same data (Fig. 4), is then presented in Sec. 6 as 'a further nontrivial test of the predictions of the VIM.' That is a fit, not a forecast: the agreement measures the quality of a 3-parameter curve through ~12 points. (2) CIA: the characteristic scale is defined into the model at Eq. 9 (g_int = G·a_M, with a_M Milgrom's empirical scale), and Sec. 5 then says a_M 'emerges naturally through the normalization of the interaction term.' The horizontal tail and tight scatter likewise follow from the additive form g_obs = g_B + g_int with a fitted constant; explaining the RAR's empirical features from these fitted properties is by construction. Not circular: the 2VT is re-derived self-contained in App. A.2 (Limber 1959 basis), so the self-citations (Dantas et al. 2000, 2018) are genealogical rather than load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem is imported to forbid alternatives, and no unverified prior result is load-bearing. The CIA fits to external datasets (ETGs, dSphs, BCGs, CLASH clusters) and the VIM's four-profile comparison (NFW best) supply some independent content, and the paper honestly reports the CIA's failure on the lensing regime. Separate correctness caveat (not counted as circularity): Eqs. A33–A34 define g_BD = (1/(4πr²M_B))|dW_BD/dr| = 4παG ρ_D M_D/(M_B r), which has dimensions m⁻¹ s⁻² rather than m s⁻²; the VIM 'local interaction acceleration' is therefore dimensionally inconsistent when added to g_B in Eq. A35, undermining the acceleration-space fits independently of the circularity finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on a large set of free parameters: G per system/radial bin for the CIA, and α, ρ0, rs per halo profile for the VIM. The 2VT supplies the form of the interaction term but not its amplitude, which is always fitted to the same RAR data being explained. The characteristic scale aM is imported from the literature via the definition gint = G aM. No new physical entity is required, but the model's flexibility means the empirical success does not constitute an independent test of the 2VT framework.

free parameters (5)
  • G (CIA) = BCGs 3.166±0.094; LTGs+ETGs 0.270±0.046; dSphs 0.100±0.002; LTGs+dSphs 0.152 (from Dantas+18); clusters from 2.313±0.144
    Dimensionless amplitude of the constant interaction term, gint = G aM. Fitted separately to each dataset and, for clusters, to each radial bin rather than derived from baryonic and DM structural parameters.
  • α (VIM) = NFW 0.0347; Burkert 1.0000; coreISO 1.0000; Moore 0.0001
    Effective local proportionality between baryon and DM densities, assumed constant (Eq. A31). It absorbs the normalization and varies by orders of magnitude across halo profiles.
  • ρ0 (VIM) = NFW 5.00e2; Burkert 1.27e3; coreISO 2.06e3; Moore 5.30e2 M_sun kpc^-3
    DM density normalization fitted to the Mistele et al. (2024) RAR data. The authors note these are effective parameters, not global halo densities.
  • rs (VIM) = NFW 0.656; Burkert 0.164; coreISO 0.062; Moore 2.047 kpc
    DM scale radius fitted to the same data. Strongly degenerate with α and ρ0 for the limited radial range probed.
  • Reference baryonic mass MB = 10^10.96 M_sun
    Chosen as the highest-mass bin of Brouwer et al. (2021). The authors argue α absorbs any change, so MB acts as a normalization choice rather than a fitted physical quantity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Within the baryonic region, the DM density is nearly constant, so MD(<r) ≈ (4π/3) r^3 ρ0,D.
    Used to derive WBD and the 2VT interaction term (App. A.2, Eqs. A12–A18). Not verified against actual halo profiles inside the baryonic region.
  • ad hoc to paper The total observed acceleration is the linear sum of the Newtonian baryonic acceleration and a baryon–DM interaction acceleration (gobs = gB + gint or gB + gBD).
    This is the defining ansatz of the CIA (Eq. 1) and VIM (Eq. 3/A35). It is not a consequence of the virial theorem and is not independently tested.
  • domain assumption The public RAR datasets (Lelli+17, Tian+20/24, Brouwer+21, Mistele+24) provide unbiased accelerations over the quoted ranges.
    All fits inherit the systematics of these datasets, including the photometric-redshift uncertainties flagged in Fig. 1 and the isolation-systematics discussed for the weak-lensing data.
  • domain assumption α(r) is constant (Eq. A31) is a valid effective parametrization of the baryon–DM density coupling.
    The paper itself calls this a 'placeholder' (App. A.5). The fitted α varies by orders of magnitude among profiles, showing the assumption is not profile-independent.
  • domain assumption Milgrom's acceleration scale aM = 1.20e-10 m s^-2 is the appropriate normalization for gint.
    Eq. 9 defines gint = G aM, importing the empirical scale rather than deriving it. This is the mechanism through which the 'characteristic acceleration scale' enters the CIA.
invented entities (2)
  • Effective baryon–DM interaction acceleration gBD(r) (VIM)
    purpose: Additive, radius-dependent local correction to the Newtonian baryonic acceleration used to reproduce the weak-lensing RAR.
    No independent observable is provided; the term is constructed from fitted α, ρ0, and rs. It is not a new particle or force, but a phenomenological acceleration contribution.
  • Constant interaction term gint (CIA)
    purpose: Encapsulates the DM contribution as a single acceleration scale per system to explain the RAR flattening.
    Fitted via G; the paper admits the decomposition into R and gD(rB) is degenerate (Sec. 3.4), so gint has no independent calibration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Radial Acceleration Relation in Galaxies and Clusters from a Two-Component, Virial-Motivated Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NBUKQTS5

@misc{pith2026260729314,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Radial Acceleration Relation in Galaxies and Clusters from a Two-Component, Virial-Motivated Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NBUKQTS5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29314}
}
abstract

We present a comparative analysis of acceleration data for gravitational systems drawn from multiple observational sources, including: (i) early-type galaxies (ETGs) (Lelli et al. 2017); (ii) Brightest Cluster Galaxies (BCGs) and galaxy clusters (Tian et al. 2020, 2024); and (iii) weak gravitational lensing of isolated galaxies (Brouwer et al. 2021; Mistele et al. 2024). These data are interpreted within a framework motivated by the Two-component Virial Theorem (2VT), which defines a global baryon-dark matter (DM) coupling and sets a characteristic acceleration scale. This baseline is complemented by two models that account for the main empirical features of the Radial Acceleration Relation (RAR) over a broad range of masses and accelerations. The Constant-Interaction Approximation Model (CIA) reproduces the observed RAR trends for ETGs, BCGs, and galaxy clusters. It extends earlier results (Dantas et al. 2000, 2018), and accounts for both the small intrinsic scatter and the emergence of a characteristic acceleration scale. At the very low accelerations probed by weak-lensing data (below accelerations of order $10^{-14}~\mathrm{m\,s^{-2}}$), however, this model breaks down. In this regime, the Virial-Motivated Interaction Model (VIM) incorporates the radial structure of the baryon-DM interaction through a local, radius-dependent contribution to the acceleration. Taken together, the 2VT (global scale), the CIA and the VIM provide a physically motivated framework that captures the main empirical features of the RAR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29314 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The CIA and the RAR for galaxies (ETGs, LTGs, dSphs, and BCGs), including the empirical model curves for comparison. The light blue region in the very low baryon acceleration range signals an uncertainty in the photometric KiDS redshifts as described by Brouwer et al. (2021). The VIM curves for this lower acceleration regime are treated separately in Sec. 4.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. RAR curves and data symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: Dependence of the CIA best-fit parameter G on the reference effective radius, R˜e (BCGs), or on the cluster-centric distance, R (clusters). Two quasi-linear models are shown in black and grey lines (fit considering BCGs and intracluster data). A linear model was fit for the intracluster data only (orange line). Right panel: Same as the left panel, now including the CIA best-fit parameters, G, for galaxie… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: Best-fit of the VIM model for isolated galaxy lenses, obtained by fitting the deprojected RAR data of Mistele et al. (2024) using four different DM density profiles (indicated in the legend). The isolated-galaxy lensing measurements of Brouwer et al. (2021)…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., Alarcon, A., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520 2022

  2. [2]

    Bekenstein, J. D. 2004, Physical Review D, 70, 083509, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.083509 Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Frenk, C. S., Ludlow, A. D., &

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.083509 2004

  3. [3]

    Navarro, J. F. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 2387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1890

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1890 2019

  4. [4]

    1987, Galactic dynamics (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1987, 747 p.)

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic dynamics (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1987, 747 p.)

    1987

  5. [5]

    S., & Kaplinghat, M

    Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., & Kaplinghat, M. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, L40, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01074.x

    arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    M., Visser, M

    Brouwer, M. M., Visser, M. R., Dvornik, A., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 2547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3192

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3192 2017

  7. [7]

    M., Oman, K

    Brouwer, M. M., Oman, K. A., Valentijn, E. A., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040108

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040108 2021

  8. [8]

    1995, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 447, L25, doi: 10.1086/309560

    Burkert, A. 1995, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 447, L25, doi: 10.1086/309560

    doi:10.1086/309560 1995

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    C., Ribeiro, A

    Dantas, C. C., Ribeiro, A. L. B., & Capelato, H. V. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 618, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2785

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Carvalho, R. R. 2000, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 528, L5, doi: 10.1086/312415 de Blok, W. J. G. 2010, Advances in Astronomy, 2010, 789293, doi: 10.1155/2010/789293 de Jong, J. T. A., Kuijken, K., Applegate, D., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 154, 44

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, L35, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx134

    Desmond, H. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, L35, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx134

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Hill, D

    Driver, S. P., Hill, D. T., Kelvin, L. S., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 971, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18188.x

    2011

  5. [13]

    W., & Wadsley, J

    Keller, B. W., & Wadsley, J. W. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 835, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/835/1/L17

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F

    Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 522, 82, doi: 10.1086/307643

    1999 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 625, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834918

    Kuijken, K., Heymans, C., Dvornik, A., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 625, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834918

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    S., & Schombert, J

    Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., & Schombert, J. M. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 157, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/157

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Schombert, J

    Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., & Pawlowski, M. S. 2017, Astrophysical Journal, 836, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/152

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Limber, D. N. 1959, Astrophysical Journal, 130, 414, doi: 10.1086/146733

    1959 doi

  11. [19]

    D., Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Schaller, M., et al

    Ludlow, A. D., Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Schaller, M., et al. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 118, 161103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.161103

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Lelli, F., & Schombert, J

    McGaugh, S. S., Lelli, F., & Schombert, J. M. 2016, Physical Review Letters, 117, 201101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.201101

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    1983, Astrophysical Journal, 270, 365, doi: 10.1086/161130 The RAR from a 2VT-motivated framework 21 —

    Milgrom, M. 1983, Astrophysical Journal, 270, 365, doi: 10.1086/161130 The RAR from a 2VT-motivated framework 21 —. 2014, Scholarpedia, 9, 31410, doi: 10.4249/scholarpedia.31410

    1983 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024, 020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/020

    Mistele, T., McGaugh, S., Lelli, F., Schombert, J., & Li, P. 2024, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024, 020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/020

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    1999a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 524, L19, doi: 10.1086/312287

    Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., et al. 1999a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 524, L19, doi: 10.1086/312287

    doi

  16. [24]

    1999b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 310, 1147, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03039.x

    Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, F., Stadel, J., & Lake, G. 1999b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 310, 1147, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03039.x

    1999

  17. [25]

    F., Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Fattahi, A., et al

    Navarro, J. F., Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Fattahi, A., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 1841, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1705

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 462, 563, doi: 10.1086/177173 —. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    1996 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Brinks, E., et al

    Oh, S.-H., Hunter, D. A., Brinks, E., et al. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 149, 180, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/180

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    Paranjape, A., & Sheth, R. K. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 632, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2141 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 3464, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20571.x

    Pontzen, A., & Governato, F. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 3464, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20571.x

    2012

  22. [30]

    I., Iorio, G., Agertz, O., & Fraternali, F

    Read, J. I., Iorio, G., Agertz, O., & Fraternali, F. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 2019, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx147

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 391, 1685, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14066.x

    Springel, V., Wang, J., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 391, 1685, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14066.x

    2008

  24. [32]

    Tian, Y., Ko, C.-M., Li, P., McGaugh, S., & Poblete, S. L. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, A180, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347868

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Tian, Y., Umetsu, K., Ko, C.-M., Donahue, M., & Chiu, I. N. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 896, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e3d Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.