Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Dark matter fraction derived from the M31 rotation curve

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Modeling M31 as the remnant of a gas-rich major merger, this paper derives a total dynamical mass of $4.5 \times 10^{11}$ solar masses within 137 kpc, finds that 68% of that mass is dark, and argues that kinematic tracers beyond ~25–40…

desk verdict A better-fitting M31 rotation-curve model, but the headline dark fraction is an extrapolation from one fitted scale factor at 20 kpc. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02737 v5 pith:ZS42T2W3 submitted 2024-12-03 astro-ph.GA gr-qc

F. Hammer , Y. B. Yang , P. Amram , L. Chemin , G. A. Mamon , J. L. Wang , I. Akib , Y. J. Jiao
show 1 more author
H. F. Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAgr-qc
keywords Andromedagalaxydarkmattermergerrotationcurvedynamicstidaltailsmassnon-equilibriumkinematics
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 claims that M31's rotation curve, interpreted with a model in which M31 is the remnant of a gas-rich 4:1 major merger from 2–3 Gyr ago, points to a lower dark matter content than standard equilibrium-based fits. Reducing the dark matter mass of an earlier merger simulation by a factor of 1.6 makes the model reproduce the observed HI rotation curve, including the 14 kpc bump and the velocity rise beyond 25 kpc. The enclosed dynamical mass within 137 kpc is $4.5 \times 10^{11} M_\odot$, of which 68% is dark and 32% is baryonic. The paper also concludes that the outer gas disk is not in virial equilibrium because material from a tidal tail is still returning, so mass estimates from distant globular clusters, planetary nebulae, or dwarf satellites that assume equilibrium are unreliable. If right, this lowers M31's estimated mass and dark fraction relative to many earlier studies and casts doubt on a missing baryon problem.

What carries the argument

The central object is a hydrodynamical merger-remnant model of M31, called model 371, built by taking the earlier H18 model 288 and multiplying its dark matter content by $1/1.6$ while keeping the baryonic components fixed. Its rotation curve is extracted from the simulated position-velocity diagram of HI gas using the same maximal-velocity method applied to the real observations, and compared with an averaged observed rotation curve formed by combining the two published HI surveys after applying a 0.94 correction factor to one of them. The supporting mechanism is an orbital-history analysis: gas particles are tracked from the merger epoch to the present, and those at 25–30 kpc are found to have completed only two to four orbits, which the paper uses, following earlier work on relaxation times, to declare the outer gas out of virial equilibrium. This non-equilibrium verdict is what allows the paper to attribute the outer velocity rise to returning tidal-tail material rather than to a heavier dark halo.

What would settle it

A decisive test is a high-resolution map of the velocity field of M31's outer HI disk beyond 25 kpc: the model predicts an approaching–receding asymmetry of roughly 40 km/s and gas infalling from a tidal tail, so observing regular circular rotation there would falsify the non-equilibrium explanation and, with it, the model-dependent mass normalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that M31's carefully averaged HI rotation curve is reproduced in detail only when the dark matter content of the merger model is reduced by a factor of 1.6 from the earlier H18 simulation (model 371 versus model 288). In this model the 14–15 kpc bump arises from the axisymmetric stellar disk, and the observed velocity increase beyond 25 kpc arises from gas returning from a tidal tail, not from an equilibrium dark halo. After rescaling to the observed rotation curve, the total mass enclosed within the standard virial radius of 137 kpc is $4.5 \times 10^{11}\,M_\odot$: $2.95 \times 10^{11}\,M_\odot$ of dark matter and $1.55 \times 10^{11}\,M_\odot$ of baryons, for a dark fraction of 68%. The paper further shows that gas particles at 25–30 kpc have made only two to four orbits since the merger, which is below the threshold needed for virial equilibrium, so the outer rotation curve and any tracer beyond roughly 30 kpc do not measure the equilibrium gravitational potential.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the shape of M31's dark matter halo is the one produced by the specific merger simulation, with only its overall density rescaled by a factor of 1.6; if the true halo profile or the actual merger history differs, the derived enclosed mass and the 68% dark fraction would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • M31's total dynamical mass within 137 kpc is $4.5 \times 10^{11}\,M_\odot$, with 68% dark matter, lower than many estimates derived from equilibrium tracers.
  • The 14 kpc bump in the rotation curve is produced by the stellar disk, and the velocity rise beyond 25 kpc is produced by gas returning from a tidal tail, so neither feature should be fitted with an equilibrium dark halo model.
  • Globular clusters, planetary nebulae, and dwarf satellites beyond roughly 25–40 kpc have not completed enough orbits since the merger to be in equilibrium with the remnant potential, so they cannot be used to measure M31's total mass.
  • The baryonic fraction within 137 kpc is about 32%, more than twice the cosmic average, which casts doubt on the existence of a missing baryon problem in M31.
  • Mass estimates of M31 from rotation curves and discrete tracers must account for the recent merger; the new model supersedes earlier equilibrium-based estimates from the same data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same factor-of-1.6 reduction in dark matter might apply to other spirals that recently underwent major mergers, implying that equilibrium-based rotation-curve fits could systematically overestimate their total masses and dark fractions.
  • The model predicts a specific observable signature in M31's outer disk—an approaching–receding asymmetry of roughly 40 km/s and non-circular, infalling gas motions—that a future deep HI observation could confirm or rule out.
  • An independent check would be to model the giant stream and shells with the lower-mass halo; if the stream's orbital dynamics require a heavier halo, the normalization of the dark matter profile would need revision.
  • If the 32% baryonic fraction holds, the missing baryon problem may be a selection effect: galaxies with recent mergers could retain more baryons than the cosmic average, which would matter for baryon-census studies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a dynamical model of M31 as a major-merger remnant, starting from the H18 simulations and reducing the dark matter content by a factor of 1.6 calibrated to the observed HI rotation curve at 20 kpc (model 371). The model is shown to reproduce many observed features of M31, including the 14 kpc bump and the velocity increase beyond 25 kpc, with a reduced chi-square improvement from 9.3 to 2.2 relative to the original model 288. From the model's radial mass distribution, the authors derive a total dynamical mass of 4.5 × 10^11 solar masses within R200 = 137 kpc and a dark matter fraction of 68%. They further argue that gas beyond 25 kpc is out of equilibrium due to material returning from a tidal tail, which invalidates mass estimates based on distant kinematic tracers.

Significance. If the derived mass and dark matter fraction were robust, they would imply a baryon fraction of 32% within R200, much higher than the cosmic mean, and would challenge mass estimates based on distant globular clusters and satellites under equilibrium assumptions. The paper's strength is its use of a hydrodynamical merger model that reproduces multiple independent observed features (giant stream, 10 kpc ring, age-velocity dispersion relation, RC shape), and its careful comparison of two HI rotation curves. However, the central mass and dark fraction are extrapolated well beyond the observed RC extent, and the robustness of this extrapolation is not quantified. The paper is clearly written and advances a specific, falsifiable scenario for M31's outer gas kinematics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Figure 9; Section 3] The quoted Mtot = 4.5 × 10^11 solar masses and 68% dark fraction within R200 = 137 kpc are not directly constrained by the observed RC, which extends only to ~35 kpc. The DM radial profile is inherited from H18 model 288 and rescaled by a single factor calibrated at 20 kpc. Because the observed RC samples only the inner portion of the halo, the enclosed mass at 137 kpc depends strongly on the assumed halo concentration or shape (e.g., NFW vs. Einasto vs. Dehnen); the paper provides no systematic uncertainty from this assumption. Section 5 states 'Any extrapolation has to be model dependent and should be well described,' but the headline claims are presented without such a caveat. This is load-bearing for the central claims.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 3] The same averaged RC used to set the DM scaling factor at 20 kpc is used to validate model 371 via the reduced chi-square (9.3 vs 2.2) and to claim that the RC's detailed features are reproduced. The validation is therefore not independent of the calibration. The paper should separate the features that are genuinely predicted by the merger model (e.g., the 14 kpc bump from the baryonic disk, the velocity increase beyond 25 kpc from tidal-tail material) from those that are set by the single fitted parameter, and should discuss the covariance between the scaling factor and other model parameters such as baryonic mass and disk scale length.
  3. [Section 4, Figures 6 and 8] The conclusion that gas beyond 25 kpc is out of equilibrium and hence cannot trace the mass distribution rests on a single simulation model (model 371) and an analogy with Gnedin & Ostriker (1999) developed for collisionless stellar systems. The threshold radius of 25 kpc is not quantitatively justified; for example, the paper does not compare the radial acceleration of the gas particles with the centripetal acceleration expected from the potential, nor does it estimate the impact of the non-circular motions on the inferred circular velocity. If the outer gas were closer to equilibrium, the velocity increase beyond 25 kpc would provide a direct mass constraint and could change the derived dark matter fraction substantially.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 3] The reduced chi-square of 2.2 for model 371 is still significantly larger than 1; the paper should discuss whether remaining systematic discrepancies affect the mass estimate.
  2. [Section 2] The correction factor of 0.94 applied to the Chemin et al. (2009) RC is introduced descriptively; the authors should state how this factor was derived and what its uncertainty is, since it enters the construction of the averaged RC.
  3. [Figure 9] The left and right panels of Figure 9 use different radial ranges (35 kpc vs 300 kpc); the axes should be labeled consistently so that the reader can compare the mass distributions.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract and Section 5 quote a 68% dark matter fraction without noting that this is extrapolated from a model-dependent DM profile; adding a caveat would bring the abstract in line with the limitations discussed in the text.
  5. [Figure 5] The caption of Figure 5 mentions that blue points identify young stars, but the figure panel does not define the color coding; the caption should be self-contained.
  6. [Section 5] The comparison with Jiao et al. (2023) for the Milky Way would benefit from stating which halo profile is assumed in that study, since the difference between Einasto and Dehnen profiles is invoked as the reason for the discrepancy.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Dark-matter fraction at 137 kpc inherits its radial halo shape from prior same-author simulation H18; the 68% dark fraction is therefore not independently determined by the rotation curve, though the RC shape tests have non-circular content.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, 'Rotation curves from merger modeling' (model 288 selection and DM scaling); Section 5, discussion of R200; footnote 6.]
    "H18 presented a set of five simulated models of M31 that provided very similar RCs (see their Appendix A), though they did not compare them to observational data. ... We first chose model 288 because it provides a HI disk with a size that is comparable to the one observed (see H18’s Figure 1). ... we held to this 32% baryonic fraction because it directly comes from our modeling that predicts a DM distribution extending up to 137 kpc."

    Model 371 is constructed by taking H18 model 288 and rescaling only its DM normalization by a factor fit to the observed RC at 20 kpc. The observed HI RC extends only to about 35 kpc, so the cumulative mass at R200 = 137 kpc—and hence the 68% dark fraction—is not measured by the RC; it is inherited from H18's outer DM profile. H18 is prior work by the same group, and no independent constraint on halo concentration or profile shape (e.g., NFW versus Einasto versus cored) is given. The paper's own footnote admits the 32% baryonic fraction 'directly comes from our modeling.' The central mass/dark-fraction claim is therefore carried by a same-author simulation, not derived from the new rotation-curve data alone.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about the calibration step: it states 'we varied the DM content to best match the observed RC' and that the mass is 'obtained after scaling it to the observed HI rotation curve.' If the paper's only claim were the rotation-curve fit, that would be a fit rather than circular reasoning. The concern is that the headline quantity—Mtot = 4.5 x 10^11 solar masses within 137 kpc and the 68% dark fraction—depends on the outer DM profile, which is taken from H18 model 288 and only rescaled by the factor fit at 20 kpc. Because the RC constrains only the inner region (less than or about 35 kpc, with the normalization chosen at 20 kpc), the outer mass is an extrapolation of the same authors' earlier simulation. The paper acknowledges this in footnote 6 but does not supply an independent test of the halo shape. That is a load-bearing self-citation rather than a circular equation: the result is not identical to its input, but its numerical value is largely carried by the cited prior model. There is also non-circular content: the 14 kpc bump is tied to the disk component, the velocity rise beyond 25 kpc is linked to returning tidal-tail material, and the model reproduces several morphological features. These independent tests prevent the paper from being wholly circular, but the central mass and dark-fraction numbers would shift if a different outer halo profile were assumed. Score 4 reflects 'some self-citation; central claim still has independent content.'

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

The central mass estimate rests on the H18 major merger simulation framework, with the dark matter normalization fitted to the M31 rotation curve at one radius. The dark matter profile shape, the merger history, and the equilibrium state of the outer gas are assumed rather than independently measured. No code or data is released, so these inputs cannot be checked externally.

free parameters (4)
  • Dark matter scaling factor = 1.6
    Applied to the DM content of H18 model 288 to build model 371; chosen so the modeled rotation velocity matches the observed M31 rotation curve at 20 kpc (Section 3).
  • Chemin et al. RC normalization factor = 0.94
    Applied to the Chemin et al. (2009) RC so it best matches Corbelli et al. (2010); the averaged RC is then used for calibration.
  • Dehnen DM profile parameters (M0, h, n) = M0=5.93e11 Msun, h=21.64 kpc, n=1.41
    Fitted to model 371's DM distribution in Section 5 for comparison with the NFW-based Kafle et al. (2018) mass.
  • Model 371 stellar mass = 1.2e11 Msun
    Inherited from H18 and photometric estimates; the paper argues uncertainty in baryonic mass does not change the DM-dominated rotation curve beyond 20 kpc.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption M31 underwent a gas-rich major merger 2-3 Gyr ago
    Adopted from H18 and several observational features; the dynamical model is built on this merger history and would not apply without it.
  • ad hoc to paper The radial shape of M31's dark matter halo is the same as in H18 model 288, only rescaled by 1.6
    The paper adjusts total dark matter content without changing its spatial distribution; if the true halo profile differs, the R200 mass and dark matter fraction change.
  • domain assumption Gas beyond about 25 kpc is not in virial equilibrium because of returning tidal tail material
    Used to interpret the outer rotation curve rise as a non-equilibrium feature and to exclude distant tracers from mass estimates; supported only by this simulation.
  • domain assumption The observed HI rotation curve at 20 kpc is a clean tracer of the enclosed mass, with DM dominating over baryons and no important non-equilibrium effect
    This justifies calibrating the dark matter scaling factor at a single radius; Section 3 states DM dominates at 20 kpc and non-equilibrium effects occur beyond 25 kpc.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark matter fraction derived from the M31 rotation curve." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZS42T2W3

@misc{pith2026241202737,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark matter fraction derived from the M31 rotation curve},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZS42T2W3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02737}
}
abstract

Mass estimates of a spiral galaxy derived from its rotation curve must account for the galaxy's past accretion history. There are several lines of evidence indicating that M31 experienced a major merger 2 to 3 Gyr ago. Here, we have generated a dynamical model of M31 as a merger remnant that reproduces most of its properties, from the central bar to the outskirts. The model accounts for the past major merger, and reproduces the details of M31's rotation curve, including its 14 kpc bump and the observed increase of velocity beyond 25 kpc. Furthermore, we find non-equilibrium and oscillatory motions in the gas of the merger-remnant outskirts caused by material in a tidal tail returning to the merger remnant. A total dynamical M31 mass of 4.5 $\times 10^{11} M_{\odot}$ within 137 kpc has been obtained after scaling it to the observed HI rotation curve. Within this radial distance, 68% of the total dynamical mass is dark.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02737 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between Chemin et al. (2009) (green lines) and Cor￾belli et al. (2010) (blue dots) RCs. The former has been corrected by a factor of 0.94 to match the latter as best as possible. The dotted blue line shows the expected RC for a pure axisymmetric disk with a scale length of 6.3 kpc and a mass of 2.31 ×1011M⊙. 2. Rotation curve of M31 The best HI RCs of M31 have been derived by Chemin et al. (2009) and Corb… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Derivation of the terminal velocity for two M31 models based on the maximal velocity method of the position-velocity diagram (Chemin et al. 2009) and comparison with the observed M31 RC (see Sect. 2). Top panels: RC derived from the maximal velocity method for models 288 (left) and 371 (right). The blue, red, and black lines represent RCs of the approaching and receding sides and the average. The observed M31 RC is … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Derivation of the M31 modeled RC after decomposition of the baryonic component into a disk and bulge component for models 288 (left) and 371 (right). Top panels: Stellar mass surface density in logarithmic scale (red solid line) that is decomposed into a bulge component (red dashed line) and a disk (blue long-dashed line) together with that of the HI gas (green dashed line). The bulge and disk mass distributions res… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sky projection of the stellar density of model 371 (top panel) that can be compared to model 288 (bottom panel) as well as other similar modeling made by H18 (see their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stellar particle distribution of the face-on disk from model 371 within 40 kpc for snapshot 680 (left) and 1200 (right). The color of the image is based on assuming each newborn stellar particle evolves as a simple stellar population and has been observed with the filt…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Oscillation behavior of gas particles in the merger model 371 and snapshot 680 (i.e., 2.6 Gyr after the merger). Panels a and b give the ratio of the radial (and azimuthal) velocities to tangential velocities, respectively. In both panels, points and error bars give th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temporal evolution from T=4.2 Gyr (merger epoch) to 6.8 Gyr (present-day of the remnant M31) of randomly selected gas particle orbits at five different areas of the disk. The areas correspond to 2 kpc wide rings selected in the gas disk at T=6.8 Gyr (snapshot 680) with…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial distribution of DM and baryonic matter. The full lines show the radial DM distribution of model 371 (snapshot 680), within 35 kpc (left) and 300 kpc (right). Long-dashed lines give the same for model 288 and snapshot 762. Top panels: Ratio of MDM/Mbar versus ra￾…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison with Kafle et al. (2018). Top panel: Distributions of PNe radial velocities (blue histogram) from Kafle et al. (2018) com￾pared to predictions from model 371 (black histogram). The two red￾dashed vertical lines show the limits chosen by Kafle et al. (2018) …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Babcock, H. W. 1939, Lick Observatory Bulletin, 498, 41

    work page 1939

  2. [2]

    Barnes, J. E. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 481

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Barnes, J. E. & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 471, 115

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.03293

    Bhattacharya, S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.03293

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    2021, A&A, 647, A130

    Bhattacharya, S., Arnaboldi, M., Gerhard, O., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A130

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 6010 Blaña Díaz, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., et al

    Bhattacharya, S., Arnaboldi, M., Hammer, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 6010 Blaña Díaz, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3210 Blaña Díaz, M., Wegg, C., Gerhard, O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4279

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    1978, PhD thesis, University of Groningen, Netherlands

    Bosma, A. 1978, PhD thesis, University of Groningen, Netherlands

    1978

  8. [8]

    2009, ApJ, 705, 1395

    Chemin, L., Carignan, C., & Foster, T. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1395

    2009

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    2024, in American Astronomical So- ciety Meeting Abstracts, V ol

    Chen, Z., Williams, B., Lang, D., et al. 2024, in American Astronomical So- ciety Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 243, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 428.06

    2024

  2. [10]

    2010, A&A, 511, A89

    Corbelli, E., Lorenzoni, S., Walterbos, R., Braun, R., & Thilker, D. 2010, A&A, 511, A89

    2010

  3. [11]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Lang, D., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 18

    2012

  4. [12]

    1993, MNRAS, 265, 250

    Dehnen, W. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 250

    1993

  5. [13]

    B., et al

    Delgado-Serrano, R., Hammer, F., Yang, Y . B., et al. 2010, A&A, 509, A78

    2010

  6. [14]

    R., Koposov, S

    Dey, A., Najita, J. R., Koposov, S. E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 1

    2023

  7. [15]

    E., Guhathakurta, P., Seth, A

    Dorman, C. E., Guhathakurta, P., Seth, A. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 24

    2015

  8. [16]

    J., Lynden-Bell, D., & Sandage, A

    Eggen, O. J., Lynden-Bell, D., & Sandage, A. R. 1962, ApJ, 136, 748

    1962

  9. [17]

    1965, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata, 5, 87

    Einasto, J. 1965, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata, 5, 87

    1965

  10. [18]

    M., Fardal, M., et al

    Escala, I., Gilbert, K. M., Fardal, M., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 20

    2022

  11. [19]

    M., Wojno, J., Kirby, E

    Escala, I., Gilbert, K. M., Wojno, J., Kirby, E. N., & Guhathakurta, P. 2021, AJ, 162, 45

    2021

  12. [20]

    A., Weinberg, M

    Fardal, M. A., Weinberg, M. D., Babul, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2779

    2013

  13. [21]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 22

    Feng, Z.-X., Li, Z., Shen, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 22

    2024

  14. [22]

    Gnedin, O. Y . & Ostriker, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 513, 626

    1999

  15. [23]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1313

    Hammer, F., Flores, H., Puech, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1313

    2009

  16. [24]

    Hammer, F., Puech, M., Chemin, L., Flores, H., & Lehnert, M. D. 2007, ApJ, 662, 322

    2007

  17. [25]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 475, 2754

    Hammer, F., Yang, Y ., Wang, J., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 475, 2754

    2018

  18. [26]

    F., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Younger, J. D., & Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1168

    2009

  19. [27]

    Ibata, R., Irwin, M., Lewis, G., Ferguson, A. M. N., & Tanvir, N. 2001, Nature, 412, 49

    2001

  20. [28]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A208

    Jiao, Y ., Hammer, F., Wang, H., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A208

    2023

  21. [29]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 654, A25

    Jiao, Y ., Hammer, F., Wang, J., & Yang, Y . 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 654, A25

    2021

  22. [30]

    R., Sharma, S., Lewis, G

    Kafle, P. R., Sharma, S., Lewis, G. F., Robotham, A. S. G., & Driver, S. P. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4043

    2018

  23. [31]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Lewis, A. R., Dolphin, A. E., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 183

    2015

  24. [32]

    1925, MNRAS, 85, 865

    Lundmark, K. 1925, MNRAS, 85, 865

    1925

  25. [33]

    Mayall, N. U. 1951, Publications of Michigan Observatory, 10, 19

    1951

  26. [34]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 493Ð508

    1997

  27. [35]

    Navarro, J. F. & Steinmetz, M. 2000, ApJ, 538, 477

    2000

  28. [36]

    Ostriker, J. P. & Peebles, P. J. E. 1973, ApJ, 186, 467 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    1973

  29. [37]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 70

    Roche, C., Necib, L., Lin, T., Ou, X., & Nguyen, T. 2024, ApJ, 972, 70

    2024

  30. [38]

    C., Ford, W

    Rubin, V . C., Ford, W. K., J., & Thonnard, N. 1978, ApJ, 225, L107

    1978

  31. [39]

    Sanderson, R. E. & Helmi, A. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 378

    2013

  32. [40]

    & Ostriker, J

    Toth, G. & Ostriker, J. P. 1992, ApJ, 389, 5

    1992

  33. [41]

    2024, in EAS2024, 184

    Tsakonas, C., Bhattacharya, S., Arnaboldi, M., et al. 2024, in EAS2024, 184

    2024

  34. [42]

    Veljanoski, J., Ferguson, A. M. N., Mackey, A. D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, L33

    2013

  35. [43]

    L., Evans, N

    Watkins, L. L., Evans, N. W., & An, J. H. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 264

    2010

  36. [44]

    F., Dolphin, A

    Williams, B. F., Dolphin, A. E., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 145

    2017

  37. [45]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 2653 Article number, page 9 of 9

    Zhang, X., Chen, B., Chen, P., Sun, J., & Tian, Z. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2653 Article number, page 9 of 9

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.