pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22685 · v1 · pith:Q5QI557Nnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO· hep-ph

Dwarf Galaxy Constraints on Interacting Fermionic Dark Matter

Bihag Dave , Raghuveer Garani This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 04:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords fermionic dark matterdwarf spheroidal galaxiesvelocity dispersion profilesinteracting dark matterdegenerate Fermi gasJeans equationMilky Way satelliteshydrostatic equilibrium
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dwarf galaxy data favor fermionic dark matter masses of 100 to 300 eV, with similar fits whether or not the particles interact.

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

The paper tests whether dark matter could be made of fermions that either behave like a free gas or have interactions that change how they compress under gravity. Using the observed motions of stars in eight dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way, it solves the equations for hydrostatic balance in these dark matter halos and compares the predicted star velocity spreads to the data. The results show that particle masses between 100 and 300 electronvolts work well in both the interacting and non-interacting cases, and the data do not favor one model strongly over the other. This matters because it shows that current observations of small galaxies are consistent with simple fermionic dark matter without needing extra interactions, while still constraining the possible mass range.

Core claim

The data favor DM fermion masses in the range 100--300 eV. The interacting and non-interacting equations of state give broadly similar posterior distributions for the fermion mass, central density, and stellar anisotropy. Current data therefore do not strongly prefer an interacting equation of state over the free degenerate Fermi-gas, thereby excluding large deviations from the non-interacting limit.

What carries the argument

Fitting solutions of the non-relativistic hydrostatic equilibrium equations for degenerate fermionic dark matter, with and without a phenomenological interaction term, to line-of-sight velocity dispersion profiles via the spherical Jeans equation and MCMC sampling.

If this is right

  • Fermion masses in the 100-300 eV range provide good fits to the kinematics of classical Milky Way dwarf spheroidals for both models.
  • Posterior distributions for mass, central density, and anisotropy remain similar whether interactions are included or not.
  • Large deviations from the non-interacting limit are excluded by the current stellar kinematic data.
  • The Maxwell construction for unstable branches in the interacting equation of state does not yield distinctly better fits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future higher-precision measurements of dwarf galaxy velocities could reveal small differences that distinguish interacting from non-interacting cases.
  • This mass window may be tested further by combining with constraints from other astrophysical systems like galaxy clusters or the Lyman-alpha forest.
  • Extending the analysis to include more dwarf galaxies or ultra-faint dwarfs could tighten the bounds or detect interaction signals.
  • The similarity of results suggests that any interaction effects are sub-dominant at the densities probed by these galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

The phenomenological equation of state for interacting fermions accurately describes the dark matter fluid behavior at the densities found in dwarf galaxy centers, and the Maxwell construction handles any mechanical instabilities without adding new effects.

What would settle it

A new set of high-resolution stellar velocity measurements in one or more dwarf galaxies that produces a significantly higher likelihood for the interacting model over the non-interacting one in MCMC fits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22685 by Bihag Dave, Raghuveer Garani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Illustrative examples of various equations of state shown for a fixed mχ = 150 eV and for various values of α and ρs. Right: For the same parameters, sound speed c 2 s = dP/dρ is also shown. Typical values of the central densities for the degenerate Fermi gas model for dwarf spheroidal galaxies are also shown by the shaded green region [6, 16]. α ≡ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Effect of the interacting EoS on hydrostatic halo structure and projected stellar kinematics for fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example of interplay between fermion mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mass–radius curve of DM halos for fixed fermion mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior distributions from single-galaxy MCMC fits to Fornax (top) and Leo II (bottom). Left panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: An example of a Maxwell-construction in the P-v plane, using the equal area rule. Right: Resultant Maxwell constructed EoS in the P − ρ plane. 107 108 109 v = mχ/ρ [eV−3 ] −2.0 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 P [eV4 ] ×10−15 mχ = 150.0 eV α = 5.50 × 10−14 eV4 ρs = 1.69 × 10−5 eV4 ρs = 1.55 × 10−5 eV4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: In this plot we fix mχ = 150 eV and α = 5.5 × 10−14 eV4 . The green curve (dashed) shows pressure as a function of the specific volume for ρs = 1.69 × 10−5 eV4 where the pressure P(v+) < 0, while the green (solid) shows the Maxwell-constructed curve. The dashed red curve exhibits a dip sufficiently deep that no P ∗ > 0 line yields equal lobe areas, and the Maxwell construction fails. This represents a phas… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The same as figure 5 for Carina and Draco. interaction parameters are not localized around a pre￾ferred non-zero value. Instead, the data mainly impose upper limits on the strength of the attractive interaction, with the allowed region extending toward the effectively non-interacting regime. [1] R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022). [2] S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rept. 730… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The same as figure 5 for Leo I and Sculptor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The same as figure 5 for Sextans and Ursa Minor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Dwarf galaxies in the Local Group offer a way to test dark matter (DM) models against stellar kinematic data. In this work, we study degenerate fermionic DM in two cases: the standard non-interacting Fermi gas, and an interacting degenerate DM fluid described by a phenomenological equation of state motivated by interacting Fermi systems. These interactions modify the compressibility of the DM fluid and, in some regions of parameter space, lead to mechanically unstable branches that must be treated through a Maxwell construction. We solve the corresponding non-relativistic hydrostatic equations consistently and compute the line-of-sight velocity-dispersion profiles using the spherical Jeans equation. We then perform MCMC fits to eight classical Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies. The data favor DM fermion masses in the range $100$--$300\,{\rm eV}$. We find that the interacting and non-interacting equations of state give broadly similar posterior distributions for the fermion mass, central density, and stellar anisotropy. Current data therefore do not strongly prefer an interacting equation of state over the free degenerate Fermi-gas, thereby excluding large deviations from the non-interacting limit.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript explores constraints on fermionic dark matter models using stellar kinematic observations of eight classical Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies. It considers both the standard non-interacting degenerate Fermi gas and an interacting version with a phenomenological equation of state that alters the fluid's compressibility and may require a Maxwell construction for stability. The authors solve the non-relativistic hydrostatic equilibrium equations, derive line-of-sight velocity dispersion profiles from the spherical Jeans equation, and use MCMC to fit the models to the data. The results indicate a preferred fermion mass range of 100-300 eV, with broadly similar posteriors for mass, central density, and anisotropy in both interacting and non-interacting cases, leading to the conclusion that the data do not strongly favor the interacting equation of state and exclude large deviations from the non-interacting limit.

Significance. If the modeling holds, this work provides useful constraints on light fermionic dark matter by fitting real kinematic data from dwarf galaxies. The direct comparison of interacting versus non-interacting equations of state is a clear strength, as is the consistent recovery of the 100-300 eV mass range across both models. The analysis shows that current data lack the sensitivity to detect interaction effects, which is a falsifiable and observationally grounded result.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model setup and MCMC fitting sections] The interacting model is fit with the same three parameters (fermion mass, central density, anisotropy) as the non-interacting case. This indicates the interaction strength is fixed to one phenomenological value rather than varied or marginalized. The claim that data exclude large deviations from the non-interacting limit therefore rests on a single realization; the manuscript should either vary the interaction parameter over a range producing significantly different compressibility and density profiles or explicitly limit the conclusion to the specific choice adopted.
  2. [Results and discussion] The central claim that current data do not strongly prefer the interacting EOS relies on the similarity of the two posterior distributions. To make this load-bearing for the exclusion statement, the paper should quantify the difference (e.g., via Bayes factor or overlap metric) and confirm that the chosen interaction strength is capable of producing observable deviations in the velocity-dispersion profiles within the dwarf-galaxy density regime.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Equation of state section] Clarify the exact functional form and numerical implementation of the phenomenological interacting equation of state, including the range of densities where the Maxwell construction is applied.
  2. [Jeans equation and fitting procedure] Add a brief statement on the treatment of observational errors and any assumptions in the Jeans modeling (e.g., constant anisotropy) to aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to clarify the scope of our results and strengthen the quantitative comparison.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model setup and MCMC fitting sections] The interacting model is fit with the same three parameters (fermion mass, central density, anisotropy) as the non-interacting case. This indicates the interaction strength is fixed to one phenomenological value rather than varied or marginalized. The claim that data exclude large deviations from the non-interacting limit therefore rests on a single realization; the manuscript should either vary the interaction parameter over a range producing significantly different compressibility and density profiles or explicitly limit the conclusion to the specific choice adopted.

    Authors: We agree that the interaction strength is held fixed at a single phenomenological value chosen to produce a noticeable modification to the equation of state relative to the non-interacting Fermi gas (as described in Section 2). A full variation or marginalization over this parameter would constitute a more extensive parameter study. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly limit the exclusion statement to the specific interaction strength adopted and add a short discussion noting that other values could produce larger or smaller deviations, thereby clarifying the scope of the present conclusions without altering the reported fits. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results and discussion] The central claim that current data do not strongly prefer the interacting EOS relies on the similarity of the two posterior distributions. To make this load-bearing for the exclusion statement, the paper should quantify the difference (e.g., via Bayes factor or overlap metric) and confirm that the chosen interaction strength is capable of producing observable deviations in the velocity-dispersion profiles within the dwarf-galaxy density regime.

    Authors: We accept that a quantitative measure would make the comparison more rigorous. In the revised version we will compute and report the fractional overlap of the one-dimensional posterior distributions for fermion mass between the two models, together with a direct comparison of the velocity-dispersion profiles evaluated at the respective best-fit parameters. These additions will demonstrate that the chosen interaction strength does generate observable differences in the predicted profiles while confirming that the current data do not strongly distinguish the two cases. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results from external data fits

full rationale

The derivation solves the non-relativistic hydrostatic equilibrium equations using either the free Fermi-gas EOS or a fixed phenomenological interacting EOS, computes line-of-sight velocity dispersion profiles via the spherical Jeans equation, and obtains posteriors for fermion mass, central density, and anisotropy by MCMC fitting to external stellar kinematic observations from eight dwarf galaxies. All load-bearing steps compare model outputs to independent data; no quantity is defined in terms of itself or reduced by construction to a fitted parameter, and the conclusion that the data do not strongly prefer one EOS over the other follows directly from the similarity of the resulting posteriors rather than from any internal redefinition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the phenomenological interacting equation of state, the applicability of the non-relativistic hydrostatic and Jeans equations, and the assumption that the eight classical dwarfs are adequately described by spherical equilibrium models.

free parameters (3)
  • fermion mass m
    Fitted to stellar kinematics; the abstract reports a preferred range 100-300 eV.
  • central density
    Fitted parameter in the hydrostatic solution for each galaxy.
  • interaction strength parameter
    Phenomenological parameter controlling the equation of state; its posterior is compared to the non-interacting limit.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Non-relativistic hydrostatic equilibrium holds for the dark-matter fluid.
    Invoked to solve for the density profile from the equation of state.
  • domain assumption Spherical Jeans equation accurately describes the stellar velocity dispersion.
    Used to connect the dark-matter density to observable line-of-sight velocities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5725 in / 1640 out tokens · 50751 ms · 2026-05-22T04:29:20.443690+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · 26 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Equation of state The zero-temperature equation of state is obtained from the sum of the degenerate-fermion contribution and the classical scalar-field contribution. In the mean-field approximation, the pressure and energy density are P=− 1 2 m2 ϕ⟨φ⟩2 − λ 4! ⟨φ⟩4 +F P (mχ,⟨φ⟩, k F ),(A8) ϵ= 1 2 m2 ϕ⟨φ⟩2 + λ 4! ⟨φ⟩4 +F E(mχ,⟨φ⟩, k F ).(A9) The fermion func...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (10), P(ρ) =Kρ 5/3 −α (ρ/ρs)2 1 + (ρ/ρs)2 .(A12) This phenomenological form should not be viewed as an exact analytic reduction of the microscopic model

    Mapping to phenomenological EoS We now clarify the relation between the microscopic Yukawa model and the phenomenological equation of state used in the main text, Eq. (10), P(ρ) =Kρ 5/3 −α (ρ/ρs)2 1 + (ρ/ρs)2 .(A12) This phenomenological form should not be viewed as an exact analytic reduction of the microscopic model. Rather, it is an effective parametri...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The phenomenological EoS used in the main text is different in one important respect: its recovery occurs already in the non-relativistic regime

    Thus, in the absence of scalar self-interactions, the recovery from the pressure dip is tied to the onset of relativistic fermion dynamics. The phenomenological EoS used in the main text is different in one important respect: its recovery occurs already in the non-relativistic regime. Forρ≫ρ s, −α (ρ/ρs)2 1 + (ρ/ρs)2 − → −α,(A19) so the derivative of the ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    ideal gas or non-interacting degenerate gas)

    Dark Matter Self-interaction constraints The finite-density EoS considered above is related to, but distinct from, conventional self-interacting EoS (e.g. ideal gas or non-interacting degenerate gas). Comparing hydrostatic solutions to data constrains how an attrac- tive interaction modifies the bulk pressure and therefore the density profile of a degener...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Neither assumption is automatic in the class of models considered here

    Cosmological constraints The fermion masses preferred by the dwarf galaxy fits, mχ ∼ O(100) eV,(A30) are below the canonical lower bounds on thermal warm dark matter from Lyman-αforest measurements, which typically require mWDM ≳few keV.(A31) However, these bounds assume a thermal relic with a Fermi–Dirac momentum distribution and negligible late- time se...

    work page

  6. [6]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rept.730, 1 (2018), arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    C. R. Arg¨ uelles, E. A. Becerra-Vergara, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Universe9, 197 (2023), arXiv:2304.06329 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Dark Matter

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Eberhardt and E

    A. Eberhardt and E. G. M. Ferreira, (2025), arXiv:2507.00705 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    M. G. Walker, M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, J. Pe˜ narrubia, N. W. Evans, and G. Gilmore, Astrophys. J.704, 1274 (2009), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 710 (2010) 886-890], arXiv:0906.0341 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    L. E. Strigari, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 056901 (2018), arXiv:1805.05883 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Battaglia and C

    G. Battaglia and C. Nipoti, Nature Astronomy6, 659 (2022), arXiv:2205.07821 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    M. G. Walker, M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, O. Y. Gnedin, X. Wang, B. Sen, and M. Woodroofe, Astrophys. J. Lett. 667, L53 (2007), arXiv:0708.0010 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  15. [15]

    J. D. Simon and M. Geha, Astrophys. J.670, 313 (2007), arXiv:0706.0516 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  16. [16]

    J. D. Simon, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics57, 375–415 (2019). 21

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Pascale, C

    R. Pascale, C. Nipoti, F. Calura, and A. Della Croce, Astron. Astrophys.700, A77 (2025), arXiv:2506.13847 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    Binney and G

    J. Binney and G. A. Mamon, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society200, 361 (1982)

    work page 1982

  20. [20]

    C. A. Correa, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.503, 920 (2021), arXiv:2007.02958 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Dwarf spheroidal galaxies as degenerate gas of free fermions

    V. Domcke and A. Urbano, JCAP01, 002 (2015), arXiv:1409.3167 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    A lower bound on the mass of Dark Matter particles

    A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, and D. Iakubovskyi, JCAP 03, 005 (2009), arXiv:0808.3902 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  23. [23]

    Dwarf spheroidal galaxies and Bose-Einstein condensate dark matter

    A. Diez-Tejedor, A. X. Gonzalez-Morales, and S. Pro- fumo, Phys. Rev. D90, 043517 (2014), arXiv:1404.1054 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    I. S. Goldstein, S. M. Koushiappas, and M. G. Walker, Phys. Rev. D106, 063010 (2022), arXiv:2206.05244 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Korshynska, E

    K. Korshynska, E. V. Gorbar, Y. M. Bidasyuk, A. I. Yaki- menko, and Y. Revaz, Phys. Rev. D113, 063006 (2026), arXiv:2510.15815 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Wardana, K

    D. Wardana, K. Hayashi, M. Chiba, and E. G. M. Fer- reira, (2026), arXiv:2603.07175 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    New mass bound on fermionic dark matter from a combined analysis of classical dSphs

    D. Savchenko and A. Rudakovskyi, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.487, 5711 (2019), arXiv:1903.01862 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Phase space mass bound for fermionic dark matter from dwarf spheroidal galaxies

    C. Di Paolo, F. Nesti, and F. L. Villante, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475, 5385 (2018), arXiv:1704.06644 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Alvey, N

    J. Alvey, N. Sabti, V. Tiki, D. Blas, K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, M. Escudero, M. Fairbairn, M. Orkney, and J. I. Read, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.501, 1188 (2021), arXiv:2010.03572 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    S. Ando, K. Hayashi, S. Horigome, M. Ibe, and S. Shirai, (2025), arXiv:2503.13650 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    N. Bar, D. Blas, K. Blum, and H. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 104, 043021 (2021), arXiv:2102.11522 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Chavanis, Phys

    P.-H. Chavanis, Phys. Rev. D106, 043538 (2022), arXiv:2112.07726 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Bezrukov, D

    F. Bezrukov, D. Gorbunov, and E. Koreshkova, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A40, 2540004 (2025), arXiv:2412.20585 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    J. D. Walecka, Annals Phys.83, 491 (1974)

    work page 1974

  35. [35]

    M. I. Gresham and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D99, 083008 (2019), arXiv:1809.08254 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Garani, M

    R. Garani, M. H. G. Tytgat, and J. Vandecasteele, Phys. Rev. D106, 116003 (2022), arXiv:2207.06928 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    M. G. Walker, M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, R. A. Bern- stein, X. Wang, and M. Woodroofe, Astron. J.131, 2114 (2006), [Erratum: Astron.J. 132, 968–968 (2006)], arXiv:astro-ph/0511465

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  38. [38]

    Binney and S

    J. Binney and S. Tremaine, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (2008)

    work page 2008

  39. [39]

    G. A. Mamon and E. L. Lokas, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.363, 705 (2005), [Addendum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 370, 1582 (2006)], arXiv:astro- ph/0405491

    work page arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

    Cats and Dogs, Hair and A Hero: A Quintet of New Milky Way Companions

    V. Belokurov et al., The Astrophysical Journal654, 897 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0608448 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  41. [41]

    Internal kinematics and dynamical models of dwarf spheroidal galaxies around the Milky Way

    G. Battaglia, A. Helmi, and M. Breddels, New Astron. Rev.57, 52 (2013), arXiv:1305.5965 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  42. [42]

    A. W. McConnachie, The Astronomical Journal144, 4 (2012), arXiv:1204.1562 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  43. [43]

    A. M. Martinez-Garcia, A. del Pino, and A. Aparicio, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society518, 3083–3094 (2022), arXiv:2206.06339 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    N. Ho, M. Geha, R. R. Munoz, P. Guhathakurta, J. Kali- rai, K. M. Gilbert, E. Tollerud, J. Bullock, R. L. Beaton, and S. R. Majewski, Astrophys. J.758, 124 (2012), arXiv:1209.2116 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  45. [45]

    The structure of Andromeda II dwarf spheroidal galaxy

    A. del Pino, E. L. Lokas, S. L. Hidalgo, and S. Fouquet, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society469, 4999 (2017), arXiv:1611.08446 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    M. L. M. Collins, E. J. Tollerud, R. M. Rich, R. A. Ibata, N. F. Martin, S. C. Chapman, K. M. Gilbert, and J. Pre- ston, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 491, 3496 (2020), arXiv:1910.12879 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    N. F. Martin, R. A. Ibata, G. F. Lewis, A. McConnachie, A. Babul, N. F. Bate, E. Bernard, S. C. Chapman, M. M. L. Collins, A. R. Conn, D. Crnojevi´ c, M. A. Fardal, A. M. N. Ferguson, M. Irwin, A. D. Mackey, B. McMoni- gal, J. F. Navarro, and R. M. Rich, Astrophys. J.833, 167 (2016), arXiv:1610.01158 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    N. K. Glendenning, Compact Stars, 2nd ed., Astron- omy and Astrophysics Library (Springer, New York, NY, 2000)

    work page 2000

  49. [49]

    Tremaine and J

    S. Tremaine and J. E. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 407 (1979)

    work page 1979

  50. [50]

    Ruffini and L

    R. Ruffini and L. Stella, Astronomy and Astrophysics 119, 35 (1983)

    work page 1983

  51. [51]

    Hybrid stars that masquerade as neutron stars

    M. Alford, M. Braby, M. W. Paris, and S. Reddy, As- trophys. J.629, 969 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0411016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  52. [52]

    S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars (1983)

    work page 1983

  53. [53]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Good- man, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pa- cific125, 306–312 (2013)

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  55. [55]

    The non-gravitational interactions of dark matter in colliding galaxy clusters

    D. Harvey, R. Massey, T. Kitching, A. Taylor, and E. Tittley, Science347, 1462 (2015), arXiv:1503.07675 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

    Constraining self-interacting dark matter with scaling laws of observed halo surface densities

    K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, T. Bringmann, and A. Sokolenko, JCAP04, 049 (2018), arXiv:1712.06602 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [57]

    Harvey, A

    D. Harvey, A. Robertson, R. Massey, and I. G. Mc- Carthy, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.488, 1572 (2019), arXiv:1812.06981 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Sagunski, S

    L. Sagunski, S. Gad-Nasr, B. Colquhoun, A. Robertson, and S. Tulin, JCAP01, 024 (2021), arXiv:2006.12515 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    Cross et al

    D. Cross et al. (DES), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.529, 52 (2024), arXiv:2304.10128 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Adhikari, A

    S. Adhikari et al., Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 045004 (2025), arXiv:2207.10638 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    M. S. Fischer and H.-B. Yu, (2026), arXiv:2603.04508 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Beyond Collisionless Dark Matter: Particle Physics Dynamics for Dark Matter Halo Structure

    S. Tulin, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D87, 115007 (2013), arXiv:1302.3898 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  63. [63]

    X. Chu, C. Garcia-Cely, and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 041101 (2020), arXiv:1901.00075 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    X. Chu, C. Garcia-Cely, and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 071103 (2019), arXiv:1810.04709 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [65]

    X. Chu, C. Garcia-Cely, and H. Murayama, JCAP06, 043 (2020), arXiv:1908.06067 [hep-ph]. 22

    work page arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    X. Chu, R. Garani, C. Garcia-Cely, and T. Hambye, JHEP05, 045 (2024), arXiv:2402.18535 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Garani, M

    R. Garani, M. Redi, and A. Tesi, JHEP12, 139 (2021), arXiv:2105.03429 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  68. [68]

    Carena, N

    M. Carena, N. M. Coyle, Y.-Y. Li, S. D. McDer- mott, and Y. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D106, 083016 (2022), arXiv:2108.02785 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  69. [69]

    Egana-Ugrinovic, R

    D. Egana-Ugrinovic, R. Essig, D. Gift, and M. LoVerde, JCAP05, 013 (2021), arXiv:2102.06215 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    Garani, M

    R. Garani, M. Redi, and A. Tesi, JCAP07, 012 (2022), arXiv:2201.06551 [hep-ph]. 23 mf [eV] = 166 .31+22.56 □17.88 □18 □16 □14 □12 log10(α [eV4]) log10(α [eV4]) ≤ □ 13.11 (95%) □6.0□5.4□4.8□4.2□3.6 log10(ρs [eV4]) □17.5□15.0□12.5 □6 □5 □4 log10(ρs [eV4]) 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 log10(ρc [GeV/cm3]) log10(ρc [GeV/cm3]) = 0 .73+0.12 □0.10 100 150 200 250 mf [eV] ...

    work page arXiv 2022