Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Scaling Relations for Dark Matter Halos Hosting Ultra-Faint Dwarf Galaxies

T0 review · 3 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 With roughly ten member-star velocities, a dwarf's NFW halo yields only the product of scale density and scale radius, making the J-factor an aperture-driven scaling relation rather than a Jeans-model output.

desk verdict A clean, cautious repackaging of the half-light mass estimator into a J-factor scaling relation, with a genuinely interesting but under-supported UMa III outlier argument that deserves referee scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.03823 v1 pith:T7XFAYRK submitted 2025-08-05 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAhep-ph

Levi K. C. Fisher , Isabelle S. Goldstein , Jason Kumar , Louis E. Strigari This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-ph
keywords ultra-faintdwarfgalaxiesJ-factorJeansmodelingNFWprofilehalf-lightmassestimatordarkmatterannihilationUrsaMajorIIIvelocitydispersion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks what can actually be learned about the dark matter halos of ultra-faint dwarf galaxies when only about ten member stars have measured velocities, the situation expected for most newly discovered dwarfs in coming surveys. It argues that equilibrium Jeans modeling of an assumed NFW halo can reliably extract only the product of the scale density and scale radius, $\rho_s r_s$, while the scale radius itself is essentially unconstrained. This matters because the dark matter annihilation signal, the J-factor, depends on how far the inner $1/r$ cusp extends. The paper shows that once only $\rho_s r_s$ is known, the J-factor is fixed by the observation aperture through a simple scaling relation involving the line-of-sight velocity dispersion and half-light radius. Applying this to Ursa Major III, it concludes that the system's optimistically large J-factor is likely inflated by two velocity outlier stars, and that without them the J-factor is only bounded from above.

What carries the argument

The central object is the half-light mass estimator, $M_{1/2}\simeq (5/2)\,\sigma_{\rm los}^2 r_{h,3d}/G_N$, a relation shown to be nearly independent of the stellar density profile, dark matter profile, and velocity anisotropy. The paper combines it with the NFW profile's inner cusp $\rho(r)\simeq\rho_s r_s/r$ and dimensional analysis to obtain the scaling relation $J_0 = 4\pi (3.85/(4\pi G_N)\,\sigma_{\rm los}^2/r_h)^2\,\theta_{\rm aper}/D$ (eq. 12). This relation is what carries the argument: it says that with sparse data the J-factor is determined by the coarse observables $\sigma_{\rm los}$, $r_h$, distance, and aperture, making detailed Jeans modeling unnecessary and making the scale radius irrelevant as long as the aperture lies inside it. The Jeans equation is used mainly to show that the results for nine sparse dwarfs agree with this scaling and that $r_s$ is unconstrained because too few stars probe radii beyond about $4r_h$.

What would settle it

A decisive test is spectroscopic follow-up of Ursa Major III: if new members confirm $\sigma_{\rm los}$ near $3.7$ km/s, the half-light mass estimator tension vanishes and the J-factor inflation claim collapses. For the general claim, a dwarf with more than about twenty members spread beyond roughly four half-light radii whose Jeans fit pins down $r_s$ would refute the unconstrained-scale-radius result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: for an ultra-faint dwarf with only about ten line-of-sight stellar velocities, a spherical Jeans analysis (equilibrium modeling of stellar velocities in a gravitational potential) of an NFW halo cannot separately constrain the scale density $\rho_s$ and scale radius $r_s$; it can only constrain the product $\rho_s r_s$, which sets the inner $1/r$ cusp. The Jeans results for nine dwarfs with fewer than twenty members are consistent with the half-light mass estimator, $M_{1/2} \sim (5/2)\,\sigma_{\rm los}^2 r_{h,3d}/G_N$, which is insensitive to the stellar anisotropy. Because the scale radius is unconstrained, the J-factor for velocity-independent annihilation is not set by the outer halo but by the observation aperture, giving $J_0 = 4\pi\,(3.85/(4\pi G_N)\,\sigma_{\rm los}^2/r_h)^2\,\theta_{\rm aper}/D$ (eq. 12). The paper applies this to Ursa Major III: with all 11 member stars the Jeans-derived half-light mass ratio is $0.05$, far below the estimator's $\sim 5/2$, which the paper reads as evidence that the two velocity outliers inflate the dispersion and hence the J-factor; removing them leaves only an upper bound on $\sigma_{\rm los}$ and therefore no lower bound on $J_0$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an ultra-faint dwarf is an equilibrium, dark-matter-dominated system with a standard cuspy NFW halo, and, for Ursa Major III specifically, that the half-light mass estimator is a reliable external benchmark despite only eleven stars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For dwarfs with fewer than about twenty member stars, the NFW scale radius will generally be unconstrained, so the extent of the $\rho\propto 1/r$ cusp cannot be inferred from Jeans modeling alone.
  • The J-factor for s-wave annihilation scales as $\sigma_{\rm los}^4\, r_h^{-2}\, D^{-1}\, \theta_{\rm aper}$ (eq. 12), so it can be estimated without running a Jeans analysis.
  • Ursa Major III's all-star velocity dispersion of $\sigma_{\rm los}=3.7^{+1.4}_{-1.0}$ km/s produces a half-light mass ratio of $0.05$, strongly inconsistent with the estimator's $\sim 5/2$; this is evidence that the dispersion is overestimated.
  • Removing both outliers leaves only an upper bound on $\sigma_{\rm los}$ (below $2.3$ km/s at 68% CL), so the J-factor is unconstrained from below and the optimistic value cannot be robustly claimed.
  • Larger apertures do not improve dark matter search sensitivity: signal scales as $\theta_{\rm aper}$ while background scales as $\theta_{\rm aper}^2$, leaving significance roughly flat.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical screening rule follows: for any newly discovered ultra-faint dwarf with a handful of stars, if the Jeans-derived half-light mass disagrees with the estimator by a large factor, treat the velocity sample as outlier-contaminated before quoting a J-factor.
  • The same degeneracy suggests that individual ultra-faint dwarfs will not discriminate cusped from cored dark matter profiles; stacked analyses or systems with wider radial stellar coverage would be needed.
  • If the Ursa Major III outliers are non-members, the object's rank as a prime gamma-ray target may drop substantially, shifting attention back to dwarfs with confirmed large dispersions.
  • Equation (12) could be inverted for survey planning: to reach a target J-factor for a dwarf at a given distance, one can predict the velocity dispersion and half-light radius needed, or the aperture required, before investing in spectroscopy.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that for ultra-faint dwarf galaxies (dSphs) with only O(10) identified member stars, Jeans modeling of an assumed NFW dark matter halo can robustly constrain only the product rho_s r_s, while the scale radius r_s remains unconstrained. The authors derive a scaling relation for the J-factor, J0 = 4 pi (3.85/(4 pi G_N) sigma_los^2/r_h)^2 theta_aper/D (Eq. 12), based on the half-light mass estimator, and they support the claim with Jeans fits to nine dSphs with fewer than 20 member stars. As an application, they analyze Ursa Major III, arguing that the presence of two velocity outliers inflates the measured velocity dispersion and hence the J-factor, and that removing these outliers leaves only an upper bound on J0.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a useful, transparent scaling relation that allows quick J-factor estimates for newly discovered dwarfs without full Jeans modeling, which is valuable for upcoming Rubin/LSST discoveries. The paper also offers a clear qualitative argument for why the scale radius is poorly constrained with small stellar samples, and it applies the framework to a topical, high-interest system (Ursa Major III). The analytic derivations are straightforward and reproducible, and the paper is honest about several limitations, including the correlated uncertainties in the weighted average and the systematic spread between the lower and upper bounds of the J-factor coefficient. The UMa III conclusion, however, is more speculative than the scaling relation itself, and the paper would benefit from either validating the half-light mass estimator in the sparse-star regime or substantially softening that conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (14)] The conclusion that the Ursa Major III J-factor is inflated depends on treating the half-light mass estimator (Eq. 5) as an unbiased benchmark for a system with only 11 member stars and r_h ≈ 3 pc. The paper does not calibrate Eq. (5) in this sparse, compact regime; small-N velocity sampling noise, binary contamination, or tidal disturbance can bias the estimator by O(1) or more. As written, the discrepancy between 0.05 and 5/2 in Eq. (14) does not uniquely demonstrate that the outliers are non-members, and the assertion that the J-factor is 'likely inflated' is therefore not fully supported. I recommend either calibrating the estimator with mock observations of N=11 systems or softening the conclusion.
  2. [§II, Eq. (3) and Fig. 2] The weighted average in Eq. (3) intentionally omits the uncertainties in r_h and sigma_los because they are correlated with rho_s r_s, yet the footnote admits that including them would nearly double the error bar. Since this nine-dSph sample is the empirical basis for the claim that only rho_s r_s is robustly extractable, the paper should quantify the sensitivity of the weighted average to the excluded uncertainties and to the choice of sample, or supplement the heuristic star-count argument with mock Jeans fits to strengthen the claim.
  3. [§III, Eqs. (9)–(12)] The coefficient 4 pi in Eq. (12) is the conservative lower bound from Eq. (9), while the upper bound from Eq. (10) is larger by a factor of pi/2. The text notes this ~50% systematic but then uses Eq. (12) as a point estimate for the UMa III discussion. The paper should propagate this systematic uncertainty into the derived J0 values and state explicitly that Eq. (12) is a lower estimate, not a central value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section I] "As a application" should be "As an application".
  2. [Section II and Section III] "fall of" should be "fall off" in the text following Eq. (2) and in the first paragraph of Section III.
  3. [Section III] "aperature" should be "aperture" in the paragraph following Eq. (11).
  4. [Section II] "Morover" should be "Moreover" in the paragraph after Eq. (6).
  5. [Section IV] The paper quotes r_h = 3 ± 1 pc from Ref. [10] but notes that Ref. [26] adopts r_h = 1.6 pc; a brief discussion of which value is more appropriate for UMa III would help the reader assess the robustness of the tension in Eq. (14).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: eq. 12 inherits its 3.85 coefficient from the external Walker/Wolf half-light estimator, the 9-dSph fits are consistency checks, and the UMa III conclusion is a hedged conditional on that external estimator.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks. eq. 12 is built from dimensional analysis plus two bracketing integrals: eq. 9 (coefficient 4 pi) is the authors' own elementary integral under the rho = rho_s r_s / r approximation, and eq. 10 (coefficient 2 pi^2) is an independent, parameter-free line-of-sight integral from Ref. [29] bounding the residual r_s dependence. The numerical coefficient 3.85 in eq. 12 comes from the externally established half-light mass estimator (eq. 5, coefficient 5/2, from Walker et al. 2009 and Wolf et al. 2010, neither sharing the authors), converted via r_h,3d = 1.3 r_h. The authors' own 9-dSph weighted average (eq. 3, value 10^0.79) is not used in eq. 12; it is presented only as a consistency check. The UMa III application compares an independent Jeans posterior (eq. 14) against that external estimator and reaches a hedged conclusion ('might lead one to suspect'), explicitly noting that removing both outliers leaves only an upper bound on sigma_los. The stated limitations (excluded correlated uncertainties in r_h and sigma_los, assumed beta_star = 0 in eq. 4, small-N validity of the estimator) are correctness risks rather than circular steps. I cannot exhibit any prediction that equals a fitted input by construction, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new free parameters are introduced. The coefficient 3.85 in eq 12 comes from the prior half-light mass estimator, and the 0.79 weighted average in eq 3 is a consistency check rather than an input to the final scaling. The main axioms are the standard equilibrium Jeans setup, NFW/Plummer profile choices, dark-matter dominance, and the external half-light estimator.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Tracer stars are in dynamical equilibrium and the system is spherically symmetric and static.
    Used to write the spherical Jeans equation (eq 1) in Section II.
  • domain assumption Dark matter density follows the NFW profile (eq 2) and dominates the gravitational potential.
    Assumed throughout the Jeans modeling and J-factor estimates; stated in Section II.
  • domain assumption Stellar density follows a Plummer profile.
    Used for r_h,3d approximately 1.3 r_h and for the 5% outer-star fraction estimate (Section II).
  • domain assumption The half-light mass estimator M_1/2 approximately (5/2) sigma_los^2 r_h,3d / G_N is robust to profile and anisotropy.
    Inherited from Refs [8,27] and used as the external benchmark for the scaling relation and UMa III reanalysis (eqs 5-6, Section IV).
  • domain assumption Prior ranges on M_200 and c_200 (eqs A1/A3) bracket realistic LCDM halos.
    Used in the MultiNest Jeans analysis to produce posteriors; results are shown to be insensitive to the extension (Figure 3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling Relations for Dark Matter Halos Hosting Ultra-Faint Dwarf Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7XFAYRK

@misc{pith2026250803823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling Relations for Dark Matter Halos Hosting Ultra-Faint Dwarf Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7XFAYRK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.03823}
}
abstract

We consider the extraction of parameters of dark matter halos hosting ultra-faint dwarf galaxies, in the case where there are only ${\cal O}(10)$ identified member stars with measured line-of-sight velocities. This scenario is likely to be increasingly common, as upcoming newly discovered dwarf galaxies in the Milky Way, by e.g. the Rubin Observatory, will likely (at least initially) have only a few identified members. Assuming an NFW dark matter profile, equilibrium modeling likely can only robustly extract one halo parameter ($\rho_s r_s$), but the scale radius itself will typically be unconstrained. In these cases, the results obtainable from Jeans modeling can be well replicated by a simple scaling relation motivated by the half-light mass estimator. As a application, we examine the recently discovered stellar system Ursa Major III, which has been optimistically assessed to have the largest $J$-factor of any known object. We suggest that, because of the presence of outlier stars, the $J$-factor obtained from modeling of Ursa Major III is likely inflated, as it is inconsistent with the half-light mass estimator, while removal of the outliers will leave the $J$-factor unconstrained from below.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.03823 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The top panel shows a plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Histograms showing log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Left panel shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The dark fate of ultra-faint dwarfs: Gravothermal collapse in action

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using high-resolution SIDM N-body simulations with tidal stripping, the authors find that the diverse dark-matter densities of Milky Way ultra-faint dwarfs can be explained if most are in the gravothermal collapse pha...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, R. Bellazzini, R. D. Blandford, E. D. Bloom, E. Bonamente, A. W. Borgland, A. Bouvier, T. J. Brandt, J. Bregeon, M. Brigida, P. Bruel, R. Buehler, S. Buson, G. A. Caliandro, R. A. Cameron, P. A. Caraveo, S. Carrigan, J. M. Casandjian, E. Charles, S. Chaty, A. Chekhtma...

    arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    WIMP searches with gamma rays in the Fermi era: challenges, methods and results

    J. Conrad, J. Cohen-Tanugi, and L. E. Strigari, WIMP searches with gamma rays in the Fermi era: challenges, methods and results, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 121, 1104 (2015), arXiv:1503.06348 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    L. E. Strigari, Dark matter in dwarf spheroidal galaxies and indirect detection: a review, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 056901 (2018), arXiv:1805.05883 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Drlica-Wagner, Y.-Y

    A. Drlica-Wagner, Y.-Y. Mao, S. Adhikari, R. Armstrong, A. Banerjee, N. Banik, K. Bechtol, S. Bird, K. K. Boddy, A. Bonaca, J. Bovy, M. R. Buckley, E. Bulbul, C. Chang, G. Chapline, J. Cohen-Tanugi, A. Cuoco, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, W. A. Dawson, A. D ´ ıaz Rivero, C. Dvorkin, D. Erkal, C. D. Fassnacht, J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, M. Giannotti, V. Gluscevic, N. Golov...

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    J. D. Simon and M. Geha, The Kinematics of the Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellites: Solving the Missing Satellite Problem, Astrophys. J. 670, 313 (2007), arXiv:0706.0516 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    J. D. Simon, The Faintest Dwarf Galaxies, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 57, 375 (2019), arXiv:1901.05465 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    L. E. Strigari, S. M. Koushiappas, J. S. Bullock, M. Kaplinghat, J. D. Simon, M. Geha, and B. Willman, The Most Dark Matter Dominated Galaxies: Predicted Gamma-ray Signals from the Faintest Milky Way Dwarfs, Astrophys. J. 678, 614 (2008), arXiv:0709.1510 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    M. G. Walker, M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, J. Penarrubia, N. W. Evans, and G. Gilmore, A Universal Mass Profile for Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies, Astrophys. J. 704, 1274 (2009), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 710, 886–890 (2010)], arXiv:0906.0341 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2009

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, A Universal density profile from hierarchical clustering, Astrophys. J. 490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    1997 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S. E. T. Smith, W. Cerny, C. R. Hayes, F. Sestito, J. Jensen, A. W. McConnachie, M. Geha, J. F. Navarro, T. S. Li, J.-C. Cuillandre, R. Errani, K. Chambers, S. Gwyn, F. Hammer, M. J. Hudson, E. Magnier, and N. Martin, The Discovery of the Faintest Known Milky Way Satellite Usi...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Errani, J

    R. Errani, J. F. Navarro, S. E. T. Smith, and A. W. McConnachie, Ursa Major III/UNIONS 1: The Darkest Galaxy Ever Discovered?, Astrophys. J. 965, 20 (2024), arXiv:2311.10134 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    I. S. Goldstein, S. M. Koushiappas, and M. G. Walker, Viability of ultralight bosonic dark matter in dwarf galaxies, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063010 (2022), arXiv:2206.05244 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Adhikari, A

    S. Adhikari, A. Banerjee, K. K. Boddy, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, H. Desmond, C. Dvorkin, B. Jain, F. Kahlhoefer, M. Kapling- hat, A. Nierenberg, A. H. G. Peter, A. Robertson, J. Sakstein, and J. Zavala, Astrophysical Tests of Dark Matter Self- Interactions, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2207...

    2022

  6. [14]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Small-Scale Challenges to the ΛCDM Paradigm, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 55, 343 (2017), arXiv:1707.04256 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    H. C. Plummer, On the problem of distribution in globular star clusters, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 71, 460 (1911)

    1911

  8. [16]

    Jensen, C

    J. Jensen, C. R. Hayes, F. Sestito, A. W. McConnachie, F. Waller, S. E. T. Smith, J. Navarro, and K. A. Venn, Small-scale stellar haloes: detecting low surface brightness features in the outskirts of Milky Way dwarf satellites, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527, 4209 (2024), arX...

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    E. A. Tau, A. K. Vivas, and C. E. Mart ´ ınez-V´ azquez, Extended Stellar Populations in Ultrafaint Dwarf Galaxies, The Astronomical Journal 167, 57 (2024), arXiv:2312.07279 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bruce, T

    J. Bruce, T. S. Li, A. B. Pace, M. Heiger, Y.-Y. Song, and J. D. Simon, Spectroscopic analysis of milky way outer halo satellites: Aquarius ii and bo¨ otes ii, The Astrophysical Journal 950, 167 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Chiti, J

    A. Chiti, J. D. Simon, A. Frebel, A. B. Pace, A. P. Ji, and T. S. Li, Magellan/imacs spectroscopy of grus i: A low metallicity ultra-faint dwarf galaxy*, The Astrophysical Journal 939, 41 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    C. Y. Tan, W. Cerny, A. Drlica-Wagner, A. B. Pace, M. Geha, A. P. Ji, T. S. Li, M. Adam´ ow, D. Anbajagane, C. R. Bom, J. A. Carballo-Bello, J. L. Carlin, C. Chang, A. Chaturvedi, A. Chiti, Y. Choi, M. L. M. Collins, A. Doliva-Dolinsky, P. S. Ferguson, R. A. Gruendl, D. J. Jam...

    2025

  13. [21]

    D. Kim, H. Jerjen, M. Geha, A. Chiti, A. P. Milone, G. Da Costa, D. Mackey, A. Frebel, and B. Conn, Portrait of a Dark Horse: a Photometric and Spectroscopic Study of the Ultra-faint Milky Way Satellite Pegasus III, Astrophys. J. 833, 16 (2016), arXiv:1608.04934 [astro-ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cerny, J

    W. Cerny, J. D. Simon, T. S. Li, A. Drlica-Wagner, A. B. Pace, C. E. Mart ´ ınez-V´ azquez, A. H. Riley, B. Mutlu-Pakdil, S. Mau, P. S. Ferguson, D. Erkal, R. R. Munoz, C. R. Bom, J. L. Carlin, D. Carollo, Y. Choi, A. P. Ji, V. Manwadkar, D. Mart ´ ınez-Delgado, A. E. Miller, ...

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    E. N. Kirby, J. D. Simon, and J. G. Cohen, Spectroscopic Confirmation of the Dwarf Galaxies Hydra II and Pisces II and the Globular Cluster Laevens 1, Astrophys. J. 810, 56 (2015), arXiv:1506.01021 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. E. Koposov, A. R. Casey, V. Belokurov, J. R. Lewis, G. Gilmore, C. Worley, A. Hourihane, S. Randich, T. Bensby, A. Bragaglia, M. Bergemann, G. Carraro, M. T. Costado, E. Flaccomio, P. Francois, U. Heiter, V. Hill, P. Jofre, C. Lando, A. C. Lanzafame, P. de Laverny, L. Monac...

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. G. Walker, M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, S. Koposov, V. Belokurov, P. Jethwa, D. L. Nidever, V. Bonnivard, J. I. B. 10 III, E. F. Bell, and S. R. Loebman, Magellan/m2fs spectroscopy of tucana 2 and grus 1*, The Astrophysical Journal 819, 53 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    A. B. Pace, The Local Volume Database: a library of the observed properties of nearby dwarf galaxies and star clusters, (2024), arXiv:2411.07424 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024

  19. [27]

    J. Wolf, G. D. Martinez, J. S. Bullock, M. Kaplinghat, M. Geha, R. R. Munoz, J. D. Simon, and F. F. Avedo, Accurate Masses for Dispersion-supported Galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 406, 1220 (2010), arXiv:0908.2995 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [28]

    K. K. Boddy, J. Kumar, L. E. Strigari, and M.-Y. Wang, Sommerfeld-Enhanced J-Factors For Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies, Phys. Rev. D 95, 123008 (2017), arXiv:1702.00408 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    K. K. Boddy, J. Kumar, J. Runburg, and L. E. Strigari, Angular distribution of gamma-ray emission from velocity- dependent dark matter annihilation in subhalos, Phys. Rev. D 100, 063019 (2019), arXiv:1905.03431 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Vienneau, A

    E. Vienneau, A. J. Evans, O. V. Hartl, N. Bozorgnia, L. E. Strigari, A. H. Riley, and N. Shipp, Significant impact of Galactic dark matter particles on annihilation signals from Sagittarius analogues, JCAP 10, 019, arXiv:2403.15544 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    N. W. Evans, J. L. Sanders, and A. Geringer-Sameth, Simple J-Factors and D-Factors for Indirect Dark Matter Detection, Phys. Rev. D 93, 103512 (2016), arXiv:1604.05599 [astro-ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A. B. Pace and L. E. Strigari, Scaling Relations for Dark Matter Annihilation and Decay Profiles in Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 482, 3480 (2019), arXiv:1802.06811 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Hoskinson, J

    C. Hoskinson, J. Kumar, and P. Sandick, Tools for probing new physics with newly discovered gamma-ray targets, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063078 (2025), arXiv:2408.04611 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A. S. Eddington, The distribution of stars in globular clusters, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 76, 572 (1916), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/76/7/572/3902739/mnras76-0572.pdf

    1916

  27. [35]

    Boucher, J

    B. Boucher, J. Kumar, V. B. Le, and J. Runburg, J-factors for velocity-dependent dark matter annihilation, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023025 (2022), arXiv:2110.09653 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Feroz, M

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges, MultiNest: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and parti- cle physics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society398, 1601 (2009), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/398/4/1601/3039078/mnras0398-1601.pdf

    2009

  29. [37]

    Buchner, A

    J. Buchner, A. Georgakakis, K. Nandra, L. Hsu, C. Rangel, M. Brightman, A. Merloni, M. Salvato, J. Donley, and D. Kocevski, X-ray spectral modelling of the AGN obscuring region in the CDFS: Bayesian model selection and catalogue, Astronomy and Astrophysics 564, A125 (2014), ar...

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

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