Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 103 references

Constraints on dark matter self-interaction from velocity distribution function in isolated halos

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Self-interacting dark matter with a cross-section above about 2.7 cm²/g would distort the local dark-matter velocity distribution more than Milky Way rotation-curve observations allow.

desk verdict The headline σ/m bound is not reproducible from the paper's own coefficients, and the simulated halos are far more concentrated than real Milky-Way-size halos, so the claim of conservatism is doubtful. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10451 v1 pith:J775ZA4X submitted 2025-05-15 hep-ph astro-ph.GA

Tirtha Sankar Ray , Sambo Sarkar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.GA
keywords darkmatterself-interactionvelocitydistributionfunctionMaxwell-BoltzmannrotationcurvesMilkyWayhalolowsurfacebrightnessgalaxiesgalaxyclustersSIDMconstraints
topics Dark Matter
open problems 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

This paper tries to establish that dark-matter self-interactions leave a measurable imprint in the velocity distribution of dark matter inside galactic halos, not only in their density. From N-body simulations of isolated halos spanning low-surface-brightness galaxies, Milky-Way-sized spirals, and galaxy clusters, the authors find that self-scattering raises the most probable dark-matter speed inside the thermalized core, and they encode this shift as a function of halo mass and cross-section. Comparing the predicted shift with rotation-curve observations at the Solar circle yields a conservative upper bound $\sigma/m \le 2.7\,\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}$ at 95% confidence for Milky-Way-like halos, with weaker bounds of about $9.8\,\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}$ for an LSB galaxy and about $10\,\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}$ for a cluster. A sympathetic reader would care because a single, relatively local observable, the speed of stars in a spiral galaxy, would then constrain a fundamental particle property of dark matter.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the most probable speed $v_0$ of a truncated Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution, $f(v)\propto \exp(-|v|^2/v_0^2)$ for $|v|\le v_{\rm esc}$. The paper treats $v_0$ as a fitted function of halo mass and $\sigma/m$, calibrated to simulations with two empirical forms, P1 (polynomial) and P2 (power law). Self-scattering redistributes energy and pushes $v_0$ upward in the core; the observational bridge is the approximation $v_0(R_\odot)\simeq v_\odot$, in which collisionless stars are treated as tracers of the dark-matter dynamics. Comparing the simulated rise in $v_0$ with the measured stellar rotation speed converts rotation-curve data into an upper bound on $\sigma/m$.

What would settle it

Measure the local dark-matter velocity distribution well enough to fix $v_0(R_\odot)$ independently of the rotation curve, for example with a directional direct-detection experiment or reconstruction from tidal streams. If the most probable speed at 8.2 kpc falls outside the $233\pm 6$ km/s band once the full velocity ellipsoid is modeled, the paper's central mapping fails; in that case, re-running the analysis with the measured distribution should shift or erase the $\sigma/m \le 2.7\,\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}$ bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the deformation of the dark-matter velocity distribution from self-interaction is captured by an increase in the most probable velocity $v_0$ of a truncated Maxwell-Boltzmann fit, and that this increase can be calibrated against rotation-curve data to bound the cross-section. After fitting $v_0(\sigma/m, M_{\rm halo})$ with both a polynomial and a power-law ansatz to SIDM N-body simulations, the authors compare the predicted $v_0$ at the Solar radius with the observed local circular velocity $v_\odot = 233\pm 6$ km/s at 8.2 kpc. Requiring consistency at 95% confidence gives $\sigma/m \le 2.7\,\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}$ for the power-law fit and $\sigma/m \le 3.5\,\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}$ for the polynomial fit. Repeating the same procedure for the LSB galaxy F563-1 and the cluster A611 gives $\sigma/m \le 9.8\,\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}$ and $\sigma/m \sim 10\,\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}$, respectively. The authors emphasize that the Milky-Way bound is conservative because baryonic effects, which would strengthen thermalization, are omitted from the simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the identification of the dark matter's most probable speed at the Sun's position with the measured stellar circular velocity, $v_0(R_\odot)\simeq v_\odot=233\pm 6$ km/s; if the dark-matter velocity distribution is not the assumed bell-shaped form, or is direction-dependent, the reported bound no longer follows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Velocity-independent, elastic dark-matter self-interactions with $\sigma/m \gtrsim 2.7\,\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}$ are excluded for Milky-Way-like halos at 95% confidence under the Maxwellian velocity assumption used here.
  • The same pipeline yields scale-dependent bounds: $\sigma/m \lesssim 9.8\,\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}$ for LSB galaxies with inner rotation curves like F563-1 and $\sigma/m \lesssim 10\,\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{g}$ for relaxed clusters like A611.
  • Because baryonic heating is omitted, the reported limits are one-sided and conservative; adding baryons would only strengthen the case for small $\sigma/m$.
  • Within the thermalized core, self-interaction makes the Maxwell-Boltzmann form a progressively better description of the simulated velocity distribution as $\sigma/m$ grows, supporting the use of quasi-thermal distributions for SIDM halos.
  • Direct-detection and indirect-detection analyses that assume a fixed $v_0\simeq v_\odot$ should treat $v_0$ as $\sigma/m$-dependent when interpreting signals from self-interacting models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct kinematic measurement of the local dark-matter velocity distribution, from tidal streams or from the annual modulation signal in a directional detector, could test the mapping $v_0(R_\odot)\simeq v_\odot$; a deviation larger than the quoted $6$ km/s band would shift the bound.
  • The authors report that the generalized Gaussian fits the simulated distributions slightly better than the Maxwell-Boltzmann form, so re-deriving the bound with a Gaussian or Tsallis shape would show how much of the constraint depends on the assumed functional form.
  • The isolated-halo simulations neglect the mergers and accretion that build halos in cosmological settings; if hierarchical assembly changes the inner velocity distribution, the calibrated $v_0(\sigma/m)$ relation, and hence the bound, could move.
  • The method could be applied to the next round of stellar kinematic surveys: more galaxies with high-resolution inner rotation curves would turn this one-object bound into a population-level test of velocity-dependent self-interactions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses GADGET N-body simulations of isolated NFW halos with velocity-independent elastic dark-matter self-interactions to study how the most probable speed v0 of a Maxwell-Boltzmann fit to the DM speed distribution depends on halo mass and on the specific cross section σ/m. The authors fit two empirical forms, a polynomial (P1) and a power law (P2), to simulated v0 values using MCMC, then compare the resulting v0(σ/m) at a benchmark Milky-Way mass with the observed solar circular velocity v⊙ ≈ 233 ± 6 km/s. From this comparison they derive σ/m ≤ 2.7 cm²/g (P2) and ≤ 3.5 cm²/g (P1) at 95% C.L., with weaker bounds for the LSB galaxy F563-1 and the cluster A611. The central claim is a conservative upper limit on velocity-independent SIDM from rotation-curve observations.

Significance. Should the bound hold, it would add a competitive, velocity-distribution-based constraint comparable to Bullet Cluster limits, with the advantage of applying to Milky-Way-mass halos. The paper contains a systematic simulation campaign across nine halo masses and eight cross sections with four realizations each, and it provides a useful quantitative comparison of Maxwell-Boltzmann, Gaussian, and Tsallis fits to simulated velocity distributions. However, the headline bound is not yet established: the benchmark mass is internally inconsistent, the simulated halos are extremely concentrated compared with Milky-Way-like systems, and the assumed v0 ≈ v⊙ mapping is not satisfied by the simulations themselves. These are load-bearing issues rather than presentation defects.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Table 2, Fig. 6] The headline bound cannot be reproduced from the published coefficients at the stated benchmark mass. For the P2 fit in Table 2 with M_halo = 8×10^11 M⊙ (i.e., y = 80 in Eq. 4.2), v0(σ/m=0) = 221.9 km/s and v0(σ/m=5 cm²/g) = 241.0 km/s, so the 95% upper edge of 245 km/s is crossed only at σ/m ≈ 7 cm²/g, not at 2.7 cm²/g. The quoted 2.7 cm²/g corresponds instead to y = 100 (M_halo = 10^12 M⊙), for which v0(0) = 231 km/s and the crossing occurs at σ/m ≈ 2.8 cm²/g. Similarly, the P1 fit gives a crossing near 5.2 cm²/g for y = 80 but near 3.8 cm²/g for y = 100, while the text quotes 3.5 cm²/g. The stated benchmark mass of 8×10^11 M⊙ is therefore inconsistent with the plotted curves and the quoted bounds. The authors must state the exact benchmark mass and radius used in Figure 6, tabulate the v_sim_o values extracted from the simulations, and show the intersection calculation explicitly.
  2. [Table 1 and §5.1] All simulated halos are initialized with r_cut/r_so ≈ 100, i.e., an NFW concentration c ≈ 100. For the 10^12 M⊙ halo, r_so = 1.99 kpc and r_cut = 199 kpc. The standard CDM concentration–mass relation for this mass gives c ≈ 10–15, so the simulated halos are far denser than Milky-Way-like halos. Concretely, the c = 100, 10^12 M⊙ NFW halo has a DM-only circular velocity of about 346 km/s at r = 8.2 kpc, well above the observed 233 ± 6 km/s; the same halo gives about 338 km/s at r = 10 kpc. Because the SIDM heat-transfer rate scales with the local DM density, these overdense initial conditions inflate the response of v0 to σ/m, making the derived limit artificially strong rather than conservative. The argument in §5.1 that baryons 'aid thermalization' does not address this concentration bias. The authors need to recalibrate with realistic concentrations, or demonstrate quantitatively that the v0(σ/m) relation is insensitive to c.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (3.1), Fig. 3] The load-bearing mapping v0(R⊙) ≈ v⊙ is not satisfied by the authors' own simulations. In the c = 100, 10^12 M⊙ halo, the circular velocity at r = 10 kpc is ≈ 338 km/s, while the fitted Maxwell-Boltzmann v0 in Figure 5 is ≈ 230 km/s. Thus v0 ≠ v_circ within the simulated halos, and comparing a simulation-derived v0 directly to the observed stellar circular velocity is not self-consistent unless the ratio v0/v_circ is modeled. In addition, the analysis assumes the MB form even though Figure 3 shows that the Gaussian gives a better fit, and it uses the same v⊙ measurement both to set the MCMC priors and to read off the final bound. The authors should marginalize over the velocity-distribution shape and over the v0/v_circ mapping, or provide a clear physical justification for the adopted identification.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The columns labeled 'Prior Derived' are ambiguous, and several derived values (e.g., b2 = 10^-4 for the Milky-Way and 5×10^-3 for the cluster) are quoted without uncertainties; the log-scaling note in §5.3 is not clearly reflected in the table.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption contains a typo: '44πv2f(v)' should read '4πv²f(v)'.
  3. [References] References [9] and [10] appear internally mislabeled: [9] is listed as Flores & Primack with an incomplete journal citation, while [10] is attributed to 'Planck collaboration, A. Burkert' with a 1995 journal entry; these entries should be corrected.
  4. [Section 3 footnote] The footnote describing the Maxwell-Boltzmann fit to simulated data does not state the number of velocity bins, the weighting scheme, or how the errors used for χ²_r are obtained; these details are needed to judge the fit-quality comparison in Figures 2 and 3.
  5. [§5.1] The text says 'the value of v0 at a galactocentric distance of 8.2 kpc is measured to be (233±6) km/s', but 233±6 km/s is the measured circular velocity v⊙, not a measured v0; the notation should distinguish the observed quantity from the model parameter throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the v0(sigma/m) relation is an independent simulation fit, and the observed v_sun is used only for priors and comparison, not as a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The paper first simulates isolated SIDM halos with independently specified NFW initial conditions (Table 1), fits the simulated velocity distributions to a Maxwell-Boltzmann form, and extracts the most probable speed v_sim_o directly from the N-body output. It then fits the empirical P1/P2 forms v0(sigma/m, Mhalo) to these simulation data using MCMC (Section 4). The observed solar circular velocity v_sun = 233 +/- 6 km/s enters only in two places: it sets the broad prior range on the constant coefficient a0 ('This observation sets the initial conditions and range of priors for our MCMC sampler'), and it defines the comparison band in Figure 6. The posterior coefficients in Table 2 are tightly determined by the simulation data (e.g., a = 7.85 +/- 0.09, alpha = 0.55 +/- 0.01), not by the observation, so the sigma/m dependence of v0 is an independent simulation output. The bound is read where this simulation-driven curve exits the observed band; it is not forced by construction. The approximation v0(R_sun) ~ v_sun is an external modeling assumption, not an equation that identifies the fitted function with the observation. The self-citations, [37] for simulation/convergence details and [83] for the critical-radius estimate, are method-supporting rather than load-bearing for the central claim, which rests on the present simulations and external rotation-curve data. Potential concerns about the high initial NFW concentration or the neglect of baryonic thermalization are model-validity and conservatism issues, not circularity, and do not change this verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central bound rests on ten fitted coefficients (five per ansatz), two hand-chosen analysis inputs (MW benchmark mass and solar radius), and six domain assumptions inherited from standard SIDM simulation practice. No new particles or forces are introduced. The largest assumption burden is the v0-to-circular-velocity mapping and the Maxwellian shape, both of which the paper itself partially problematizes.

free parameters (4)
  • P1 polynomial coefficients (a0, a1, a2, b1, b2) = a0=204.2±2.36, a1=2.04±0.04, a2=0.26±0.01, b1=0.28±0.01, b2=1e-4 (MW fit)
    Fitted via MCMC to v0 extracted from the authors' SIDM simulations; the bound in Figure 6 is the intersection of this fitted curve with the observed v0.
  • P2 power-law coefficients (a0, a, alpha, b, beta) = a0=124±2.89, a=7.85±0.09, alpha=0.55±0.01, b=16.98±0.19, beta=0.40±0.01 (MW fit)
    Same role as P1; the quoted 2.7 cm²/g bound is attributed to P2.
  • Benchmark MW halo mass = 8e11 M_sun
    Hand-chosen representative MW mass in the simulated range 5e11 to 5e12 M_sun; the bound shifts if a different mass is used, e.g., 1e12 M_sun brings v0(σ=0) closer to the observed 233 km/s.
  • Evaluation radius for MW = 8.2 kpc (solar radius)
    The v0(R_sun) relation is evaluated at the solar radius; the simulation fit is radius-specific, and the bound depends on the chosen radius.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption NFW initial density profile for isolated halos
    Initial conditions generated with SphericIC using NFW profiles (Section 2). The velocity distribution result may depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption Velocity-independent, elastic 2-to-2 DM self-interaction
    The simulations and the bound apply only to this scattering model (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution with escape-velocity cutoff
    The analysis adopts MB as the working distribution (Eq. 3.1); the paper itself finds the generalized Gaussian fits the simulated vdf better (Figure 3), so this choice introduces systematic uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Spherically symmetric, isolated, DM-only halos
    Baryonic effects, accretion, and substructure are ignored. The paper argues this makes the bound conservative (Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption Most probable DM speed equals observed local circular velocity
    Section 5.1: v0(R_sun) is approximated by the solar circular velocity 233±6 km/s via stars as tracers of DM dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper Empirical P1/P2 functional forms capture v0(σ/m, Mhalo)
    Eqs. 4.1/4.2 are ad hoc polynomial/power-law ansatze with no physical derivation; fit quality varies across halo classes (Figures 11-12 for clusters).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on dark matter self-interaction from velocity distribution function in isolated halos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J775ZA4X

@misc{pith2026250510451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on dark matter self-interaction from velocity distribution function in isolated halos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J775ZA4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10451}
}
abstract

Self-interactions facilitate inter-particle redistribution of energy within the dense regions of galactic halos, implying modifications in the density and velocity distribution of dark matter. Simulating dark-matter only isolated halos for a wide range of mass and specific self-scattering cross-sections, we make a systematic study of the impact of self-scattering on the velocity distribution profiles. We report a conservative bound on $\sigma/m$ $\leq 2.7 \rm cm^2/gm$ at $95\%$ C.L. from observations of rotation curves in Milky-Way size galaxies. Sub-leading bounds from LSB galaxy and clusters are also presented.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    T. S. Ray, S. Sarkar and A. K. Shaw,Constraints on dark matter self-interaction from galactic core size,JCAP09(2022) 011, [2202.12247]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Bauer and T

    M. Bauer and T. Plehn,Yet Another Introduction to Dark Matter: The Particle Physics Approach, vol. 959 ofLecture Notes in Physics. Springer, 2019, 10.1007/978-3-030-16234-4

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16234-4 2019

  3. [2]

    Catena and A

    R. Catena and A. Widmark,WIMP capture by the Sun in the effective theory of dark matter self-interactions,JCAP12(2016) 016, [1609.04825]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    Egana-Ugrinovic, R

    D. Egana-Ugrinovic, R. Essig, D. Gift and M. LoVerde,The Cosmological Evolution of Self-interacting Dark Matter,JCAP05(2021) 013, [2102.06215]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    G. R. Blumenthal, S. M. Faber, J. R. Primack and M. J. Rees,Formation of galaxies and large-scale structure with cold dark matter.,nat311(Oct., 1984) 517–525

    1984

  6. [5]

    Lisanti,Lectures on Dark Matter Physics, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and Strings, pp

    M. Lisanti,Lectures on Dark Matter Physics, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: New Frontiers in Fields and Strings, pp. 399–446, 2017. 1603.03797. DOI

    arXiv 2017

  7. [6]

    F. Pace, Z. Sakr and I. Tutusaus,Spherical collapse in Generalized Dark Matter models,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 043512, [1912.12250]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    Del Popolo,Dark matter, density perturbations and structure formation, astro-ph/0209128

    A. Del Popolo,Dark matter, density perturbations and structure formation, astro-ph/0209128

    arXiv

Show all 103 references
  1. [8]

    Bernardeau, S

    F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gaztanaga and R. Scoccimarro,Large scale structure of the universe and cosmological perturbation theory,Phys. Rept.367(2002) 1–248, [astro-ph/0112551]

    2002 arXiv

  2. [9]

    R. A. Flores and J. R. Primack,Observational and Theoretical Constraints on Singular Dark Matter Halos,Astrophys. J.(1994) , [9402004]. [10]Planckcollaboration, A. Burkert,Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters, Astrophys. J., Lett.447(1995) L25, [9504041]

    1994

  3. [11]

    Boylan-Kolchin and C.-P

    M. Boylan-Kolchin and C.-P. Ma,Major mergers of galaxy haloes: Cuspy or cored inner density profile?,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.349(2004) 1117, [astro-ph/0309243]

    2004 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Petraki and R

    K. Petraki and R. R. Volkas,The unexpected diversity of dwarf galaxy rotation curves,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.452(2015) 1330028, [1504.01437]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kamada, M

    A. Kamada, M. Kaplinghat, A. B. Pace and H.-B. Yu,How the Self-Interacting Dark Matter Model Explains the Diverse Galactic Rotation Curves,Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) 111102, [1611.02716]. – 14 –

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Boylan-Kolchin, J

    M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock and M. Kaplinghat,Too big to fail? The puzzling darkness of massive Milky Way subhaloes,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.415(2011) L40, [1103.0007]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kaplinghat, R

    M. Kaplinghat, R. E. Keeley, T. Linden and H.-B. Yu,Tying Dark Matter to Baryons with Self-interactions,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 021302, [1311.6524]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Pollack, D

    J. Pollack, D. N. Spergel and P. J. Steinhardt,Supermassive Black Holes from Ultra-Strongly Self-Interacting Dark Matter,Astrophys. J.804(2015) 131, [1501.00017]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Jiang et al.,A semi-analytic study of self-interacting dark-matter haloes with baryons, Mon

    F. Jiang et al.,A semi-analytic study of self-interacting dark-matter haloes with baryons, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.521(2023) 4630–4644, [2206.12425]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Zhong, D

    Y.-M. Zhong, D. Yang and H.-B. Yu,The impact of baryonic potentials on the gravothermal evolution of self-interacting dark matter haloes,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526(2023) 758–770, [2306.08028]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Yang,Exploring self-interacting dark matter halos with diverse baryonic distributions: A parametric approach,Phys

    D. Yang,Exploring self-interacting dark matter halos with diverse baryonic distributions: A parametric approach,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 103044, [2405.03787]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Vogl and X.-J

    S. Vogl and X.-J. Xu,Heating the dark matter halo with dark radiation from supernovae, 2411.18052

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Martin-Alvarez, D

    S. Martin-Alvarez, D. Sijacki, M. G. Haehnelt, M. Farcy, Y. Dubois, V. Belokurov et al.,The Pandora project. I: the impact of radiation and cosmic rays on baryonic and dark matter properties of dwarf galaxies,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.525(2023) 3806–3830, [2211.09139]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. N. Spergel and P. J. Steinhardt,Observational evidence for self-interacting cold dark matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.84(2000) 3760–3763, [astro-ph/9909386]

    2000 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Huo, H.-B

    R. Huo, H.-B. Yu and Y.-M. Zhong,The Structure of Dissipative Dark Matter Halos,JCAP 06(2020) 051, [1912.06757]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kamada, H

    A. Kamada, H. J. Kim and T. Kuwahara,Maximally self-interacting dark matter: models and predictions,JHEP20(2020) 202, [2007.15522]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Rocha, A

    M. Rocha, A. H. G. Peter, J. S. Bullock, M. Kaplinghat, S. Garrison-Kimmel, J. Onorbe et al.,Cosmological Simulations with Self-Interacting Dark Matter I: Constant Density Cores and Substructure,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.430(2013) 81–104, [1208.3025]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Meneghetti, N

    M. Meneghetti, N. Yoshida, M. Bartelmann, L. Moscardini, V. Springel, G. Tormen et al., Giant cluster arcs as a constraint on the scattering cross-section of dark matter,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society325(07, 2001) 435–442

    2001

  19. [27]

    Ko and Y

    P. Ko and Y. Tang,Self-interacting scalar dark matter with localZ 3 symmetry,JCAP1405 (2014) 047, [1402.6449]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Robertson, R

    A. Robertson, R. Massey, V. Eke, J. Schaye and T. Theuns,The surprising accuracy of isothermal Jeans modelling of self-interacting dark matter density profiles,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.501(2021) 4610–4634, [2009.07844]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. W. Randall, M. Markevitch, D. Clowe, A. H. Gonzalez and M. Bradac,Constraints on the Self-Interaction Cross-Section of Dark Matter from Numerical Simulations of the Merging Galaxy Cluster 1E 0657-56,Astrophys. J.679(2008) 1173–1180, [0704.0261]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A. H. G. Peter, M. Rocha, J. S. Bullock and M. Kaplinghat,Cosmological Simulations with Self-Interacting Dark Matter II: Halo Shapes vs. Observations,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 430(2013) 105, [1208.3026]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zavala, M

    J. Zavala, M. Vogelsberger and M. G. Walker,Constraining self-interacting dark matter with the Milky Way’s dwarf spheroidals,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters431(02, 2013) L20–L24. – 15 –

    2013

  24. [32]

    O. D. Elbert, J. S. Bullock, S. Garrison-Kimmel, M. Rocha, J. O˜ norbe and A. H. G. Peter, Core formation in dwarf haloes with self-interacting dark matter: no fine-tuning necessary, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.453(2015) 29–37, [1412.1477]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Banerjee, S

    A. Banerjee, S. Adhikari, N. Dalal, S. More and A. Kravtsov,Signatures of Self-Interacting dark matter on cluster density profile and subhalo distributions,JCAP02(2020) 024, [1906.12026]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Springel, N

    V. Springel, N. Yoshida and S. D. M. White,GADGET: A Code for collisionless and gasdynamical cosmological simulations,New Astron.6(2001) 79, [astro-ph/0003162]

    2001 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Springel,The cosmological simulation code GADGET -2,Mon

    V. Springel,The cosmological simulation code GADGET -2,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.364 (2005) , [1105.1134]

    2005 arXiv

  28. [36]

    P. R. S. Jun Koda,Gravothermal collapse of isolated self-interacting dark matter haloes: N-body simulation versus the fluid model,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc(2011) , [1101.3097]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [38]

    T. R. Quinn, N. Katz, J. Stadel and G. Lake,Time stepping N body simulations, astro-ph/9710043

    arXiv

  30. [39]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White,The Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos, Astrophys.J.(1996) , [astro-ph/9508025]

    1996 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Garrison-Kimmel, M

    S. Garrison-Kimmel, M. Rocha, M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. Bullock and J. Lally,Can Feedback Solve the Too Big to Fail Problem?,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.433(2013) 3539, [1301.3137]. [41]https://bitbucket.org/migroch/spheric

    2013 arXiv

  32. [42]

    M. Zemp, B. Moore, J. Stadel, C. M. Carollo and P. Madau,Multi-Mass Spherical Structure Models for N-body Simulations,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.386(2008) 1543, [0710.3189]. [43]https://github.com/mzemp/halogen

    2008 arXiv

  33. [44]

    Miralda-Escude,A test of the collisional dark matter hypothesis from cluster lensing, Astrophys

    J. Miralda-Escude,A test of the collisional dark matter hypothesis from cluster lensing, Astrophys. J.564(2002) 60, [astro-ph/0002050]

    2002 arXiv

  34. [45]

    J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat and H.-B. Yu,Halo Shape and Relic Density Exclusions of Sommerfeld-Enhanced Dark Matter Explanations of Cosmic Ray Excesses,Phys. Rev. Lett. 104(2010) 151301, [0911.0422]. [46]Planckcollaboration, P. A. R. Ade et al.,Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmolo...

    2010 arXiv

  35. [47]

    Joshi, F

    K. Joshi, F. Rasio and S. F. Portegies Zwart,Monte Carlo simulations of globular cluster evolution - 1. Method and test calculations,Astrophys. J.540(2000) 969, [astro-ph/9909115]

    2000 arXiv

  36. [48]

    Balberg, S

    S. Balberg, S. L. Shapiro and S. Inagaki,Selfinteracting dark matter halos and the gravothermal catastrophe,Astrophys. J.568(2002) 475–487, [astro-ph/0110561]

    2002 arXiv

  37. [49]

    N. J. Outmezguine, K. K. Boddy, S. Gad-Nasr, M. Kaplinghat and L. Sagunski,Universal gravothermal evolution of isolated self-interacting dark matter halos for velocity-dependent cross-sections,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.523(2023) 4786–4800, [2204.06568]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [50]

    Burkert,The Structure and evolution of weakly selfinteracting cold dark matter halos, Astrophys

    A. Burkert,The Structure and evolution of weakly selfinteracting cold dark matter halos, Astrophys. J. Lett.534(2000) L143–L146, [astro-ph/0002409]

    2000 arXiv

  39. [51]

    C. Mace, Z. C. Zeng, A. H. G. Peter, X. Du, S. Yang, A. Benson et al.,Convergence Tests of Self-Interacting Dark Matter Simulations,2402.01604. – 16 –

    arXiv

  40. [52]

    Palubski, O

    I. Palubski, O. Slone, M. Kaplinghat, M. Lisanti and F. Jiang,Numerical challenges in modeling gravothermal collapse in Self-Interacting Dark Matter halos,JCAP09(2024) 074, [2402.12452]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [53]

    Kamada and H

    A. Kamada and H. J. Kim,Escalating core formation with dark matter self-heating,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 043009, [1911.09717]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [54]

    Kaplinghat, S

    M. Kaplinghat, S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu,Dark Matter Halos as Particle Colliders: Unified Solution to Small-Scale Structure Puzzles from Dwarfs to Clusters,Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) 041302, [1508.03339]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [55]

    H.-B. Y. Sean Tulin,Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure,Physics Reports 730(2017) , [1705.02358]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [56]

    Munari, A

    E. Munari, A. Biviano, S. Borgani, G. Murante and D. Fabjan,The relation between velocity dispersion and mass in simulated clusters of galaxies: dependence on the tracer and the baryonic physics,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.430(2013) 2638–2649, [1301.1682]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [57]

    Zhang and Y

    Z.-C. Zhang and Y. Tang,Velocity distribution of dark matter in spikes around Schwarzschild black holes and effects on gravitational waves from extreme-mass-ratio inspirals,Phys. Rev. D 110(2024) 103008, [2403.18529]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [58]

    D. Yang, E. O. Nadler and H.-B. Yu,Testing the parametric model for self-interacting dark matter using matched halos in cosmological simulations,2406.10753

    arXiv

  47. [59]

    Binney and S

    J. Binney and S. Tremaine,Galactic dynamics,Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press (1987)

    1987

  48. [60]

    Lynden-Bell,Statistical mechanics of violent relaxation in stellar systems,Mon

    D. Lynden-Bell,Statistical mechanics of violent relaxation in stellar systems,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.136(1967) 101–121

    1967

  49. [61]

    P. J. T. Leonard and S. Tremaine,The Local Galactic Escape Speed,apj353(1990) 486

    1990

  50. [62]

    Beraldo e Silva, G

    L. Beraldo e Silva, G. A. Mamon, M. Duarte, R. Wojtak, S. Peirani and G. Bou´ e,Anisotropic q-Gaussian 3D velocity distributions inΛCDM haloes,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.452 (2015) 944–955, [1310.6756]

    2015 arXiv

  51. [63]

    Tsallis,Possible Generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs Statistics,J

    C. Tsallis,Possible Generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs Statistics,J. Statist. Phys.52(1988) 479–487

    1988

  52. [64]

    Miller, F

    H. Miller, F. Khanna, R. Teshima, A. Plastino and A. Plastino,Generalized thermostatistics and bose–einstein condensation,Phys. Lett. A359(2006) 357 – 358

    2006

  53. [65]

    D. P. Menezes, A. Deppman, E. Meg´ ıas and L. B. Castro,Non extensive thermodynamics and neutron star properties,Eur. Phys. J. A51(2015) 155, [1410.2264]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [66]

    Szczesniak, E

    R. Szczesniak, E. A. Drzazga, I. A. Domagalska, A. P. Durajski and M. Kostrzewa, Non-parametric application of tsallis statistics to systems consisting of m hydrogen molecules, 2018

    2018

  55. [67]

    Vogelsberger, A

    M. Vogelsberger, A. Helmi, V. Springel, S. D. White, J. Wang, C. S. Frenk et al.,Phase-space structure in the local dark matter distribution and its signature in direct detection experiments,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.395(2009) 797–811, [0812.0362]

    2009 arXiv

  56. [68]

    Kuhlen, N

    M. Kuhlen, N. Weiner, J. Diemand, P. Madau, B. Moore, D. Potter et al.,Dark Matter Direct Detection with Non-Maxwellian Velocity Structure,JCAP02(2010) 030, [0912.2358]

    2010 arXiv

  57. [69]

    F. Ling, E. Nezri, E. Athanassoula and R. Teyssier,Dark Matter Direct Detection Signals inferred from a Cosmological N-body Simulation with Baryons,JCAP02(2010) 012, [0909.2028]

    2010 arXiv

  58. [70]

    Lacroix, A

    T. Lacroix, A. N´ u˜ nez Casti˜ neyra, M. Stref, J. Lavalle and E. Nezri,Predicting the dark matter velocity distribution in galactic structures: tests against hydrodynamic cosmological simulations,JCAP10(2020) 031, [2005.03955]. – 17 –

    2020 arXiv

  59. [71]

    Lisanti, L

    M. Lisanti, L. E. Strigari, J. G. Wacker and R. H. Wechsler,The Dark Matter at the End of the Galaxy,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 023519, [1010.4300]

    2011 arXiv

  60. [72]

    Binney and S

    J. Binney and S. Tremaine,Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition,

  61. [73]

    Y.-Y. Mao, L. E. Strigari and R. H. Wechsler,Connecting Direct Dark Matter Detection Experiments to Cosmologically Motivated Halo Models,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 063513, [1304.6401]

    2014 arXiv

  62. [74]

    T. N. Maity, T. S. Ray and S. Sarkar,Halo uncertainties in electron recoil events at direct detection experiments,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 1005, [2011.12896]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [75]

    Bose and S

    D. Bose and S. Sarkar,Impact of galactic distributions in celestial capture of dark matter, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 063010, [2211.16982]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [76]

    Vogelsberger and J

    M. Vogelsberger and J. Zavala,Direct detection of self-interacting dark matter,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.430(2013) , [1211.1377]

    2013 arXiv

  65. [77]

    Virtanen et al.,SciPy 1.0–Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nature Meth.17(2020) 261, [1907.10121]

    P. Virtanen et al.,SciPy 1.0–Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nature Meth.17(2020) 261, [1907.10121]

    2020 arXiv

  66. [78]

    J. S. Speagle,A Conceptual Introduction to Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods,1909.12313

    1909 arXiv

  67. [79]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,emcee: The mcmc hammer, 1202.3665

    arXiv

  68. [80]

    Eilers, D

    A.-C. Eilers, D. W. Hogg, H.-W. Rix and M. K. Ness,The circular velocity curve of the milky way from 5 to 25 kpc,The Astrophysical Journal871(2019) 120

    2019

  69. [81]

    Y. Zhou, X. Li, Y. Huang and H. Zhang,The circular velocity curve of the milky way from 5–25 kpc using luminous red giant branch stars,The Astrophysical Journal946(2023) 73

    2023

  70. [82]

    Ou, A.-C

    X. Ou, A.-C. Eilers, L. Necib and A. Frebel,The dark matter profile of the Milky Way inferred from its circular velocity curve,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 528(February, 2024) 693–710, [2303.12838]

    2024 arXiv

  71. [83]

    Sarkar,Bounds on self-interacting dark matter from galactic cores,PoSICHEP2022(11,

    S. Sarkar,Bounds on self-interacting dark matter from galactic cores,PoSICHEP2022(11,

  72. [84]

    Bland-Hawthorn and O

    J. Bland-Hawthorn and O. Gerhard,The galaxy in context: structural, kinematic, and integrated properties,Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics54(2016) 529–596. [85]GRA VITYcollaboration, R. Abuter et al.,Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2...

    2016 arXiv

  73. [86]

    N. W. Evans, C. A. J. O’Hare and C. McCabe,Refinement of the standard halo model for dark matter searches in light of the Gaia Sausage,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 023012, [1810.11468]

    2019 arXiv

  74. [87]

    Markevitch, A

    M. Markevitch, A. H. Gonzalez, D. Clowe, A. Vikhlinin, L. David, W. Forman et al.,Direct constraints on the dark matter self-interaction cross-section from the merging galaxy cluster 1E0657-56,Astrophys. J.606(2004) 819–824, [astro-ph/0309303]

    2004 arXiv

  75. [88]

    Robertson, R

    A. Robertson, R. Massey and V. Eke,What does the Bullet Cluster tell us about self-interacting dark matter?,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.465(2017) 569–587, [1605.04307]

    2017 arXiv

  76. [89]

    P. F. de Salas, K. Malhan, K. Freese, K. Hattori and M. Valluri,On the estimation of the local dark matter density using the rotation curve of the Milky Way,jcap2019(Oct., 2019) 037, [1906.06133]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [90]

    Y. Zhou, X. Li, Y. Huang and H. Zhang,The Circular Velocity Curve of the Milky Way from 5-25 kpc Using Luminous Red Giant Branch Stars,apj946(Apr., 2023) 73, [2212.10393]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [91]

    M. G. Roberts, M. Kaplinghat, M. Valli and H.-B. Yu,Gravothermal collapse and the diversity of galactic rotation curves,2407.15005. – 18 –

    arXiv

  79. [92]

    M. R. Buckley, J. Zavala, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, K. Sigurdson and M. Vogelsberger,Scattering, Damping, and Acoustic Oscillations: Simulating the Structure of Dark Matter Halos with Relativistic Force Carriers,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 043524, [1405.2075]

    2014 arXiv

  80. [93]

    Akita and S

    K. Akita and S. Ando,Constraints on dark matter-neutrino scattering from the Milky-Way satellites and subhalo modeling for dark acoustic oscillations,JCAP11(2023) 037, [2305.01913]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [94]

    Y. Wang, P. Mansfield, E. O. Nadler, E. Darragh-Ford, R. H. Wechsler, D. Yang et al., EDEN: Exploring Disks Embedded in N-body simulations of Milky-Way-mass halos from Symphony,2408.01487

    arXiv

  82. [95]

    Kuzio de Naray, S

    R. Kuzio de Naray, S. S. McGaugh and W. J. G. de Blok,Mass Models for Low Surface Brightness Galaxies with High Resolution Optical Velocity Fields,Astrophys. J.676(2008) 920–943, [0712.0860]

    2008 arXiv

  83. [96]

    W. J. G. de Blok, S. S. McGaugh, A. Bosma and V. C. Rubin,Mass density profiles of LSB galaxies,Astrophys. J. Lett.552(2001) L23–L26, [astro-ph/0103102]

    2001 arXiv

  84. [97]

    Kuzio de Naray, S

    R. Kuzio de Naray, S. S. McGaugh, W. J. G. de Blok and A. Bosma,High Resolution Optical Velocity Fields of 11 Low Surface Brightness Galaxies,Astrophys. J. Suppl.165(2006) 461–479, [astro-ph/0604576]

    2006 arXiv

  85. [98]

    Ebisu, T

    T. Ebisu, T. Ishiyama and K. Hayashi,Constraining self-interacting dark matter with dwarf spheroidal galaxies and high-resolution cosmological N-body simulations,Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 023016, [2107.05967]

    2022 arXiv

  86. [99]

    S. Ando, K. Hayashi, S. Horigome, M. Ibe and S. Shirai,Stringent Constraints on Self-Interacting Dark Matter Using Milky-Way Satellite Galaxies Kinematics,2503.13650

    arXiv

  87. [100]

    Hayashi, M

    K. Hayashi, M. Ibe, S. Kobayashi, Y. Nakayama and S. Shirai,Probing dark matter self-interaction with ultrafaint dwarf galaxies,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 023017, [2008.02529]

    2021 arXiv

  88. [101]

    Valli and H.-B

    M. Valli and H.-B. Yu,Dark matter self-interactions from the internal dynamics of dwarf spheroidals,Nature Astron.2(2018) 907–912, [1711.03502]

    2018 arXiv

  89. [102]

    Bradac, S

    M. Bradac, S. W. Allen, T. Treu, H. Ebeling, R. Massey, R. G. Morris et al.,Revealing the properties of dark matter in the merging cluster MACSJ0025.4-1222,Astrophys. J.687 (2008) 959, [0806.2320]

    2008 arXiv

  90. [103]

    Kahlhoefer, K

    F. Kahlhoefer, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, J. Kummer and S. Sarkar,On the interpretation of dark matter self-interactions in Abell 3827,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.452(2015) L54–L58, [1504.06576]

    2015 arXiv

  91. [104]

    V. M. Sabarish, M. Br¨ uggen, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, M. S. Fischer and F. Kahlhoefer, Simulations of galaxy cluster mergers with velocity-dependent, rare, and frequent self-interactions,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.529(2024) 2032–2046, [2310.07769]

    2024 arXiv

  92. [105]

    E. L. Sirks, D. Harvey, R. Massey, K. A. Oman, A. Robertson, C. Frenk et al., Hydrodynamical simulations of merging galaxy clusters: giant dark matter particle colliders, powered by gravity,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.530(2024) 3160–3170, [2405.00140]

    2024 arXiv

  93. [106]

    et al,The Density Profiles of Massive, Relaxed Galaxy Clusters

    N. et al,The Density Profiles of Massive, Relaxed Galaxy Clusters. I. The Total Density Over Three Decades in Radius,The Astronomical Journal765(2013) , [1209.1391]

    2013 arXiv

  94. [107]

    Zhang, H.-B

    X. Zhang, H.-B. Yu, D. Yang and E. O. Nadler,The GD-1 stellar stream perturber as a core-collapsed self-interacting dark matter halo,2409.19493

    arXiv

  95. [108]

    Harvey, R

    D. Harvey, R. Massey, T. Kitching, A. Taylor and E. Tittley,The non-gravitational interactions of dark matter in colliding galaxy clusters,Science347(2015) 1462–1465, [1503.07675]. – 19 –

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.