Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Dwarf galaxies in non-local gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a non-local gravity theory, with an empirical kernel in its weak-field Poisson equation, can reproduce the observed velocity dispersion profiles of eight dwarf spheroidal galaxies without invoking particle dark…

desk verdict First dSph test of the non-local gravity kernel, but the analysis lacks fit statistics and has an unexplained lambda0 discrepancy, so the no-dark-matter claim is not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21986 v1 pith:I4CS567D submitted 2025-07-29 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Ivan De Martino , Riccardo Della Monica , Mahmood Roshan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA PACS 04.50.Kd98.62.Gq95.35.+d
keywords nonlocalgravitydwarfspheroidalgalaxiesvelocitydispersionJeansanalysisdarkmatteralternativesmodifiedMarkovchainMonteCarlogalaxykinematics
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 asks whether a non-local gravity (NLG) theory can explain the observed stellar motions in eight classical dwarf spheroidal galaxies (dSphs) without particle dark matter. In this theory, nonlocal effects appear as an effective dark matter density built by convolving baryonic density with a kernel, so the test is whether the kernel parameters can be chosen to match the measured velocity dispersion profiles. The authors solve the Jeans equation with a Plummer stellar profile and constant anisotropy, then fit the predicted line-of-sight dispersion to data with MCMC. They find that NLG reproduces all eight profiles, recovers stellar mass-to-light ratios consistent with stellar population synthesis, and yields anisotropy parameters compatible with CDM-based estimates. The kernel scale parameter $\lambda_0$ is constrained (jointly $\lambda_0 = 9.7 \pm 1.9$ kpc), while $\mu_0$ is only upper-bounded; Fornax and Sextans show a marginal tension in $\mu_0$ that the authors flag for future data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective dark matter density $\rho_D(x) = \int q(|x-y|)\rho(y)\,d^3y$ that appears alongside baryonic density in the NLG Poisson equation $\nabla^2\Phi = 4\pi G(\rho + \rho_D)$. With the Plummer profile for the stellar density and the kernel $q_0(r)$ above, the effective density is spherically symmetric, so the gravitational acceleration reduces to the baryonic plus effective mass enclosed, and the Jeans equation with constant anisotropy $\beta$ yields a projected line-of-sight velocity dispersion profile. The free parameters $\lambda_0$, $\mu_0$, $\beta$, and the stellar mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon$ are then constrained by MCMC. The paper notes that the kernel itself is chosen empirically and that there is no definitive method to determine it.

What would settle it

Re-fit the eight dSphs with the same Jeans equations but with a flat prior on the stellar mass-to-light ratio instead of the Gaussian population-synthesis prior; if the recovered $\Upsilon$ values move far from the stellar-population values, the dark-matter-free interpretation fails because NLG has no halo to absorb the discrepancy. Alternatively, collect enough new member stars in Fornax and Sextans to sharpen the $\mu_0$ measurement: if the tension with the rotation-curve value grows beyond the current $\sim 1.5\sigma$, the empirical kernel is ruled out on dSph scales.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the weak-field limit of NLG, with the empirical kernel $q_0(r) = \frac{1+\mu_0 r}{4\pi\lambda_0 r^2} e^{-\mu_0 r}$, can describe the line-of-sight velocity dispersion profiles of the eight dSphs without a dark matter halo. Replacing the dark matter density with the effective density $\rho_D(x) = \int q_0(|x-y|)\rho(y)\,d^3y$, and using Newton's shell theorem for the resulting spherical mass distribution, the authors integrate the Jeans equation under the assumption of constant anisotropy $\beta$. A Bayesian MCMC fit then constrains $\{\lambda_0, \mu_0, \beta, \Upsilon\}$ for each galaxy. The paper reports that the recovered anisotropy parameters are compatible at 68% confidence with those from CDM models, that the recovered mass-to-light ratios agree with stellar population synthesis predictions, and that no dark matter is required; it also notes an unresolved tension in $\mu_0$ for Fornax and Sextans.

Load-bearing premise

The entire fit rests on the assumption that the weak-field NLG Poisson equation with the specific empirical kernel $q_0(r)$ is the correct description of gravity inside dwarf spheroidal galaxies; the paper itself notes there is no definitive method to determine this kernel, and if the true kernel differs, the fitted $\lambda_0$ and $\mu_0$ do not actually test NLG.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the eight classical dSphs do not need particle dark matter to explain their observed kinematics; baryonic matter plus the NLG effective density is sufficient.
  • The dSph data bound the kernel scale $\lambda_0$ (joint best fit $9.7\pm1.9$ kpc) but leave $\mu_0$ almost unconstrained, so the exponential cut-off of the kernel is not probed by these systems.
  • Recovered anisotropy parameters agree with CDM-based values at 68% confidence (Draco at 95%), so NLG models would be kinematically indistinguishable from CDM models in these galaxies despite having no halo.
  • For Fornax and Sextans, the data bound $\mu_0$ and its best-fit value is only marginally compatible ($\sim 1.5\sigma$) with previous rotation-curve and UDG constraints; the paper treats this as an issue to revisit with better data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that, because $\mu_0$ is so weakly constrained, the dSph test is effectively a constraint on the short-distance, $1/r^2$ part of the kernel; pinning down the kernel's exponential cut-off will require systems with more extreme mass or scale, such as the ultra-diffuse galaxy Dragonfly 44, which the paper identifies as a hard case.
  • A testable extension would be to repeat the fit with a flat or broader prior on the stellar mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon$: since NLG has no dark halo to absorb a wrong stellar mass, this would show how much of the claimed success is prior-driven.
  • A natural next step is to apply the same Jeans machinery to pressure-supported systems with lower baryonic content; NLG predicts less effective dark matter in baryon-poor dwarfs, so such systems should be systematically harder to fit, a prediction that could be checked against the existing dSph and UDG samples.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Jeans equation in the weak-field limit of non-local gravity (NLG), using the empirical kernel q0(r) of Eq. (3), to model the line-of-sight velocity dispersion profiles of eight classical dwarf spheroidal galaxies. Four free parameters per galaxy (log μ0, log λ0, β, and Υ) are estimated with an MCMC analysis, and the results are reported in Table 2 and Figures 2–4. A joint fit of all eight galaxies yields λ0 = 9.7 ± 1.9 kpc and only an upper limit on μ0. The authors conclude that NLG can reproduce the observed dSph kinematics without particle dark matter, while acknowledging a residual inconsistency for Fornax and Sextans.

Significance. If the conclusion held, the paper would be a relevant step for NLG, extending its empirical tests from rotation curves of spiral and ultra-diffuse galaxies to pressure-supported dwarf spheroidals. The analysis uses public data, a standard Jeans/MCMC framework, and explicitly reports convergence criteria. However, the strength of the stated conclusion is not supported by the quantitative evidence presented: the paper reports no goodness-of-fit statistic, and the reported individual and joint parameter constraints are internally inconsistent. The central claim therefore currently rests on visual agreement and on an empirical kernel whose choice is acknowledged in the text to be undetermined.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (18)] No goodness-of-fit statistic is reported. The likelihood in Eq. (18) is a chi-square-like sum of squared residuals, but the paper never gives the minimized chi-square, reduced chi-square, p-value, or residual plots for any of the eight galaxies. The statement that NLG 'accurately reproduces' or 'is capable of describing' the observed dispersion profiles is therefore based on visual agreement in Figure 4, which is not a statistical demonstration, especially with four free parameters per galaxy. The authors should report per-galaxy fit statistics and, ideally, posterior predictive checks or a model comparison.
  2. [Table 2 and Section 5 (joint analysis)] The individual and joint constraints on λ0 are mutually inconsistent. The individual posterior medians are λ0 = 0.49–1.56 kpc, while the joint analysis gives λ0 = 9.7 ± 1.9 kpc. The text states that all individual-galaxy parameters are 'bound and compatible' with the joint analysis, but the λ0 values differ by many combined standard deviations. In addition, the claim that the joint λ0 is compatible at the 68% level with the LITTLE THINGS value λ0 = 3.08 ± 1.64 kpc is not supported by the reported numbers: the difference is about 6.6 kpc, versus a combined uncertainty of roughly 2.5 kpc. This discrepancy needs to be explained or the compatibility claims need to be revised.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (3)] The kernel q0(r) is empirical and the text explicitly states that 'there is no definitive method to determine this kernel.' The conclusions about λ0 and μ0 are therefore conditional on this specific functional choice, which was originally selected to fit rotation curves. Since the paper's central claim is that NLG can describe dSph kinematics without dark matter, the authors should at least discuss the sensitivity of the results to the kernel choice, or clearly frame the results as tests of the combination of NLG plus the assumed q0 rather than of NLG itself.
  4. [Table 2 and Section 6] The treatment of μ0 is not consistent across the individual and joint analyses. Six of eight galaxies yield only upper limits on log μ0, and even the 'bounded' values for Fornax and Sextans (log μ0 ≈ 3.0 and ≈ 1.5) correspond to μ0 values that are orders of magnitude larger than the previously quoted μ0 ≈ 0.059 kpc−1. The statement in Section 6 that the Fornax and Sextans best-fit μ0 is 'only marginally compatible (~1.5σ)' with other constraints should be replaced by a quantitative calculation, and the authors should clarify whether these large μ0 values are physically meaningful or simply reflect the uninformative tail of the prior.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 2 and 3] The axis labels in the posterior plots are corrupted, showing strings like 'log( 0)' instead of log μ0 and log λ0, which makes the figures difficult to interpret.
  2. [Section 5, Figure 4] The claim that Figure 4 shows the effectiveness of NLG would be strengthened by adding residual panels or by reporting the per-data-point residuals, rather than showing only the fitted curves and shaded bands.
  3. [Equation (10)] Equation (10) appears to contain a typographical artifact ('h' before the first fraction) that should be corrected.
  4. [Section 6] The phrase 'NLG gravity' is redundant; 'non-local gravity (NLG)' already contains the word 'gravity'.
  5. [Section 4.2] The prior range for log μ0 is very wide ([-8, 8] in kpc−1), and since most galaxies return only upper limits, the posterior may be prior-dominated; a brief discussion of prior sensitivity would be useful.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

dSph 'predictions' are best-fit curves from the same data; Υ 'recovery' just restates its Gaussian prior.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, first paragraph (and Figure 4 caption)]
    "We predicted theoretical LOS velocity dispersion profiles using the Jeans analysis explained in Section 3, to fit the observational data sets of eight dSph galaxies."

    The 'predicted' profiles are Eq. (16) evaluated at the parameter values θ={log μ0, log λ0, β, Υ} that are fitted to the very same observed σ_LOS profiles through the likelihood in Eq. (18). The blue curves in Figure 4 are therefore best-fit curves, not out-of-sample predictions: by construction they minimize the residuals against the data shown in the same figure. The central conclusion in Section 6 that 'NLG is capable of describing the velocity dispersion of dSph' is thus a statement about fit quality only, not a confirmed prediction. No goodness-of-fit statistic, p-value, residual plot, or comparison with a dark-matter model is reported, so the claim that NLG succeeds 'without requiring particle dark matter' is not distinguished from the success of a flexible four-parameter fit.

  2. self definitional [Section 6]
    "the mass-to-light ratio adopted as Gaussian prior in our analysis, and subsequently correctly recovered by our Bayesian analysis, is based on the stellar population synthesis models and, therefore, it does not lead to any inconsistency with observations as it could happen if Υ were completely free to vary"

    This is a self-definitional step: in Section 4.1 the authors state 'we will assign a Gaussian prior on it according to the averaged values of Υ presented in Table 1', and those averaged values come from the same stellar population synthesis models. The posterior distribution of Υ is therefore pulled toward the prior mean by construction, so describing the posterior as 'correctly recovered' merely restates the input prior. The phrase 'as it could happen if Υ were completely free to vary' concedes that the agreement is a consequence of the prior. This is a supporting 'piece to the picture' rather than the central claim, but it is still presented as an independent validation when it is actually built into the analysis.

full rationale

The paper's technical machinery — the Jeans equation, the Plummer stellar profile, the convolution kernel of Eq. (3), and the MCMC likelihood of Eq. (18) — is a standard fitting pipeline. Fitting parameters is not circular in itself. The core circularity is that the curves labeled 'predicted' in Section 5 and Figure 4 are evaluated at the best-fit parameters obtained from the same eight dSph datasets, so the abstract's claim that NLG 'might successfully reproduce the observed kinematics' reduces to the fact that a flexible model with free λ0, μ0, β (and prior-constrained Υ) can be made to pass near the data. The paper reports no goodness-of-fit statistic, residual analysis, or model comparison, so this is the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. A second, narrower self-definitional step is the 'correctly recovered' stellar mass-to-light ratio: a Gaussian prior was set to the stellar-population-synthesis values, and the posterior agreement with those values is then advertised as a success. The kernel q0(r) is admittedly empirical ('there is no definitive method to determine this kernel'), which is a model-uncertainty limitation rather than circularity. The comparisons with earlier NLG rotation-curve and UDG constraints are consistency checks between fits of the same kernel to independent datasets, not circular reductions. The self-citations ([12], [13], [19], [45]) provide priors, convergence criteria, and comparison values but are not load-bearing for the derivation. Overall, the central phenomenological claim is a fit presented as a prediction, and one supporting result restates its own prior; score 6 reflects this partial circularity.

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

No new particles, fields, or dimensions are introduced. The effective dark matter density rho_D in Eq. (2) is a derived convolution of baryonic density with the kernel, not a new entity.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda_0 = individual: about 0.5 to 1.6 kpc; joint: 9.7 +/- 1.9 kpc
    Amplitude parameter of the NLG kernel q0(r) in Eq. (3); fitted to the dSph dispersion profiles; common to all galaxies in the joint fit.
  • mu_0 = upper limit only for most galaxies; Fornax and Sextans bounded
    Scale parameter of the NLG kernel in Eq. (3); mostly unconstrained by the data.
  • beta_i = per galaxy, e.g., Draco -6.8, others near 0
    Constant velocity anisotropy in the Jeans equation (14); fitted per galaxy.
  • Upsilon_i = per galaxy, near Gaussian prior means
    Stellar mass-to-light ratio per galaxy; fitted with a Gaussian prior from stellar population synthesis.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Weak-field NLG Poisson equation Eq. (1) with effective dark matter density as a convolution, Eq. (2)
    Taken from previous NLG work; no derivation in this paper; the entire model rests on it.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical kernel q0(r) of Eq. (3) is the correct kernel at galactic scales
    Paper states there is no definitive method to determine this kernel (Section 2); it is selected based on earlier rotation-curve fits rather than derived.
  • domain assumption Baryonic stellar density follows a spherical Plummer profile, Eq. (4)
    Standard model for dSph light; used to compute M(r), MD(r), and the projection.
  • domain assumption Velocity anisotropy beta is constant, Eq. (14)
    Jeans solution Eq. (15) requires this; paper sets a wide uniform prior on beta.
  • domain assumption The weak-field limit of NLG is valid for dSphs, so the full unexplored cosmology does not enter
    Section 1 notes the full cosmological behavior of NLG remains largely unexplored; the analysis assumes the Newtonian limit is sufficient.
  • domain assumption Stellar mass-to-light ratios from stellar population synthesis provide the correct Gaussian priors
    Needed to distinguish stellar mass from dark matter; the posterior is partially pulled by these priors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dwarf galaxies in non-local gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I4CS567D

@misc{pith2026250721986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dwarf galaxies in non-local gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I4CS567D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21986}
}
read the original abstract

The nature of dark matter remains one of the most pressing open questions in modern cosmology. Despite extensive experimental efforts, no direct or indirect detection of dark matter particles has been confirmed. This has motivated alternative approaches, including modifications to the underlying theory of gravity. In this work, we investigate the implications of a specific non-local gravity (NLG) theory, which modifies General Relativity by introducing non-local effects that manifest as an effective dark matter component. We analyze the velocity dispersion profiles of eight classical dwarf spheroidal (dSph) galaxies - Carina, Draco, Fornax, Leo I, Leo II, Sculptor, Sextans, and Ursa Minor - to test the predictions of NLG. Using the Jeans equation, we model the kinematics of these galaxies and perform a Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis to constrain the parameters of the NLG kernel chosen for our analysis. Our results indicate that NLG might successfully reproduce the observed kinematics of dSph galaxies without requiring particle dark matter, providing constraints on the scale-dependent modifications to gravity that are compatible with previous studies in the literature. However, a parameter inconsistency remains in the cases of Fornax and Sextans galaxies that requires further attention.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21986 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The dashed curve represents the gravitational field contribution from baryonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The figure depicts the posterior distributions of the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The same of figure 2 but for the dSph galaxies Leo II, Sculptor, Sextans and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The figure presents the radial profiles of the LOS velocity dispersions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The figure depicts the results of a joint analysis of all eight galaxies. In this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    De Martino, S

    I. De Martino, S. S. Chakrabarty, V. Cesare, A. Gallo, L. Ostorero, A. Diaferio, Dark Matters on the Scale of Galaxies, Universe 6 (8) (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Skordis, T

    C. Skordis, T. Zlosnik, New Relativistic Theory for Modified Newtonian Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (16) (2021) 161302.arXiv:2007.00082, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.161302

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    F. W. Hehl, B. Mashhoon, Nonlocal Gravity Simulates Dark Matter, Phys. Lett. B 673 (2009) 279–282. arXiv:0812.1059, doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2009.02.033

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    F. W. Hehl, B. Mashhoon, A Formal framework for a nonlocal gen- eralization of Einstein’s theory of gravitation, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 064028. arXiv:0902.0560, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.064028

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Mashhoon, Nonlocal Gravity, International Series of Monographs on Physics, Oxford University Press, 2017

    B. Mashhoon, Nonlocal Gravity, International Series of Monographs on Physics, Oxford University Press, 2017. 17

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Rahvar, B

    S. Rahvar, B. Mashhoon, Observational Tests of Nonlocal Gravity: Galaxy Rotation Curves and Clusters of Galaxies, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 104011. arXiv:1401.4819, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.104011

    arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Evolution of spiral galaxies in nonlocal gravity

    M. Roshan, S. Rahvar, Evolution of spiral galaxies in nonlocal grav- ity, Astrophys. J. 872 (1) (2019) 6. arXiv:1901.01087, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/aafc2a

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Dynamical Friction in Nonlocal Gravity

    M. Roshan, B. Mashhoon, Dynamical Friction in Nonlocal Gravity, Astrophys. J. 922 (1) (2021) 9. arXiv:2107.05841, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac20d8

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Tabatabaei, A

    J. Tabatabaei, A. Banihashemi, S. Baghram, B. Mashhoon, Dynamic dark energy from the local limit of nonlocal gravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 32 (14) (2023) 2342009. arXiv:2305.07630, doi:10.1142/ S0218271823420099

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Tabatabaei, A

    J. Tabatabaei, A. Banihashemi, S. Baghram, B. Mashhoon, Anisotropic Cosmology in the Local Limit of Nonlocal Gravity, Universe 9 (9) (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Tabatabaei, A

    J. Tabatabaei, A. Banihashemi, S. Baghram, B. Mashhoon, Local Limit of Nonlocal Gravity: Cosmological Perturbations, Astrophys. J. 965 (2) (2024) 116. arXiv:2311.07749, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e04

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    de Martino, A

    I. de Martino, A. Diaferio, L. Ostorero, Dynamics of dwarf galaxies in f(R) gravity, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.519 (3) (2023) 4424–4433. arXiv:2210.02306, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad010

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    De Martino, Dynamics of dwarf galaxies in scalar-tensor-vector grav- ity, Phys

    I. De Martino, Dynamics of dwarf galaxies in scalar-tensor-vector grav- ity, Phys. Rev. D108 (4) (2023) 044074. arXiv:2308.15908, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.044074

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Laudato, V

    E. Laudato, V. Salzano, DHOST gravity in ultra-diffuse galaxies - part I: the case of NGC1052-DF2, European Physical Journal C 82 (10) (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Laudato, V

    E. Laudato, V. Salzano, DHOST gravity in ultra-diffuse galax- ies—Part II: NGC 1052-DF4 and Dragonfly 44, European Physical Journal C 83 (5) (2023) 402. arXiv:2211.08839, doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-023-11564-1 . 18

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bouch` e, S

    F. Bouch` e, S. Capozziello, C. De Simone, V. Salzano, Testing non-local gravity through Ultra-Diffuse Galaxies kinematics, Physics of the Dark Universe 46 (2024) 101579. arXiv:2407.18084, doi:10.1016/j.dark. 2024.101579

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    K. F. Dialektopoulos, S. Capozziello, Noether Symmetries as a ge- ometric criterion to select theories of gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 15 (supp01) (2018) 1840007. arXiv:1808.03484, doi: 10.1142/S0219887818400078

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kashfi, M

    T. Kashfi, M. Roshan, The vertical structure of galactic discs: non-local gravity versus dark matter, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.529 (3) (2024) 2832–2845. arXiv:2403.02441, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae681

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Roshan, B

    M. Roshan, B. Mashhoon, Characteristics of effective dark matter in nonlocal gravity, The Astrophysical Journal 934 (1) (2022) 9

    2022

  12. [20]

    van Dokkum, et al., Spatially-resolved stellar kinematics of the ultra diffuse galaxy Dragonfly 44

    P. van Dokkum, et al., Spatially-resolved stellar kinematics of the ultra diffuse galaxy Dragonfly 44. I. Observations, kinematics, and cold dark matter halo fits, Astrophys. J. 880 (2019) 91. arXiv:1904.04838, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2914

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M. G. Walker, M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, J. Pe˜ narrubia, N. W. Evans, G. Gilmore, A Universal Mass Profile for Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies?, Astrophys. J.704 (2) (2009) 1274–1287. arXiv:0906.0341, doi:10. 1088/0004-637X/704/2/1274

    2009 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Binney, S

    J. Binney, S. Tremaine, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition, Princeton University Press, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    L. P. Osipkov, Spherical systems of gravitating bodies with an ellipsoidal velocity distribution, Soviet Astronomy Letters 5 (1979) 42–44

    1979

  16. [24]

    Merritt, Spherical stellar systems with spheroidal velocity distribu- tions, Astronomical Journal90 (1985) 1027–1037

    D. Merritt, Spherical stellar systems with spheroidal velocity distribu- tions, Astronomical Journal90 (1985) 1027–1037. doi:10.1086/113810

    1985 doi

  17. [25]

    M. Baes, E. van Hese, Dynamical models with a general anisotropy profile, Astron. Astrophys.471 (2) (2007) 419–432. arXiv:0705.4109, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077672. 19

    2007 arXiv

  18. [26]

    E. L. Lokas, G. A. Mamon, Dark matter distribution in the Coma cluster from galaxy kinematics: breaking the mass-anisotropy degeneracy, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.343 (2) (2003) 401–412. arXiv:astro-ph/0302461, doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06684.x

    2003 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Pietrzy´ nski, M

    G. Pietrzy´ nski, M. G´ orski, W. Gieren, V. D. Ivanov, F. Bresolin, R.- P. Kudritzki, The Araucaria Project. Infrared Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances to the Carina and Fornax Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies, Astronomical Journal138 (2) (2009) 459–465. arXiv:0906.0082, doi: 10...

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Irwin, D

    M. Irwin, D. Hatzidimitriou, Structural parameters for the Galactic dwarf spheroidals, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.277 (4) (1995) 1354–1378. doi:10.1093/mnras/277.4.1354

    1995 doi

  21. [29]

    M. G. Walker, V. Belokurov, N. W. Evans, M. J. Irwin, M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, G. Gilmore, Leo V: Spectroscopy of a Distant and Disturbed Satellite, Astrophys. J. Lett.694 (2) (2009) L144–L147. arXiv:0902. 3003, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/L144

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    T. K. Fritz, G. Battaglia, M. S. Pawlowski, N. Kallivayalil, R. van der Marel, S. T. Sohn, C. Brook, G. Besla, Gaia DR2 proper motions of dwarf galaxies within 420 kpc. Orbits, Milky Way mass, tidal influences, planar alignments, and group infall, Astron. Astrophys.619 (2018) ...

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. Z. Bonanos, K. Z. Stanek, A. H. Szentgyorgyi, D. D. Sasselov, G. ´A. Bakos, The RR Lyrae Distance to the Draco Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy, Astronomical Journal127 (2) (2004) 861–867. arXiv:astro-ph/ 0310477, doi:10.1086/381073

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    N. F. Martin, J. T. A. de Jong, H.-W. Rix, A Comprehensive Maximum Likelihood Analysis of the Structural Properties of Faint Milky Way Satellites, Astrophys. J.684 (2) (2008) 1075–1092. arXiv:0805.2945, doi:10.1086/590336

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M. G. Walker, M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, O. Y. Gnedin, X. Wang, B. Sen, M. Woodroofe, Velocity Dispersion Profiles of Seven Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies, Astrophys. J. Lett.667 (1) (2007) L53–L56. arXiv: 0708.0010, doi:10.1086/521998. 20

    2007 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bellazzini, N

    M. Bellazzini, N. Gennari, F. R. Ferraro, A. Sollima, The distance to the Leo I dwarf spheroidal galaxy from the red giant branch tip, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.354 (3) (2004) 708–712. arXiv:astro-ph/0407444, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08226.x

    2004 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mateo, E

    M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, M. G. Walker, The Velocity Dispersion Profile of the Remote Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy Leo I: A Tidal Hit and Run?, Astrophys. J.675 (1) (2008) 201–233. arXiv:0708.1327, doi: 10.1086/522326

    2008 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bellazzini, N

    M. Bellazzini, N. Gennari, F. R. Ferraro, The red giant branch tip and bump of the Leo II dwarf spheroidal galaxy, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.360 (1) (2005) 185–193. arXiv:astro-ph/0503418, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09027.x

    2005 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A. Koch, J. T. Kleyna, M. I. Wilkinson, E. K. Grebel, G. F. Gilmore, N. W. Evans, R. F. G. Wyse, D. R. Harbeck, Stellar Kinematics in the Remote Leo II Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy-Another Brick in the Wall, Astronomical Journal134 (2) (2007) 566–578. arXiv:0704.3437, doi: 10.1086/519380

    2007 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Pietrzy´ nski, W

    G. Pietrzy´ nski, W. Gieren, O. Szewczyk, A. Walker, L. Rizzi, F. Bresolin, R.-P. Kudritzki, K. Nalewajko, J. Storm, M. Dall’Ora, V. Ivanov, The Araucaria Project: the Distance to the Sculptor Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy from Infrared Photometry of RR Lyrae Stars, As- tronomical J...

    2008 arXiv

  31. [39]

    M. G. Lee, I.-S. Yuk, H. S. Park, J. Harris, D. Zaritsky, Star Forma- tion History and Chemical Evolution of the Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy, Astrophys. J.703 (1) (2009) 692–701. arXiv:0907.5102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/692

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Carrera, A

    R. Carrera, A. Aparicio, D. Mart ´ ınez-Delgado, J. Alonso-Garc ´ ıa, The Star Formation History and Spatial Distribution of Stellar Popula- tions in the Ursa Minor Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy, Astronomical Jour- nal123 (6) (2002) 3199–3209. arXiv:astro-ph/0203300, doi:10.1086/ 340702. 21

    2002 arXiv

  33. [41]

    M. G. Walker, M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, B. Sen, M. Woodroofe, Clean Kinematic Samples in Dwarf Spheroidals: An Algorithm for Evaluat- ing Membership and Estimating Distribution Parameters When Con- tamination is Present, Astronomical Journal137 (2) (2009) 3109–3138. arXiv:081...

    2009 arXiv

  34. [42]

    E. F. Bell, R. S. de Jong, Stellar Mass-to-Light Ratios and the Tully- Fisher Relation, Astrophys. J.550 (1) (2001) 212–229.arXiv:astro-ph/ 0011493, doi:10.1086/319728

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    M. G. Walker, M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, Stellar Velocities in the Ca- rina, Fornax, Sculptor, and Sextans dSph Galaxies: Data From the Mag- ellan/MMFS Survey, Astronomical Journal137 (2) (2009) 3100–3108. arXiv:0811.0118, doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/2/3100

    2009 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, J. Goodman, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 125 (925) (2013) 306. arXiv:1202.3665, doi:10.1086/670067

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    de Martino, A

    I. de Martino, A. Diaferio, L. Ostorero, The proper motion of stars in dwarf galaxies: distinguishing central density cusps from cores, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.516 (3) (2022) 3556–3568. arXiv:2208.14110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2336

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    M. H. Z. Haghighi, S. Rahvar, Testing MOG, Non-Local Gravity and MOND with rotation curves of dwarf galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 468 (4) (2017) 4048–4055. arXiv:1609.07851, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stx692. 22

    2017 arXiv

  39. [107]

    arXiv:2007.15539, doi:10.3390/universe6080107

    2007 arXiv

  40. [377]

    arXiv:2308.08281, doi:10.3390/universe9090377

    arXiv

  41. [935]

    arXiv:2206.06284, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10901-0

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.