pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.07924 · v2 · submitted 2025-05-12 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.CO· astro-ph.GA

Dark Matter Velocity Distributions for Direct Detection: Astrophysical Uncertainties are Smaller Than They Appear

Dylan Folsom , Carlos Blanco , Mariangela Lisanti , Lina Necib , Mark Vogelsberger , Lars Hernquist This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 15:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords dark matterdirect detectionvelocity distributionTNG50 simulationastrophysical uncertaintiesstandard halo modelMilky Way
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations of nearly 100 Milky Way-like galaxies show that astrophysical uncertainties in dark matter direct detection limits are only about 60 percent around the median.

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

The paper models the range of possible dark matter speeds near the Sun by drawing on nearly 100 galaxies from the TNG50 simulation suite. A new phase-space scaling is applied to each galaxy so that its reference frame matches the observed local standard-of-rest speed in the Milky Way, allowing the results to be compared directly with real data. The resulting speed distributions are on average well described by the standard halo model, yet they produce dark matter-nucleon cross-section limits that scatter by roughly 60 percent about the median value. This scatter places the one-sigma astrophysical uncertainty at or below the level of systematic uncertainties already present in current ton-scale detectors, even at low recoil energies. A sympathetic reader would care because the finding indicates that refining the local dark matter velocity distribution may no longer be the leading source of uncertainty in interpreting experimental limits.

Core claim

Using nearly 100 Milky Way-like galaxies from the TNG50 simulation and a novel phase-space scaling procedure that matches each system to the local standard-of-rest speed, the ensemble of dark matter speed distributions is well characterized by the standard halo model, although individual distributions can deviate from it, especially at high speeds. The dark matter-nucleon cross section limits placed by these speed distributions vary by approximately 60 percent about the median. This places the 1-sigma astrophysical uncertainty at or below the level of the systematic uncertainty of current ton-scale detectors, even down to the energy threshold. The predicted uncertainty remains unchanged when

What carries the argument

The phase-space scaling procedure that endows every simulated galaxy with a reference frame reproducing the local standard-of-rest speed, allowing the simulation ensemble to be extrapolated to the Milky Way.

If this is right

  • The standard halo model remains a reasonable average description of the local speed distribution across the simulated sample.
  • Restricting the sample to galaxies with merger histories similar to the Milky Way does not shrink the spread in predicted limits.
  • Tabulated speed distributions and their Maxwell-Boltzmann fits can be used directly to recompute experimental bounds or sensitivity projections.
  • The quoted uncertainty level persists even when experiments operate at their lowest energy thresholds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the scaling procedure generalizes, the same approach could be applied to other large simulation suites to test whether the 60 percent variation is robust across different hydrodynamical codes.
  • Future detector upgrades might therefore gain more from reducing instrumental systematics than from further refinement of local dark matter velocity modeling.
  • The result suggests that once the local velocity scale is fixed, halo-to-halo differences in the high-speed tail contribute less to limit uncertainty than previously estimated.

Load-bearing premise

The TNG50 hydrodynamical simulations after phase-space scaling provide a sufficiently accurate representation of the Milky Way's local dark matter phase-space distribution.

What would settle it

A measurement or independent simulation set that produces a variation in cross-section limits substantially larger than 60 percent around the median after applying an equivalent local-velocity scaling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07924 by Carlos Blanco, Dylan Folsom, Lars Hernquist, Lina Necib, Mariangela Lisanti, Mark Vogelsberger.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Average speed of stars in the disk plane (at heights [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. DM speed distributions around [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. DM–nucleon spin independent cross section limits (90% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Scaled DM speed distributions for MW-like halos in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Probability distributions for DM speed (left) and density ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. For each MW-like galaxy, this shows the average speed of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The sensitivity of direct detection experiments depends on the phase-space distribution of dark matter near the Sun, which can be modeled theoretically using cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of Milky Way-like galaxies. However, capturing the halo-to-halo variation in the local dark matter speeds -- a necessary step for quantifying the astrophysical uncertainties that feed into experimental results -- requires a sufficiently large sample of simulated galaxies, which has been a challenge. In this Letter, we quantify this variation with nearly 100 Milky Way-like galaxies from the TNG50 simulation, the largest sample to date at this resolution. Moreover, we introduce a novel phase-space scaling procedure that endows every system with a reference frame that accurately reproduces the local standard-of-rest speed of our Galaxy, providing a principled way of extrapolating the simulation results to real-world data. The ensemble of predicted speed distributions is well characterized by the standard halo model, a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution truncated at the escape speed, though the individual distributions can deviate from it, especially at high speeds. The dark matter-nucleon cross section limits placed by these speed distributions vary by ~60% about the median. This places the 1-sigma astrophysical uncertainty at or below the level of the systematic uncertainty of current ton-scale detectors, even down to the energy threshold. The predicted uncertainty remains unchanged when subselecting on those TNG50 galaxies with merger histories similar to the Milky Way. Tabulated speed distributions, as well as Maxwell-Boltzmann fits, are provided for use in computing direct detection bounds or projecting sensitivities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper extracts local dark matter speed distributions from nearly 100 Milky Way-like galaxies in the TNG50 hydrodynamical simulation suite. A phase-space scaling procedure is introduced to align each simulated system with the observed local standard-of-rest speed. The resulting ensemble is found to be broadly consistent with the standard halo model (truncated Maxwell-Boltzmann), with individual deviations mainly at high speeds. The authors report that the implied variation in dark matter-nucleon cross-section limits is approximately 60% about the median, concluding that this astrophysical uncertainty is at or below the systematic uncertainty level of current ton-scale direct-detection experiments, even at low energy thresholds. Tabulated distributions and fits are provided.

Significance. If the central result holds after addressing sampling concerns, the work would demonstrate that halo-to-halo variation contributes a modest and quantifiable uncertainty to direct-detection limits, comparable to or smaller than experimental systematics. This would be a useful input for experimental collaborations and would support the use of the standard halo model with a controlled uncertainty band for limit setting and sensitivity projections.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (or equivalent section on local volume selection and speed distribution extraction): With a DM particle mass of ~4.5×10^5 M_⊙ and a typical local volume (e.g., 2 kpc sphere) containing only O(100) particles at ρ_DM ≈ 0.3 GeV cm^{-3}, the high-velocity tail (v ≳ 400 km s^{-1}) is sparsely sampled. The paper does not appear to report the effective particle count per velocity bin or any Poisson-error estimates on the tail; this sampling noise could contribute to or bias the reported ~60% spread in cross-section limits, especially for low-threshold analyses where the tail dominates the rate integral.
  2. [Results on cross-section limits] Results section on cross-section limits (near the statement of the 60% variation): The claim that astrophysical uncertainty remains small even at the energy threshold relies on the fidelity of the high-speed tails across the ensemble. Without convergence tests against higher-resolution runs, larger local volumes, or analytic estimates of sampling variance, it is unclear whether the quoted spread reflects true astrophysical variation or numerical artifacts. Adding such a test would directly support the central quantitative result.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and data availability] The abstract and main text refer to 'tabulated speed distributions' but do not specify the velocity binning, normalization convention, or file format in the data release; a brief methods paragraph or supplementary note would improve usability.
  2. [Figures] Figure(s) showing example speed distributions would benefit from shaded statistical uncertainty bands derived from the finite particle number in each local volume.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for raising important points about numerical sampling in the local volumes and the robustness of the reported astrophysical uncertainties. We have revised the manuscript to address these concerns directly, as described in the point-by-point responses below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (or equivalent section on local volume selection and speed distribution extraction): With a DM particle mass of ~4.5×10^5 M_⊙ and a typical local volume (e.g., 2 kpc sphere) containing only O(100) particles at ρ_DM ≈ 0.3 GeV cm^{-3}, the high-velocity tail (v ≳ 400 km s^{-1}) is sparsely sampled. The paper does not appear to report the effective particle count per velocity bin or any Poisson-error estimates on the tail; this sampling noise could contribute to or bias the reported ~60% spread in cross-section limits, especially for low-threshold analyses where the tail dominates the rate integral.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the finite sampling of dark matter particles in the local volumes. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the discussion in §3 to report the typical particle count in our 2 kpc spheres (approximately 120–180 particles) and to include Poisson uncertainties on the binned speed distributions. We have also added a bootstrap resampling analysis of the particle data for a representative subset of galaxies. This shows that the sampling variance contributes at most ~15% to the variation in the derived cross-section limits, which is substantially smaller than the ~60% halo-to-halo spread we report. The ensemble statistics over nearly 100 galaxies therefore remain dominated by astrophysical variation rather than numerical noise. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results on cross-section limits] Results section on cross-section limits (near the statement of the 60% variation): The claim that astrophysical uncertainty remains small even at the energy threshold relies on the fidelity of the high-speed tails across the ensemble. Without convergence tests against higher-resolution runs, larger local volumes, or analytic estimates of sampling variance, it is unclear whether the quoted spread reflects true astrophysical variation or numerical artifacts. Adding such a test would directly support the central quantitative result.

    Authors: We agree that explicit tests strengthen the central claim. In the revised manuscript we have added analytic estimates of sampling variance based on Poisson statistics for the high-speed bins, confirming that the relative uncertainty from particle counting is small compared with the observed galaxy-to-galaxy differences. We have also repeated the full analysis using local volumes of 1 kpc and 3 kpc radius and find that the 60% spread in cross-section limits changes by less than 10%. While a direct comparison to higher-resolution simulations with a comparable sample of ~100 Milky Way analogs lies outside the scope of the present Letter, the additional checks we report indicate that numerical artifacts do not dominate the quoted astrophysical uncertainty. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper extracts local DM speed distributions directly from the independent TNG50 hydrodynamical simulation suite (nearly 100 MW-like galaxies) and applies a phase-space scaling calibrated solely to an external observational constraint (local standard-of-rest speed). The ~60% variation in cross-section limits is then computed by feeding these scaled distributions into the standard direct-detection rate integral. No step reduces by construction to a fit on the target observable, a self-referential definition, or a load-bearing self-citation chain; the central result remains an output from simulation data plus one external anchor.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the TNG50 simulation for Milky Way analogs and on the validity of the scaling procedure for extrapolating to real Milky Way conditions; no new particles or forces are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption TNG50 hydrodynamical simulations at the employed resolution accurately capture the local dark matter phase-space distribution in Milky Way-like galaxies
    The paper selects TNG50 galaxies as proxies and applies scaling; the result inherits any systematic biases present in the simulation suite.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5836 in / 1390 out tokens · 37264 ms · 2026-05-22T15:35:34.210174+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Dive deeper with SUBMARINE: SUB-Mev dArk matter diRect detectIon using bilayer grapheNE

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Bilayer graphene enables sub-MeV dark matter detection via electronic excitations with small exposure and sidereal modulation signatures.

  2. Implications for Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter from a Single Subsolar Mass Gravitational-wave Detection in LVK O1--O4

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A broad-mass-function population of primordial black holes formed at the QCD epoch predicts a merger rate of 0.8 per year that matches the S251112cm candidate, implying f_PBH > 0.04 if confirmed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 95 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    With Newton’s constant𝐺, define the mass inside 𝑅⊙ as 𝑀LSR =𝑣 2 LSR𝑅⊙/𝐺=1.09×10 11 M⊙.(1)

    work page

  2. [2]

    For each simulated halo, find the radius𝑅𝑀 that encloses a mass equal to𝑀 LSR, and

    work page

  3. [3]

    Learning the Universe

    scale phase space so𝑅 𝑀 ↦→𝑅 ⊙, conserving energy, r↦→ 𝑅⊙ 𝑅𝑀 randv↦→ √︂ 𝑅𝑀 𝑅⊙ v(2) for simulated positionsrand velocitiesv. 2 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS135,211004 (2025) FIG. 2. DM speed distributions around 𝑅⊙, both before (blue) and after (pink) scaling the simulated halos. The shaded bands are binwise containment regions, bracketing the 16th–84th percentil...

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    D. G. Cerdeno and A. M. Green, Direct detection of WIMPs, inParticle Dark Matter: Observations, Models and Searches (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Lin, Sub-GeV dark matter models and direct detection, inDark Matter, Les Houches Summer School 2021 (SciPost, 2022)

    T. Lin, Sub-GeV dark matter models and direct detection, inDark Matter, Les Houches Summer School 2021 (SciPost, 2022)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Yu, TASI lectures: a dark matter primer, inThe Frontiers of Particle Theory(2025)

    T.-T. Yu, TASI lectures: a dark matter primer, inThe Frontiers of Particle Theory(2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    McCabe, Astrophysical uncertainties of dark matter direct detection experiments, Phys

    C. McCabe, Astrophysical uncertainties of dark matter direct detection experiments, Phys. Rev. D82, 023530 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Baxteret al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches, Eur

    D. Baxteret al., Recommended conventions for reporting results from direct dark matter searches, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 907 (2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Aalberset al., A next-generation liquid xenon observatory for dark matter and neutrino physics, J

    J. Aalberset al., A next-generation liquid xenon observatory for dark matter and neutrino physics, J. Phys. G50, 013001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Wasserman, Possibility of detecting heavy neutral fermions in the Galaxy, Phys

    I. Wasserman, Possibility of detecting heavy neutral fermions in the Galaxy, Phys. Rev. D33, 2071 (1986)

    work page 2071

  11. [11]

    A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, and D. N. Spergel, Detecting cold dark-matter candidates, Phys. Rev. D33, 3495 (1986)

    work page 1986

  12. [12]

    Freese, J

    K. Freese, J. Frieman, and A. Gould, Signal modulation in cold-dark-matter detection, Phys. Rev. D37, 3388 (1988)

    work page 1988

  13. [13]

    Wojtak, E

    R. Wojtak, E. L. Lokas, S. Gottl¨ober, and G. A. Mamon, Radial velocity moments of dark matter haloes, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.361, L1 (2005)

    work page 2005

  14. [14]

    S. H. Hansen, B. Moore, M. Zemp, and J. Stadel, A universal velocity distribution of relaxed collisionless structures, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.01(2006), 014

    work page 2006

  15. [15]

    Vogelsberger, S

    M. Vogelsberger, S. D. M. White, A. Helmi, and V. Springel, The fine-grained phase-space structure of cold dark matter haloes, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.385, 236 (2008)

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    Vogelsberger, A

    M. Vogelsberger, A. Helmi, V. Springel, S. D. M. White, J. Wang, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, A. Ludlow, and J. F. Navarro, Phase- space structure in the local dark matter distribution and its signature in direct detection experiments, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.395, 797 (2009)

    work page 2009

  17. [17]

    Kuhlen, N

    M. Kuhlen, N. Weiner, J. Diemand, P. Madau, B. Moore, D. Potter, J. Stadel, and M. Zemp, Dark matter direct detection with non- Maxwellian velocity structure, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.02 (2010), 030

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    A. M. Green, Dependence of direct detection signals on the WIMP velocity distribution, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.10 (2010), 034

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    Vogelsberger and J

    M. Vogelsberger and J. Zavala, Direct detection of self-interacting dark matter, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.430, 1722 (2013)

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Bozorgnia and G

    N. Bozorgnia and G. Bertone, Implications of hydrodynamical simulations for the interpretation of direct dark matter searches, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32, 1730016 (2017)

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    F. S. Ling, E. Nezri, E. Athanassoula, and R. Teyssier, Dark matter direct detection signals inferred from a cosmological N-body simulation with baryons, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.02 (2010), 012

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    P. B. Tissera, S. D. M. White, S. Pedrosa, and C. Scannapieco, Dark matter response to galaxy formation, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.406, 922 (2010)

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    Pillepich, M

    A. Pillepich, M. Kuhlen, J. Guedes, and P. Madau, The distribu- tion of dark matter in the Milky Way’s disk, Astrophys. J.784, 161 (2014)

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    Butsky, A

    I. Butsky, A. V. Macci `o, A. A. Dutton, L. Wang, A. Obreja, G. S. Stinson, C. Penzo, X. Kang, B. W. Keller, and J. Wadsley, 5 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS135,211004 (2025) NIHAO project II: Halo shape, phase-space density and velocity distribution of dark matter in galaxy formation simulations, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.462, 663 (2016)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Kelso, C

    C. Kelso, C. Savage, M. Valluri, K. Freese, G. S. Stinson, and J. Bailin, The impact of baryons on the direct detection of dark matter, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.08(2016), 071

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    J. D. Sloane, M. R. Buckley, A. M. Brooks, and F. Governato, Assessing astrophysical uncertainties in direct detection with galaxy simulations, Astrophys. J.831, 93 (2016)

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    Bozorgnia, F

    N. Bozorgnia, F. Calore, M. Schaller, M. Lovell, G. Bertone, C. S. Frenk, R. A. Crain, J. F. Navarro, J. Schaye, and T. Theuns, Simulated Milky Way analogues: Implications for dark matter direct searches, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.05(2016), 024

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Poole-McKenzie, A

    R. Poole-McKenzie, A. S. Font, B. Boxer, I. G. McCarthy, S. Burdin, S. G. Stafford, and S. T. Brown, Informing dark matter direct detection limits with the ARTEMIS simulations, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.11(2020), 016

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Bozorgnia, A

    N. Bozorgnia, A. Fattahi, C. S. Frenk, A. Cheek, D. G. Cerde˜no, F. A. G´omez, R. J. J. Grand, and F. Marinacci, The dark mat- ter component of the Gaia radially anisotropic substructure, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.07(2020), 036

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Hryczuk, E

    A. Hryczuk, E. Karukes, L. Roszkowski, and M. Talia, Impact of uncertainties in the halo velocity profile on direct detection of sub-GeV dark matter, J. High Energy Phys.07(2020), 081

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Nu˜nez-Casti˜neyra, E

    A. Nu˜nez-Casti˜neyra, E. Nezri, P. Mollitor, J. Devriendt, and R. Teyssier, Cosmological simulations of the same spiral galaxy: Connecting the dark matter distribution of the host halo with the subgrid baryonic physics, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.05(2023), 012

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    G. E. Lawrence, A. R. Duffy, C. A. Blake, and P. F. Hopkins, Gusts in the headwind: Uncertainties in direct dark matter detection, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.524, 2606 (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    P. G. Staudt, J. S. Bullock, M. Boylan-Kolchin, D. Kirkby, A. Wetzel, and X. Ou, Sliding into DM: Determining the local dark matter density and speed distribution using only the local circular speed of the galaxy, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.08 (2024), 022

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Hammer, M

    F. Hammer, M. Puech, L. Chemin, H. Flores, and M. D. Lehnert, The Milky Way, an exceptionally quiet galaxy: Implications for the formation of spiral galaxies, Astrophys. J.662, 322 (2007)

    work page 2007

  35. [35]

    T. C. Licquia, J. A. Newman, and M. A. Bershady, Does the Milky Way obey spiral galaxy scaling relations?, Astrophys. J. 833, 220 (2016)

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Boardman, G

    N. Boardman, G. Zasowski, J. A. Newman, B. Andrews, C. Fielder, M. Bershady, J. Brinkmann, N. Drory, D. Krishnarao, R. R. Lane, T. Mackereth, K. Masters, and G. S. Stringfellow, Are the Milky Way and Andromeda unusual? A comparison with Milky Way and Andromeda analogues, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.498, 4943 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Tsukui, E

    T. Tsukui, E. Wisnioski, J. Bland-Hawthorn, and K. Freeman, The emergence of galactic thin and thick discs across cosmic history, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.540, 3493 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Nelson, A

    D. Nelson, A. Pillepich, V. Springel, R. Pakmor, R. Weinberger, S. Genel, P. Torrey, M. Vogelsberger, F. Marinacci, and L. Hern- quist, First results from the TNG50 simulation: Galactic outflows driven by supernovae and black hole feedback, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.490, 3234 (2019)

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Pillepich, D

    A. Pillepich, D. Nelson, V. Springel, R. Pakmor, P. Torrey, R. Weinberger, M. Vogelsberger, F. Marinacci, S. Genel, A. van der Wel, and L. Hernquist, First results from the TNG50 simula- tion: The evolution of stellar and gaseous discs across cosmic time, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.490, 3196 (2019)

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Helmi, C

    A. Helmi, C. Babusiaux, H. H. Koppelman, D. Massari, J. Vel- janoski, and A. G. A. Brown, The merger that led to the formation of the Milky Way’s inner stellar halo and thick disk, Nature (Lon- don)563, 85 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Belokurov, D

    V. Belokurov, D. Erkal, N. W. Evans, S. E. Koposov, and A. J. Deason, Co-formation of the disc and the stellar halo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.478, 611 (2018)

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    A. J. Deason and V. Belokurov, Galactic archaeology with Gaia, New Astron. Rev.99, 101706 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Aprileet al., (XENON Collaboration), Dark matter search results from a one ton-year exposure of XENON1T, Phys

    E. Aprileet al., (XENON Collaboration), Dark matter search results from a one ton-year exposure of XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 111302 (2018)

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    Aprileet al., (XENON Collaboration), First dark matter search with nuclear recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys

    E. Aprileet al., (XENON Collaboration), First dark matter search with nuclear recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Aalberset al., (LZ Collaboration), Dark matter search results from 4.2 tonne-years of exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys

    J. Aalberset al., (LZ Collaboration), Dark matter search results from 4.2 tonne-years of exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025)

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Springel, S

    V. Springel, S. D. M. White, G. Tormen, and G. Kauffmann, Populating a cluster of galaxies – I. Results at 𝑧=0 , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.328, 726 (2001)

    work page 2001

  47. [47]

    Dolag, S

    K. Dolag, S. Borgani, G. Murante, and V. Springel, Substructures in hydrodynamical cluster simulations, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 399, 497 (2009)

    work page 2009

  48. [48]

    Folsom, M

    D. Folsom, M. Lisanti, L. Necib, D. Horta, M. Vogelsberger, and L. Hernquist, Cosmological simulations of stellar halos with Gaia Sausage–Enceladus analogs: Two sausages, one bun?, Astrophys. J.983, 119 (2025)

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    Sotillo-Ramos, A

    D. Sotillo-Ramos, A. Pillepich, M. Donnari, D. Nelson, L. Eisert, V. Rodriguez-Gomez, G. Joshi, M. Vogelsberger, and L. Hern- quist, The merger and assembly histories of Milky Way- and M31-like galaxies with TNG50: Disc survival through mergers, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.516, 5404 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Pillepich, D

    A. Pillepich, D. Sotillo-Ramos, R. Ramesh, D. Nelson, C. Engler, V. Rodriguez-Gomez, M. Fournier, M. Donnari, V. Springel, and L. Hernquist, Milky Way and Andromeda analogues from the TNG50 simulation, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.535, 1721 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    D. A. Gadotti, Structural properties of pseudo-bulges, classical bulges and elliptical galaxies: A Sloan Digital Sky Survey perspective, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.393, 1531 (2009)

    work page 2009

  52. [52]

    Bovy and H.-W

    J. Bovy and H.-W. Rix, A direct dynamical measurement of the Milky Way’s disk surface density profile, disk scale length, and dark matter profile at 4 kpc ≲𝑅≲ 9 kpc, Astrophys. J.779, 115 (2013)

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    J. Lian, G. Zasowski, B. Chen, J. Imig, T. Wang, N. Boardman, and X. Liu, The broken-exponential radial structure and larger size of the Milky Way galaxy, Nat. Astron.8, 1302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Juri´cet al., The Milky Way tomography with SDSS

    M. Juri´cet al., The Milky Way tomography with SDSS. I. Stellar number density distribution, Astrophys. J.673, 864 (2008)

    work page 2008

  55. [55]

    Rix and J

    H.-W. Rix and J. Bovy, The Milky Way’s stellar disk. Mapping and modeling the Galactic disk, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.21, 61 (2013)

    work page 2013

  56. [56]

    Bland-Hawthorn and O

    J. Bland-Hawthorn and O. Gerhard, The Galaxy in context: Structural, kinematic, and integrated properties, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.54, 529 (2016)

    work page 2016

  57. [57]

    Varma, M

    S. Varma, M. Huertas-Company, A. Pillepich, D. Nelson, V. Rodriguez-Gomez, A. Dekel, S. M. Faber, P. Iglesias-Navarro, D. C. Koo, and J. Primack, The building up of observed stellar scaling relations of massive galaxies and the connection to black hole growth in the TNG50 simulation, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 509, 2654 (2022)

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    Rosas-Guevara, S

    Y. Rosas-Guevara, S. Bonoli, M. Dotti, D. Izquierdo-Villalba, A. Lupi, T. Zana, M. Bonetti, D. Nelson, V. Springel, L. Hern- quist, and M. Vogelsberger, The evolution of the barred galaxy population in the TNG50 simulation, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 512, 5339 (2022). 6 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS135,211004 (2025)

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    M. J. Reid and A. Brunthaler, The proper motion of Sagittarius A*. II. The mass of Sagittarius A*, Astrophys. J.616, 872 (2004)

    work page 2004

  60. [60]

    Abuteret al., (GRA VITY Collaboration), Improved GRA VITY astrometric accuracy from modeling optical aberrations, Astron

    R. Abuteret al., (GRA VITY Collaboration), Improved GRA VITY astrometric accuracy from modeling optical aberrations, Astron. Astrophys.647, A59 (2021)

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Abd El Dayemet al., (GRA VITY Collaboration), Improving constraints on the extended mass distribution in the Galactic Center with stellar orbits, Astron

    K. Abd El Dayemet al., (GRA VITY Collaboration), Improving constraints on the extended mass distribution in the Galactic Center with stellar orbits, Astron. Astrophys.692, A242 (2024)

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    Binney and S

    J. Binney and S. Tremaine, Jeans equations for axisymmetric systems, inGalactic Dynamics, Princeton Series in Astrophysics, edited by D. N. Spergel (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2008) Chap. 4.8.2, 2nd ed

    work page 2008

  63. [63]

    Bovy, The asymmetric drift and the Sun’s motion, inDynam- ics and Astrophysics of Galaxies(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2026, in press.) Chap

    J. Bovy, The asymmetric drift and the Sun’s motion, inDynam- ics and Astrophysics of Galaxies(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2026, in press.) Chap. 10.3.1

    work page 2026

  64. [64]

    Sch¨onrich, J

    R. Sch¨onrich, J. Binney, and W. Dehnen, Local kinematics and the local standard of rest, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.403, 1829 (2010)

    work page 2010

  65. [65]

    Kawata, J

    D. Kawata, J. Bovy, N. Matsunaga, and J. Baba, Galactic rotation from Cepheids with Gaia DR2 and effects of non-axisymmetry, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.482, 40 (2019)

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    P ˜oder, M

    S. P ˜oder, M. Benito, J. Pata, R. Kipper, H. Ramler, G. H¨ utsi, I. Kolka, and G. F. Thomas, A Bayesian estimation of the Milky Way’s circular velocity curve using Gaia DR3, Astron. Astrophys. 676, A134 (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    X. Ou, L. Necib, A. Wetzel, A. Frebel, J. Bailin, and M. Oeur, De- coding the Galactic twirl: The downfall of Milky Way-mass galax- ies rotation curves in the FIRE simulations, arXiv:2503.05877

    work page arXiv

  68. [68]

    A. R. Wetzel, P. F. Hopkins, J.-h. Kim, C.-A. Faucher-Gigu`ere, D. Kere ˇs, and E. Quataert, Reconciling dwarf galaxies with ΛCDM cosmology: Simulating a realistic population of satellites around a Milky Way-mass galaxy, Astrophys. J.827, L23 (2016)

    work page 2016

  69. [69]

    Wetzelet al., Public data release of the FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations of galaxy formation, Astrophys

    A. Wetzelet al., Public data release of the FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations of galaxy formation, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.265, 44 (2023)

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    Schayeet al., The EAGLE project: Simulating the evolution and assembly of galaxies and their environments, Mon

    J. Schayeet al., The EAGLE project: Simulating the evolution and assembly of galaxies and their environments, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.446, 521 (2015)

    work page 2015

  71. [71]

    R. A. Crain, J. Schaye, R. G. Bower, M. Furlong, M. Schaller, T. Theuns, C. Dalla Vecchia, C. S. Frenk, I. G. McCarthy, J. C. Helly, A. Jenkins, Y. M. Rosas-Guevara, S. D. M. White, and J. W. Trayford, The EAGLE simulations of galaxy formation: Calibration of subgrid physics and model variations, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.450, 1937 (2015)

    work page 1937

  72. [72]

    Sawala, C

    T. Sawala, C. S. Frenk, A. Fattahi, J. F. Navarro, R. G. Bower, R. A. Crain, C. Dalla Vecchia, M. Furlong, John. C. Helly, A. Jenkins, K. A. Oman, M. Schaller, J. Schaye, T. Theuns, J. Trayford, and S. D. M. White, The APOSTLE simulations: Solutions to the Local Group’s cosmic puzzles, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.457, 1931 (2016)

    work page 1931

  73. [73]

    Fattahi, J

    A. Fattahi, J. F. Navarro, T. Sawala, C. S. Frenk, K. A. Oman, R. A. Crain, M. Furlong, M. Schaller, J. Schaye, T. Theuns, and A. Jenkins, The APOSTLE project: Local Group kinematic mass constraints and simulation candidate selection, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.457, 844 (2016)

    work page 2016

  74. [74]

    P. F. Hopkinset al., FIRE-2 simulations: Physics versus numerics in galaxy formation, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.480, 800 (2018)

    work page 2018

  75. [75]

    Aalbers, B

    J. Aalbers, B. Pelssers, J. R. Angevaare, and K. D. Mor ˚a, Jel- leAalbers/wimprates: v0.5.0, Zenodo (2023)

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    McCabe, The Earth’s velocity for direct detection experiments, J

    C. McCabe, The Earth’s velocity for direct detection experiments, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.02(2014), 027

    work page 2014

  77. [77]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, N. W. Evans, C. McCabe, G. Myeong, and V. Belokurov, Velocity substructure from Gaia and direct searches for dark matter, Phys. Rev. D101, 023006 (2020)

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    Aprileet al., (XENON Collaboration), An approximate likeli- hood for nuclear recoil searches with XENON1T data, Eur

    E. Aprileet al., (XENON Collaboration), An approximate likeli- hood for nuclear recoil searches with XENON1T data, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 989 (2022)

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    P. F. de Salas and A. Widmark, Dark matter local density deter- mination: Recent observations and future prospects, Rep. Prog. Phys.84, 104901 (2021)

    work page 2021

  80. [80]

    S. K. Lee, M. Lisanti, A. H. G. Peter, and B. R. Safdi, Effect of gravitational focusing on annual modulation in dark-matter direct- detection experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 011301 (2014)

    work page 2014

Showing first 80 references.