Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

A single self-interacting fermion species with a mass near 40 eV and a strong self-coupling can reproduce the rotation curves of nearly 200 galaxies by varying only the central density of each halo.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:52 UTC pith:FNLCAPRE

load-bearing objection A sensible model framework undone by its own chi-square table: the six calibrator galaxies demand wildly different (m_f, y), so the universal-particle claim collapses. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.03006 v2 pith:FNLCAPRE submitted 2025-12-02 hep-ph astro-ph.GA

Modeling dark matter halos with self-interacting fermions: A polytropic approach

Fabian Hernandez-Gutierrez , Juan Barranco This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.GA PACS 95.35.+d98.62.Gq
keywords self-interacting fermionsdark matter haloscore-halo modelpolytropic equation of statedegenerate fermion corerotation curvesSPARC galaxieslow surface brightness galaxies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that dark matter in galaxies can be described by a single species of self-interacting fermions with a very specific pair of particle properties: a mass of roughly 40–45 eV and a self-interaction strength parameter y of a few hundred (if the outer halo is a thermalized perfect fluid) or about ten thousand (if the outer halo follows a Navarro-Frenk-White profile). The model treats each galaxy as a degenerate fermion core, whose density profile comes from solving the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations with a polytropic equation of state, surrounded by one of two possible halos. After fixing m_f and y from six dark-matter-dominated low-surface-brightness galaxies, the authors show the same values fit the Milky Way rotation curve and the 175-galaxy SPARC catalog, leaving only the central density as a free parameter per galaxy. If correct, this would mean galactic rotation curves carry a direct imprint of the dark matter particle's mass and self-interaction, and that a pressure-less cold dark matter description is insufficient at galactic scales.

Core claim

The central claim is that the diversity of galactic dark matter halos is not evidence for a variety of particle properties: one self-interacting fermion, once its mass m_f and interaction strength y are fixed, generates a one-parameter family of core–halo solutions parametrized by central density ρ0. The authors fit m_f ≈ 39.7 eV with y ≈ 296 for a perfect-fluid halo and m_f ≈ 45.4 eV with y ≈ 9.7×10³ for an NFW halo, with 1σ ranges quoted in Eqs. (16)–(17). With these fixed, the model reproduces the rotation curves of the six LSB galaxies, the Milky Way (χ²/dof ≈ 0.8–0.9), and the SPARC catalog (median χ²/dof ≈ 2.9 for the perfect-fluid halo, 6.1 for NFW). The fit quality is not perfect for

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a core–halo decomposition. Inside the core, fermions are degenerate and obey a polytropic equation of state p = (3π²)^{2/3} ρ^{5/3}/(5 m_f^{8/3}) + y² ρ²/m_f⁴, where y is a dimensionless self-interaction parameter; this is solved with the Newtonian TOV equations. The transition radius r* between core and halo is fixed by comparing the local virial temperature T(r) = (2/7) G M(r) m_f/(k_B r) with the degeneracy temperature T_deg. Outside r*, the halo is either a thermalized perfect fluid with p = ωρ (isothermal, ρ ~ r^{-2}) or an NFW profile (ρ ~ r^{-3}); in both cases the outer solution is matched continuously in density (and derivative for NFW) at r*.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the local virial temperature T(r) = (2/7) G M(r) m_f/(k_B r) correctly marks where the degenerate fermion core ends and the halo begins; if the true temperature profile or relaxation state differs, the fitted particle mass and self-interaction strength change.

What would settle it

Measure the total halo mass of several rotation-curve-fitted galaxies via weak lensing or satellite kinematics at large radii. The perfect-fluid model assigns much larger total masses at a given central density than the NFW model (Fig. 10); a measured total mass incompatible with both mass–central-density tracks, or requiring a different (m_f, y) per galaxy, would falsify the single-species claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The rotation curve data of roughly 200 galaxies are consistent with a single fermion species once self-interaction is included; without self-interaction, each galaxy requires a different fermion mass.
  • The inferred pressure at galaxy centers lies below the current cosmological bound for a barotropic dark matter equation of state, so the model is not ruled out by cosmology.
  • The perfect-fluid halo gives better fits than the NFW halo for the LSB sample, the Milky Way, and SPARC, with a median χ²/dof of 2.85 versus 6.09.
  • The central surface density μ0 = R_c ρ0 is not constant in this model; total halo mass scales as M ∝ μ0^{3.77} (perfect fluid) or M ∝ μ0^{1.84} (NFW), which can be tested with future measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The virial-temperature transition at r* is the step that converts a two-parameter particle model into a single-parameter family of galaxy halos; an independent measurement of core sizes in dwarfs would check whether r* is correctly predicted for the quoted m_f and y.
  • If the perfect-fluid halo is the correct description, the model predicts a measurable dark matter pressure P ~ ωρ with ω fixed by Eq. (10), pushing galactic rotation curves into the regime where dark matter is not pressure-less; this could be tested against the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation.
  • The roughly 40 eV mass is close to the range discussed for sterile neutrinos, but the required self-interaction is much stronger than typical neutrino self-interactions; cosmological or cluster-scale constraints on strongly self-interacting warm dark matter would provide an independent test the paper does not perform.
  • Varying the SPARC stellar mass-to-light ratios within their common range would shift the fitted central densities, but because the model's shape is fixed by (m_f,y), the conclusions about the particle properties are largely insulated from baryonic uncertainties.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper models dark matter halos as a degenerate self-interacting fermion core, matched at a transition radius to either a perfect-fluid (p=ωρ) halo or an NFW halo. It fits the rotation curves of six LSB galaxies to constrain the fermion mass m_f and the self-interaction parameter y, then fixes these values and fits only the central density ρ0 to the Milky Way and the 175-galaxy SPARC catalog. The central claim is that a single fermion with m_f≈40–45 eV and y≈300 (perfect-fluid halo) or y≈9700 (NFW halo) can reproduce nearly 200 galaxy rotation curves by varying only ρ0. The paper also derives scaling relations between total mass and central surface density.

Significance. If the central claim were valid, the paper would provide a concrete particle-physics candidate that resolves the cusp-core problem and unifies diverse rotation curves with a single parameter. The authors are to be credited for using a physically motivated TOV-based core, for performing a transparent grid-based χ² analysis, and for testing the model out-of-sample on the Milky Way and SPARC after fixing m_f and y. The appendix per-galaxy table is useful for reproducibility. However, the reported statistics do not support the universality claim: the six calibrator galaxies individually demand different particle parameters, and the SPARC fits have median reduced χ² values far above unity, with many catastrophic outliers. The paper's main quantitative conclusion is thus not established by its own evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV, Table II and Tables III/IV] The universality of (m_f,y) is rejected by the paper's own calibrator fits. Table II reports per-galaxy best-fit values that scatter widely: for the perfect-fluid halo m_f ranges from 59 to 293 eV and y from 376 to 5203; for the NFW halo m_f ranges from 21 to 112 eV and y from 150 to 5722. The per-galaxy fits have summed χ²≈5.15 with 18 free parameters, while fixing m_f=39.74 eV, y=296.96 (perfect-fluid) gives summed χ²≈82.5 with 8 free parameters. The likelihood-ratio Δχ²≈77 for 10 additional parameters has p≈10⁻¹², so the data strongly reject a single particle species. The narrow combined contour in Fig. 5 is an artifact of adding incompatible profile likelihoods, not evidence for universality. Moreover, the fixed-parameter fits in Tables III and IV are not uniformly 'good': e.g., ESO0140040 has χ²/dof=25.28 in Table IV, and ESO2060140 has χ²/dof=2.31 in Table III even though only ρ0 i
  2. [§VI, Table VI and Fig. 8] The SPARC results do not support the description 'good agreement' or the statement that a single fermion can model nearly 200 cores. The median χ²/dof is 2.85 (perfect-fluid) and 6.09 (NFW); these are poor fits for one free parameter. Many individual galaxies have extremely large χ²/dof, e.g., NGC5055 (355.23 perfect-fluid, 1281.29 NFW), UGC02953 (13.71 PF, 437.41 NFW), UGC09133 (21.11 PF, 666.42 NFW), and DDO154 (112.17 PF, 113.45 NFW). The histograms in Fig. 8 are truncated at the 75th percentile, which hides the substantial tail of very bad fits. A model that leaves the majority of galaxies with reduced χ² above 2–6 cannot be claimed to reproduce the rotation curves.
  3. [§III, Eq. (8)] The transition radius r* between the degenerate core and the halo is determined by comparing the virial-theorem temperature T(r)=2/7 GM m_f/(k_B r) with the degeneracy temperature T_deg. The factor 2/7 is derived for a polytrope with n=3/2, but the core described by Eqs. (6)–(7) includes self-interaction and is solved numerically; no derivation is given that this virial relation applies to the interacting solution. The fitted m_f and y depend directly on r*. If the actual temperature profile or relaxation state differs from this local estimate, the inferred particle parameters and the subsequent SPARC/Milky Way conclusions change. This is a load-bearing physical assumption that should be validated or at least discussed with quantitative sensitivity.
  4. [Abstract vs. full text] The abstract and the full text report contradictory central values for the constrained parameters. The abstract states m_f in 155.10–313.26 eV and y in 1465.31–6002.04 for the perfect-fluid halo, and m_f in 42.31–49.23 eV with y in 71.43–132.65 for the NFW halo. The full-text abstract and Eqs. (16)–(17) instead give m_f=39.74⁺²·³⁷₋₁·₀₁ eV, y=296.96 (perfect-fluid) and m_f=45.38 eV, y=9727 (NFW). These are not small typographical differences; they change the central quantitative claim. The manuscript must be corrected so that the abstract, the body, and the figure captions agree.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] The text contains frequent language errors: 'fit that fit the rotational curves', 'rotational curves' instead of 'rotation curves', 'overlaped', 'Saggitarius A*', 'the f¡goodness of the fit'. These should be corrected throughout.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says the left panel is the NFW halo and the right panel is the perfect-fluid halo, while the text in §IV.A refers to 'the left panel of Fig. 3' for the perfect-fluid case. One of these is wrong.
  3. [Fig. 8] The histograms are truncated at the 75th percentile, but the caption does not state this. Readers should be told that the upper tails are cut off, and the text should quantify the fraction of galaxies with very large χ²/dof rather than only the median.
  4. [Reference [58]] Reference [58] appears without author names; it should be completed. Other references with '788, 144 (2014)' and no authors should be checked.
  5. [Appendix Table VI] The header contains a corrupted phrase ('the f¡goodness') and the column labels are inconsistent with the table body. Also, some rows list ρ0=0.00 (e.g., F574-2, NGC4389, UGC02455), which is likely a numerical artifact of the grid or rounding; this should be commented on.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: m_f and y are fixed only by the six LSB calibrators, and the Milky Way/SPARC checks are out-of-sample fits in which only rho0 is varied. Self-citations by co-author Barranco (refs. 21, 50) are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and no predicted quantity is fed back into the parameter determination. Sec. IV fixes m_f and y exclusively from the chi2 fit to the six LSB rotation curves (Eq. 14; combined profile likelihood, Eqs. 16-17). Secs. V-VI then freeze these values for the Milky Way and SPARC: 'the only free parameter in v_th(r) to fit the rotational velocity data of the Milky Way is the central density of the core-halo system.' The transition radius r* is set a priori by the virial-temperature condition T(r) = T_deg (Eqs. 3 and 8), not tuned to the rotation-curve data; omega (Eq. 10) and the NFW scale parameters (Eq. 13) are continuity/matching constructions solved from the core solution, not fitted outputs. The mu0-M relations (Eqs. 26-27) are presented as model consequences for future testing ('Future analysis or measurements of mu0 can then be compared with this functional dependence'), not used to validate the fitted inputs. The only self-citations (refs. 21 and 50, co-authored by J. Barranco) supply background for earlier fermion-halo models; the EOS, TOV system, virial temperature, and NFW matching rest on external references ([2], [25], [41], [42]) and explicit derivations, so no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. Flagged for the correctness pass, not for circularity: (i) the paper's own abstract gives different best-fit ranges than the body (e.g., '155.10 eV < m_f < 313.26 eV' and '1465.31 < y < 6002.04' vs the body's 38.73-42.11 eV and 269.69-348.48 for the perfect-fluid case); (ii) the abstract promises a dwarf-spheroidal test that never appears in the text; and (iii) the paper calls SPARC fits 'good results' despite its own reported median chi2/dof of 2.85 (perfect fluid) and 6.09 (NFW), with many galaxies above 10. These are empirical/statistical failures of an out-of-sample test, which is the opposite direction of constructional circularity. The central claim is therefore an actual prediction, albeit one whose quality the paper's own tables undermine.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The particle parameters and per-galaxy central densities are fitted, not derived; the halo model is an input, not a consequence. The virial-temperature criterion for the core-halo transition is the most fragile step.

free parameters (3)
  • fermion mass m_f = 39.74 eV (PF halo), 45.38 eV (NFW halo)
    Fitted via combined chi^2 to rotation curves of six LSB galaxies; intended as a universal particle mass.
  • self-interaction strength y = 296.96 (PF halo), 9727.27 (NFW halo)
    Fitted simultaneously with m_f; the paper's abstract and body give conflicting ranges for this parameter.
  • central density rho0 = varies per galaxy; e.g., 0.66-15.69 GeV/cm^3 for MW, up to 30 GeV/cm^3 in SPARC fits
    The one free parameter allowed to vary per galaxy after m_f and y are fixed; hundreds of values are fitted.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Non-relativistic polytropic EOS Eq. (4) accurately replaces the exact degenerate self-interacting fermion EOS Eqs. (1)-(2).
    The paper claims <1% relative difference over the fitted parameter space, but the EOS is nevertheless an approximation.
  • domain assumption The local temperature is given by the virial theorem T(r)=2GMm_f/(7k_B r), and degeneracy ends where T=T_deg.
    Eq. (8); this determines the transition radius r* and therefore the halo contribution to the rotation curve.
  • domain assumption The outer halo is either a thermalized perfect fluid with p=omega*rho or an NFW profile matched continuously at r*.
    Two ad hoc halo choices; the inferred m_f and y differ by orders of magnitude between them.
  • domain assumption Halos are spherically symmetric, static, in hydrostatic equilibrium, and well described by Newtonian gravity.
    Used to reduce TOV to the Newtonian form in Eqs. (5)-(7).
invented entities (1)
  • self-interacting fermionic dark matter particle with m_f ~ 40 eV and y ~ 300 or ~10^4 no independent evidence
    purpose: Constitutes the degenerate core and outer halo that reproduces galactic rotation curves.
    The particle parameters are fitted to rotation-curve data; no independent non-rotational observable is predicted quantitatively. The mu0-M scaling is generated by the same fitted model.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23893 in / 18012 out tokens · 163912 ms · 2026-08-03T18:52:39.814311+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work we study the possibility of modeling the dark matter content in galaxies as a core-halo model consisting of self-gravitating, self-interacting fermions by means of an effective polytropic equation of state. For the core of the halo, the dark matter fermions are degenerate, while for the halo we have considered two possibilities: the fermions have thermalized as a perfect fluid, or they will follow a standard cold dark matter Navarro-Frenk-White profile. The core density profile is obtained by solving the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations, and their properties are determined by the fermion mass, the central density and the interaction strength. The mass of the fermion and the strength of the fermion self-interaction is fixed by doing a $\chi^2$ analysis to fit that fit the rotational curves of Low Surface Brightness galaxies. It was found that the fermion mass should be in the range $155.10~\rm{eV}< m_{f} < 313.26~\rm{eV}$ and the interparticle strength in the range $1465.31 < y <6002.04$ at $68$ C.L. in order to reproduce the rotational curves adequately, in the case when the halo is modeled as a thermalized ideal gas. Similar values are obtained if the halo is modeled following a Navarro-Frenk-White case, namely $42.31 ~\rm{eV} < m_{f} <49.23 ~\rm{eV}$ and $71.43< y < 132.65$. Once fixed the values of the mass of the fermion $m_f$ and the interaction strength $y$, we tested the core-halo model with data from the Milky Way, local dwarf spheroidal galaxies and the SPARC database. We have found good agreement between the data and the core-halo models, varying only one free parameter: the central density. Thus a single fermion can fit hundreds of galaxies. Nevertheless, the dark matter halo surface density relation or the halo total mass and radius depend strongly on the model for the halo.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.03006 by Fabian Hernandez-Gutierrez, Juan Barranco.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Relative difference (in %) between the equation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Density and mass profiles of the self-gravitating system composed of self-interacting degenerate fermions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Contours of the masses of the fermion and central densities allowed by the fit to the rotational curves of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Comparison of fits for the perfect-fluid (a) and NFW (b) halo models. Top panels: contour for the 68% and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Masses and interaction parameters allowed to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Rotation curves for the LSB galaxy sample. Solid curves show the best-fit results, shown in Table II; dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Milky Way rotational velocity curve obtained for the two core-halo models with fixed values of the fermion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Total mass as a function of the central surface density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Relations between the central density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Shaded blue region represents the current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], 1807.06209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J.490, 493 (1997), astro-ph/9611107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  3. [3]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.55, 343 (2017), 1707.04256

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    A. A. Klypin, A. V. Kravtsov, O. Valenzuela, and F. Prada, Astrophys. J.522, 82 (1999), astro- ph/9901240

    arXiv 1999

  5. [5]

    Boylan-Kolchin, J

    M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kaplinghat, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.44, 40 (2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    M. S. Pawlowski, Mod. Phys. Lett. A33, 1830004 (2018), 1802.02579

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    McGaugh, Astron

    S. McGaugh, Astron. J.143, 40 (2012), 1107.2934

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    J. T. Kleyna, M. I. Wilkinson, G. Gilmore, and N. W. Evans, Astrophys. J. Lett.588, L21 (2003), [Erratum: Astrophys.J.Lett. 589, L59 (2003), Erratum: Astro- phys.J. 589, L59 (2003)], astro-ph/0304093

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  9. [9]

    J. D. Simon and M. Geha, The Astrophysical Journal 670, 331 (2007)

    2007

  10. [10]

    El-Zant, I

    A. El-Zant, I. Shlosman, and Y. Hoffman, The Astro- physical Journal560, 636–643 (2001), ISSN 1538-4357, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1086/322516

    work page doi:10.1086/322516 2001

  11. [11]

    J. F. Navarro, V. R. Eke, and C. S. Frenk, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society283, L72–L78 (1996), ISSN 1365-2966, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1093/mnras/283.3.L72

    1996

  12. [12]

    Zolotov, A

    A. Zolotov, A. M. Brooks, B. Willman, F. Governato, A. Pontzen, C. Christensen, A. Dekel, T. Quinn, S. Shen, and J. Wadsley, The Astrophysical Journal761, 71 (2012), ISSN 1538-4357, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0004-637X/761/1/71

    2012

  13. [13]

    A. M. Brooks and A. Zolotov, The Astrophysical Journal 786, 87 (2014), ISSN 1538-4357, URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/87

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/2/87 2014

  14. [14]

    M. S. Turner (2022), 2201.04741

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    C. M. Muller, Phys. Rev. D71, 047302 (2005), astro- ph/0410621

    arXiv 2005

  16. [16]

    Calabrese, M

    E. Calabrese, M. Migliaccio, L. Pagano, G. De Troia, A. Melchiorri, and P. Natoli, Phys. Rev. D80, 063539 (2009)

    2009

  17. [17]

    Kumar and L

    S. Kumar and L. Xu, Phys. Lett. B737, 244 (2014), 1207.5582

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Armendariz-Picon and J

    C. Armendariz-Picon and J. T. Neelakanta, JCAP03, 049 (2014), 1309.6971

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [19]

    Xu and Y

    L. Xu and Y. Chang, Phys. Rev. D88, 127301 (2013), 1310.1532

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [20]

    A. L. Serra and M. J. d. L. D. Romero, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.415, 74 (2011), 1103.5465

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  21. [21]

    Barranco, A

    J. Barranco, A. Bernal, and D. Nunez, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.449, 403 (2015), 1301.6785

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Ace˜ na, J

    A. Ace˜ na, J. Barranco, A. Bernal, E. L´ opez, and M. Ller- ena, Astrophys. J.970, 186 (2024), 2112.05865

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Boshkayev, T

    K. Boshkayev, T. Konysbayev, E. Kurmanov, O. Lu- ongo, D. Malafarina, K. Mutalipova, and G. Zhu- makhanova, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.508, 1543 (2021), 2107.00138

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Physical Review Letters85, 8 (2000), 0003365v2

    2000

  25. [25]

    Koester and G

    D. Koester and G. Chanmugam, Reports on Progress in Physics53, 837 (1990), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0034-4885/53/7/001

    1990

  26. [26]

    Domcke and A

    V. Domcke and A. Urbano, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2015(2015)

    2015

  27. [27]

    Randall, J

    L. Randall, J. Scholtz, and J. Unwin, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.467, 1515 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    H. J. de Vega and N. G. Sanchez (2013), 1304.0759

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    Destri, H

    C. Destri, H. J. D. Vega, and N. G. Sanchez, New As- tronomy22, 39 (2013), arXiv:1204.3090v3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    Chavanis, Physical Review E : Statistical, Non- linear, and Soft Matter Physics65, 056123 (2002), new material added, URLhttps://hal.science/ hal-00139138

    P.-H. Chavanis, Physical Review E : Statistical, Non- linear, and Soft Matter Physics65, 056123 (2002), new material added, URLhttps://hal.science/ hal-00139138

    2002

  31. [31]

    Chavanis, M

    P.-H. Chavanis, M. Lemou, and F. M´ ehats, Physical Review D91, 30 (2015), URLhttps://hal.science/ hal-01094150

    2015

  32. [32]

    C. R. Arg¨ uelles, E. A. Becerra-Vergara, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Universe9, 197 (2023), 2304.06329

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Chavanis, Phys

    P.-H. Chavanis, Phys. Rev. D106, 043538 (2022), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 106.043538

    doi:10.1103/physrevd 2022

  34. [34]

    E. D. Carlson, M. E. Machacek, and L. J. Hall, Astro- phys. J.398, 43 (1992)

    1992

  35. [35]

    A. A. de Laix, R. J. Scherrer, and R. K. Schaefer, Astro- phys. J.452, 495 (1995), astro-ph/9502087

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  36. [36]

    Firmani, E

    C. Firmani, E. D’Onghia, V. Avila-Reese, G. Chincarini, and X. Hernandez, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.315, L29 (2000), astro-ph/0002376

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  37. [37]

    D. N. Spergel and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 3760 (2000), astro-ph/9909386

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  38. [38]

    Vogelsberger and J

    M. Vogelsberger and J. Zavala, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.430, 1722 (2013), 1211.1377

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    S´ anchez Almeida and I

    J. S´ anchez Almeida and I. Trujillo, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society504, 2832 (2021), ISSN 0035-8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/504/2/2832/37789309/stab1103.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1103

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1103 2021

  40. [40]

    Kamada, M

    A. Kamada, M. Kaplinghat, A. B. Pace, and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 111102 (2017), 1611.02716

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Chandrasekhar,An Introduction to the Study of the Stellar Structure(University of Chicago Press, 1939)

    S. Chandrasekhar,An Introduction to the Study of the Stellar Structure(University of Chicago Press, 1939)

    1939

  42. [42]

    Narain, J

    G. Narain, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and I. N. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. D74, 063003 (2006), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.063003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.063003 2006

  43. [43]

    B. W. Carroll and D. A. Ostlie,An introduction to mod- ern astrophysics(Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, CA, 2007), URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/1009754

    arXiv 2007

  44. [44]

    W. J. G. de Blok and S. S. McGaugh, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society290, 533 (1997), ISSN 0035-8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/290/3/533/18540302/290-3-533.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/290.3.533

    doi:10.1093/mnras/290.3.533 1997

  45. [45]

    W. J. G. de Blok, S. S. McGaugh, and V. C. Rubin, Astron. J.122, 2396 (2001)

    2001

  46. [46]

    de Vaucouleurs, A

    G. de Vaucouleurs, A. de Vaucouleurs, H. G. Corwin, Jr., R. J. Buta, G. Paturel, and P. Fouque,Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies(1991)

    1991

  47. [47]

    J. M. Schombert, G. D. Bothun, S. E. Schneider, and S. S. McGaugh, Astron. J.103, 1107 (1992)

    1992

  48. [48]

    S. S. McGaugh, V. C. Rubin, and W. J. G. de Blok, Astron. J.122, 2381 (2001), astro-ph/0107326. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  49. [49]

    Destri, H

    C. Destri, H. J. D. Vega, and N. G. Sanchez, Astroparti- cle Physics46, 14 (2013), arXiv:1301.1864v3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  50. [50]

    Barranco, A

    J. Barranco, A. Bernal, and D. Delepine,Constraining ultra light fermionic dark matter with milky way obser- vations(2019), 1811.11125

    arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    Sofue, M

    Y. Sofue, M. Honma, and T. Omodaka, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap.61, 227 (2009), 0811.0859

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  52. [52]

    Sofue, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan65, 118 (2013)

    Y. Sofue, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan65, 118 (2013)

    2013

  53. [53]

    A. M. Ghez et al., Astrophys. J.689, 1044 (2008), 0808.2870

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  54. [54]

    Lelli, S

    F. Lelli, S. S. McGaugh, and J. M. Schombert, The As- tronomical Journal152, 157 (2016), URLhttps://dx. doi.org/10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/157

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/157 2016

  55. [55]

    T. S. van Albada, J. N. Bahcall, K. Begeman, and R. San- cisi, Astrophys. J.295, 305 (1985)

    1985

  56. [56]

    Eskew, D

    M. Eskew, D. Zaritsky, and S. Meidt, The Astronomical Journal143, 139 (2012), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0004-6256/143/6/139

    2012

  57. [57]

    S.-H. Oh, W. J. G. de Blok, F. Walter, E. Brinks, and R. C. Kennicutt, The Astronomical Journal136, 2761 (2008), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/ 136/6/2761. [58]788, 144 (2014), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0004-637X/788/2/144

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/ 2008

  58. [59]

    Schombert, S

    J. Schombert, S. McGaugh, and F. Lelli, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society483, 1496 (2018), ISSN 0035- 8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/483/2/1496/27089556/sty3223.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty3223

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3223 2018

  59. [60]

    Schombert and S

    J. Schombert and S. McGaugh, Publications of the As- tronomical Society of Australia31, e036 (2014)

    2014

  60. [61]

    S. S. McGaugh, F. Lelli, and J. M. Schombert, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 201101 (2016), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.201101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.201101 2016

  61. [62]

    Donato, G

    F. Donato, G. Gentile, P. Salucci, C. F. Martins, M. I. Wilkinson, G. Gilmore, E. K. Grebel, A. Koch, and R. Wyse, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.397, 1169 (2009), 0904.4054

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  62. [63]

    Gentile, B

    G. Gentile, B. Famaey, H. Zhao, and P. Salucci, Nature 461, 627 (2009), 0909.5203

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009