Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

The paper shows that the mere existence of dark-matter-poor galaxies imposes a joint constraint on dark matter interactions, dissipation, and halo escape via a single separability ratio.

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

2026-07-31 23:24 UTC pith:TXZEJROC

load-bearing objection Useful conceptual unification of dark-matter-deficient galaxy constraints, but Eq. 18 has a real algebraic gap that shifts the headline numbers. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26085 v1 pith:TXZEJROC submitted 2026-07-27 gr-qc astro-ph.GAhep-phhep-th

Dark Matter Deficient Galaxies as Probes of Dark Matter

Oem Trivedi , Abraham Loeb This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.GAhep-phhep-th PACS 95.35.+d
keywords dark matter deficient galaxiesDark Matter-Baryon Separabilitymomentum transfer cross sectioninteracting dark matter fractiongravitational recapturedissipative dark matterfuzzy dark mattertidal stripping
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.

The paper argues that galaxies with almost no dark matter are not just oddities but can be turned into a general test of dark matter models. It defines a 'Dark Matter-Baryon Separability' condition using the ratio of the final dark matter to baryon mass: the final ratio equals the initial ratio times the fraction of each component that ends up in the remnant. A deficient galaxy forms only when baryons are incorporated substantially more efficiently than dark matter—for an illustrative progenitor with μ_i = 100, at least a factor of 100. Applied to high-speed 'bullet' collisions, this condition bounds the dark-matter–baryon momentum-transfer cross section, the interacting dark matter fraction, and the efficiency of gravitational recapture. The same ratio argument constrains dissipative dark matter abundance and cooling time, and the escape rate of fuzzy dark matter from shallow potentials, so that any viable dark matter model must permit at least one environment that separates baryons from dark matter.

Core claim

The central claim is the 'Dark Matter-Baryon Separability criterion,' Eq. (19): for a dark-matter-deficient galaxy to form in a high-speed collision, f_int(1−e^{−D_χb}) + (1−f_int)f_grav ≤ δ, where δ ≡ μ_crit/μ_i is the observationally chosen threshold divided by the progenitor's initial dark-matter-to-baryon ratio. This single inequality jointly limits the interacting fraction f_int, the dark-matter–baryon momentum-transfer cross section (embedded in the drag depth D_χb = ∫ Γ_χb dt ≈ Σ_b σ_MT/(m_χ+m_b)), and the gravitational recapture efficiency f_grav. The same logic yields bounds on dissipative dark matter—if a cooled component follows the baryonic disk, its abundance must be ≲δ—and on f

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the relative incorporation efficiency ϵ_χ/ϵ_b: the fraction of the progenitor's dark matter that ends up in the final remnant divided by the analogous baryon fraction. The paper models this for a collision as Eq. (18), ϵ_χ/ϵ_b ≃ f_int(1−e^{−D_χb}) + (1−f_int)f_grav, where D_χb = ∫ Γ_χb dt is the drag depth from momentum-transfer scattering (approximately Σ_b σ_MT/(m_χ+m_b)), f_int is the fraction of dark matter that interacts, and f_grav is the relative efficiency with which the collisionless remainder is gravitationally recaptured. This expression carries the argument: substituting it into the deficiency condition ϵ_χ/ϵ_b ≤ δ yields the main constraint (Eq. 19). T

Load-bearing premise

The entire derivation rests on the assumed form of Eq. (18) — that a dark-matter particle which scatters with baryons is incorporated into the final remnant with the same efficiency as baryons (coefficient 1), while the collisionless fraction is captured only with a fixed, hand-set efficiency f_grav; no hydrodynamical or N-body simulation supports this partition, and the numerical bounds also depend on chosen values of μ_i = 100, Σ_b = 0.02 g cm⁻², f_grav = 5×10⁻³, and v_col

What would settle it

A hydrodynamical+N-body simulation of a high-speed dwarf-dwarf collision that measures ϵ_χ/ϵ_b directly would settle the central claim: if scattered dark matter is not incorporated into the remnant as Eq. (18) assumes, the cross-section bounds fail. A second, independent check is observational: if deep imaging reveals a normal dark halo just outside the measured radius of a 'dark-matter-deficient' galaxy, the low μ_obs is a projection effect rather than true separability, and the criterion's empirical trigger disappears.

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

If this is right

  • If the full dark matter component interacts (f_int = 1), the bound becomes σ_MT/(m_χ+m_b) ≲ 0.5 cm²/g for Σ_b = 0.02 g cm⁻² and δ = 10⁻²; velocity-dependent cross sections with positive velocity exponent are far more tightly constrained, e.g. σ_0/m_χ ≲ 1.1×10⁻³ cm²/g for n = 2.
  • In the strong-drag limit (D_χb ≫ 1), the interacting fraction must satisfy f_int ≲ (δ − f_grav)/(1 − f_grav), which is about 5×10⁻³ for the illustrative parameters; even a strongly coupled subcomponent can be viable only below roughly the percent level.
  • For dissipative dark matter, if a cooled component follows the baryonic disk into the remnant, its fraction must be ≲ δ (≈1%) for δ = 10⁻²; a larger dissipative sector would require cooling times longer than ~10⁶ Gyr to avoid being carried into the deficient remnant.
  • For fuzzy dark matter, the deficient-galaxy condition demands an integrated escape rate ∫Γ_esc dt ≳ 6 during the encounter, while pre-encounter survival demands ∫_pre Γ_esc dt ≲ 1; combining both can select a finite particle-mass window (illustratively 6.6×10⁻²³ to 1.0×10⁻²² eV).
  • The criterion is channel-independent: any formation process—tidal stripping, tidal dwarf formation, or bullet collision—can be plugged into the same ϵ_χ/ϵ_b ≤ δ inequality, so the framework naturally extends to new channels and to statistical frequency constraints as more deficient galaxies are found.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct consequence the paper leaves implicit is that a single dark-matter-deficient galaxy effectively acts as a 'null test' for late-time dark matter interactions: any model that cannot produce even one environment with ϵ_χ/ϵ_b ≤ δ would be disfavored, even if the specific galaxies (DF2, DF4, FCC 224) turn out to have ordinary halos just outside the observed radius.
  • In the optically-thin regime (Eq. 27), the constraint depends mainly on the product f_int·σ_MT, not the cross section alone; observations that could independently estimate the interacting fraction (e.g., through kinematic offsets between stars and gas in the encounter) would break this degeneracy and make the bound much sharper.
  • The same ratio argument could be applied to dark matter self-interactions through an intermediate baryon coupling, or to any dark sector with an inelastic threshold—connections the paper does not pursue but that follow from the same inequality.
  • The illustrative fuzzy-dark-matter mass window sits below the range preferred by Lyman-α and dwarf-heating constraints, which suggests that if the two-sided escape requirement is robust, pure fuzzy dark matter in this mass range would need additional physics (or a different core model) to satisfy both survival and disruption simultaneously.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified 'Dark Matter-Baryon Separability' condition for dark-matter-deficient galaxies. Starting from the definition of the enclosed dark-matter-to-baryon ratio, it derives the requirement ε_χc/ε_bc ≤ δ ≡ μ_crit/μ_i for any formation channel. For high-speed collisions, the paper models the relative incorporation efficiency as Eq. (18) in terms of an interacting fraction f_int, a drag depth D_χb, and a gravitational-recapture efficiency f_grav, leading to the central criterion Eq. (19). This is then applied to obtain bounds on the DM–baryon momentum-transfer cross section, the allowed interacting fraction, the abundance and cooling time of dissipative dark matter, and the integrated escape rate of fuzzy dark matter. The paper is careful to label most quantitative outputs as illustrative and conditional, but it presents them as the main constraining results.

Significance. If the framework is correct, it provides a single dimensionless criterion that can be mapped onto several otherwise unrelated dark-matter properties (interaction strength, interacting fraction, dissipative fraction, escape rate), and it uses observed dark-matter-deficient galaxies as an existence proof rather than a statistical sample. This is a potentially useful organizing principle for late-time dark-matter probes and is a genuinely different route from cosmological and cluster bounds. The algebra from Eqs. (1)–(19) is transparent and mostly consistent, and the paper explicitly flags many of its limitations. However, the quantitative bounds are not robust as stated: they depend on hand-set inputs (μ_i=100, δ=10^-2, Σ_b=0.02 g cm^-2, f_grav=5×10^-3, etc.) with no uncertainty propagation, and, more seriously, Eq. (18) has a missing population term that affects the central collision constraints.

major comments (3)
  1. [Numerical inputs, Eqs. (21)–(28), Fig. 1] The phenomenological expression for the relative incorporation efficiency omits the gravitational recapture of the interacting fraction that does not scatter. In Eq. (18), the fraction f_int e^{-D_χb} is neither included in the first term (since no scattering occurred) nor in the second term (which only counts (1-f_int)f_grav). An interacting particle that does not scatter during the encounter is effectively collisionless and should be captured with the same efficiency f_grav as the nominal collisionless population. The correct expression is ε_χ/ε_b ≃ f_int(1-e^{-D_χb}) + [f_int e^{-D_χb} + (1-f_int)] f_grav = f_int(1-e^{-D_χb})(1-f_grav) + f_grav. This is not a cosmetic change. In the optically thin limit with f_int=1, the paper's Eq. (27) gives D_χb ≤ δ, whereas the corrected equation gives D_χb ≲ δ - f_grav; with δ=10^-2 and f_grav=5×10^-3 this is a factor of two reduction in the allo
  2. [Numerical inputs, Eqs. (21)–(28), Fig. 1] The quoted limits, e.g. σ_MT/(m_χ+m_b) ≲ 0.50 cm^2 g^-1 in Eq. (21) and f_int ≲ 5×10^-3 in Eq. (28), are presented as constraints on dark matter, but they are direct functions of the hand-set parameters δ=10^-2, Σ_b=0.02 g cm^-2, f_grav=5×10^-3, and μ_i=100. The paper acknowledges these are illustrative, but it does not propagate any uncertainty or show how the conclusions depend on the chosen astrophysical parameters. The Fig. 1 band covers Σ_b∈[0.01,0.05], yet δ and f_grav are varied by much more in plausible scenarios (e.g., μ_i could range from tens to hundreds, and f_grav is essentially unconstrained by existing simulations). Without either an uncertainty analysis or a clear statement that the paper is a proof-of-principle rather than a quantitative constraint, the title claim that these galaxies 'probe' dark matter is stronger than the evidence. This is fixable by reframing the res
  3. [Dissipative and FDM applications, Eqs. (29)–(45)] The dissipative-sector bounds inherit the same methodological issue: Eq. (29) assumes ad hoc efficiencies η_dd and η_h, and Eq. (32) assumes a simple one-exponential cooling model. The FDM mass window in Eq. (45) is explicitly illustrative, but even the two-sided inequality Eq. (44) rests on applying Eq. (43) both before and during the encounter without a validated mapping of the disruption criterion R_ρ,enc ≲ 4.5 to the quoted R_min values. The paper does note that full Schrödinger-Poisson simulations are beyond its scope, which is honest; however, the derived 'bounds' here are conditional estimates rather than robust constraints. These sections should be moved from 'bounds' to 'worked examples of how the criterion would be applied'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (18)] The text says the two terms in Eq. (18) are 'mutually exclusive contributions' and are 'added'; this is misleading because the f_int e^{-D_χb} population is missing. Once the corrected term is included, the 'two contributions' framing should be updated.
  2. [Fig. 1] The text describes a shaded band for 0.01≤Σ_b≤0.05 g cm^-2, but the Figure 1 caption only mentions a solid curve. The figure should show the band or the caption should be corrected. Axis labels and units are also missing.
  3. [Reference [1]] The Rubin and Ford reference is garbled: 'Astrophysical Journal, vol. 159, p. 379159, 379 (1970)' should be cleaned up.
  4. [Eq. (17)] The notation σ_MT^{χb}(v_col)/(m_χ+m_b) appears without parentheses in several places; adding parentheses would improve readability, especially in Eqs. (20), (21), (26), and (27).
  5. [FDM section] In the sentence following Eq. (43), R_min(N) is introduced but N is not explicitly defined in the text; specify that N is the number of orbits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation found: Eq. (19) and the later inequalities are algebraic substitutions of the paper's explicitly stated phenomenological assumptions, not fitted predictions or results re-imported from its own references.

full rationale

Every step in the chain (Eq. 13 -> Eq. 14 -> Eq. 19) is a restatement of the paper's own definitions: mu_f = mu_i * eps_chi/eps_b, deficiency means mu_f <= mu_crit, and delta is defined as mu_crit/mu_i. Eq. (18) is explicitly introduced as 'a simple phenomenological expression' and is not claimed to follow from first principles; Eq. (19) simply substitutes it into the deficiency condition. The numerical cross-section and fraction limits are explicit functions of adopted fiducial values (delta = 10^-2, Sigma_b = 0.02 g cm^-2, f_grav = 5e-3, v_col = 651 km/s); they are conditional parameter evaluations, not empirically fitted parameters later relabeled as predictions. The paper itself labels Eq. (21) 'conditional on the adopted collision geometry and baryonic column density' and Eq. (45) as 'only illustrative,' so the dependence on chosen inputs is acknowledged rather than hidden. The dissipative and fuzzy-dark-matter sections likewise rearrange the same eps_chi/eps_b <= delta condition using assumed forms (Eqs. 29, 32, 36); no quantity is fitted to the deficient-galaxy data, and no load-bearing result is imported from the authors' prior work. Self-citations [11,12] appear only in the list of proposed dark-matter candidates and are not load-bearing. The skeptical point about Eq. (18) omitting gravitational recapture of non-scattered interacting dark matter is a modeling-completeness or correctness concern, not circularity: it does not show that Eq. (19) is equivalent to its inputs by construction, only that the model may be incomplete.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

15 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the definitional inequality (Eq. 14), the phenomenological collision ansatz (Eq. 18), the dissipative efficiency model (Eqs. 29-33), and the quoted fuzzy-DM stability relations (Eqs. 35-44). The numerical constraints are controlled by a large set of hand-set illustrative parameters, so the framework's physical content is conditional on validating those efficiencies and geometries.

free parameters (15)
  • μcrit = 1
    Adopted definition of dark-matter-deficient galaxy (μobs ≤ 1), Eq. (7); all bounds scale with it.
  • μ_i = 100
    Illustrative initial DM-to-baryon mass ratio of the progenitor; sets δ=10^-2 via Eq. (8)/(15).
  • δ (= μcrit/μ_i) = 10^-2
    Effective deficiency threshold used in every numerical bound; not measured.
  • Σ_b = 0.02 g cm^-2 (band 0.01–0.05)
    Assumed baryonic column density in the collision, Eq. (17); controls normalization of cross-section bound, Eq. (21).
  • f_grav = 5×10^-3
    Assumed gravitational recapture efficiency of collisionless DM in the collision remnant; used in Eqs. (26)-(28).
  • v_col = 651 km s^-1
    Assumed galactic collision velocity for velocity-dependent cross-section bounds, Fig. 1 and Eq. (24).
  • v_0 = 30 km s^-1
    Reference velocity in σMT = σ0(v/v0)^n, Eq. (23).
  • η_dd = 1
    Assumed incorporation efficiency of cooled dissipative DM disk relative to baryons, Eq. (30).
  • η_h = 10^-3
    Assumed incorporation efficiency of extended halo component in dissipative-DM bound, Eqs. (30)-(33).
  • f_diss = 0.1
    Example dissipative sector abundance used to convert the bound into a cooling-time limit, Eq. (34).
  • t_age = 10 Gyr
    Assumed integration time for dissipative cooling in Eq. (32)/(34).
  • ε_b = 0.25
    Assumed baryonic retention fraction in fuzzy-DM scenario; sets required escape e-folds, Eqs. (37)-(38).
  • t_pre = 8 Gyr
    Assumed pre-encounter duration in the fuzzy-DM stability/depletion argument, Eq. (40).
  • t_enc = 0.5 Gyr
    Assumed encounter duration in the fuzzy-DM argument.
  • FDM core/host/orbit parameters (Mc, Mh, D_pre, D_enc, Rmin) = Mc=10^8 M⊙, Mh=10^12 M⊙, D_pre=100 kpc, D_enc=20 kpc, Rmin(10)=74, Rmin(1)=8.4
    Illustrative values for the FDM mass-window estimate, Eq. (44)-(45).
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Dynamical mass from velocity dispersion: Mdyn ≈ 4Re σlos^2/G (Eq. 3) applies to the deficient galaxies.
    Basis for inferring μobs; assumes pressure support and negligible rotational support.
  • domain assumption The observed galaxies (DF2, DF4, FCC 224, DF9) are genuinely dark-matter-deficient within Robs.
    Cited from [13-26]; if distance/velocity-dispersion systematics are wrong, the empirical input disappears.
  • domain assumption At least one plausible formation channel can produce the required separation with εχ/εb ≤ δ.
    The condition is only meaningful if such a channel exists; the paper discusses tidal stripping/tidal dwarf/bullet dwarf but does not demonstrate one.
  • ad hoc to paper Collision-remnant ansatz Eq. (18): scattered interacting DM is incorporated with baryonic efficiency and collisionless DM with efficiency fgrav.
    Phenomenological, not derived from simulations; controls all collision bounds.
  • ad hoc to paper Dissipative-sector efficiency model: εχ/εb = fddηdd + (1−fdd)ηh and fdd = fdiss(1−e^{−tage/tcool}) (Eqs. 29, 32).
    Assumes cooled component follows baryons into remnant and that the cooling-time formula is a valid description.
  • domain assumption Fuzzy-DM mass-loss and stability relations: dMχ/dt = −ΓescMχ, Rρ threshold ~4.5, and semianalytic core-mass relation Eq. (43) from [40,41].
    Borrowed from prior numerical studies; the FDM mass window depends on their validity.
  • domain assumption Power-law velocity dependence σMT = σ0(v/v0)^n (Eq. 23).
    Parametrization from prior literature; adequate for scaling but not a derivation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 8921 in / 22037 out tokens · 205759 ms · 2026-07-31T23:24:40.852940+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Dark matter deficient galaxies provide a direct way to test whether baryons and dark matter can become sufficiently separated during galaxy evolution. We formulate a Dark Matter-Baryon Separability condition based on the relative incorporation efficiencies of the two components, requiring the final dark matter to baryon ratio to fall below an observationally defined threshold. Applied to high speed collisions, this condition constrains dark matter baryon momentum transfer cross section, interacting dark matter fraction and the efficiency of gravitational recapture. The same framework gives us bounds on the abundance and cooling time of dissipative dark matter, and on the integrated escape rate of ultralight fuzzy dark matter from shallow or tidally disturbed potentials. These results show how dark matter deficient galaxies can complement cosmological and laboratory probes by constraining late time dark matter interactions, dissipation and halo stability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26085 by Abraham Loeb, Oem Trivedi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The solid curve shows the upper bound on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.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

43 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford Jr, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 159, p. 379159, 379 (1970)

    1970

  2. [2]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, SciPost Physics Reviews , 001 (2026)

    2026

  3. [3]

    Arbey and F

    A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.119, 103865 (2021), arXiv:2104.11488 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Balazs, T

    C. Balazs, T. Bringmann, F. Kahlhoefer, and M. White, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05062 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Eberhardt and E

    A. Eberhardt and E. G. Ferreira, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.00705 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Bozorgnia, J

    N. Bozorgnia, J. Bramante, J. M. Cline, D. Curtin, D. McKeen, D. E. Morrissey, A. Ritz, S. Viel, A. C. Vin- cent, and Y. Zhang, Canadian Journal of Physics103, 671 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Misiaszek and N

    M. Misiaszek and N. Rossi, Symmetry16, 201 (2024), arXiv:2310.20472 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, PoSCOSMICWISPers, 040 (2024), arXiv:2403.17697 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Adhikari, A

    S. Adhikari, A. Banerjee, K. K. Boddy, F.-Y. Cyr- Racine, H. Desmond, C. Dvorkin, B. Jain, F. Kahlhoefer, M. Kaplinghat, A. Nierenberg,et al., Reviews of Modern Physics97, 045004 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    A. L. Miller, International Journal of Modern Physics D 35, 2530005 (2026)

    2026

  11. [11]

    Trivedi and A

    O. Trivedi and A. Loeb, Phys. Dark Univ.49, 102003 (2025), arXiv:2506.03334 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Trivedi and R

    O. Trivedi and R. J. Scherrer, JCAP06, 079, arXiv:2511.10617 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Van Dokkum, S

    P. Van Dokkum, S. Danieli, Y. Cohen, A. Merritt, A. J. Romanowsky, R. Abraham, J. Brodie, C. Conroy, D. Lokhorst, L. Mowla,et al., Nature555, 629 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    Danieli, P

    S. Danieli, P. van Dokkum, C. Conroy, R. Abraham, and A. J. Romanowsky, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 874, L12 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    Wasserman, A

    A. Wasserman, A. J. Romanowsky, J. Brodie, P. v. Dokkum, C. Conroy, R. Abraham, Y. Cohen, and S. Danieli, The Astrophysical Journal Letters863, L15 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    van Dokkum, S

    P. van Dokkum, S. Danieli, R. Abraham, C. Conroy, and A. J. Romanowsky, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 874, L5 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Montes, R

    M. Montes, R. Infante-Sainz, A. Madrigal-Aguado, J. Rom´ an, M. Monelli, A. S. Borlaff, and I. Trujillo, The Astrophysical Journal904, 114 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Y. Li, B. J. Brewer, and G. F. Lewis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10462 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    A. J. Romanowsky, E. Cabrera, and S. R. Janssens, Re- search Notes of the AAS8, 202 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Y. Tang, A. J. Romanowsky, J. S. Gannon, S. R. Janssens, J. P. Brodie, K. A. Bundy, M. L. Buzzo, E. A. Cabrera, S. Danieli, A. Ferr´ e-Mateu,et al., The Astro- physical Journal982, 1 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    M. L. Buzzo, D. A. Forbes, A. J. Romanowsky, L. Haacke, J. S. Gannon, Y. Tang, M. Hilker, A. Ferr´ e- Mateu, S. R. Janssens, J. P. Brodie,et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics695, A124 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    M. A. Keim, P. van Dokkum, Z. Shen, S. Danieli, and I. Pasha, The Astrophysical Journal1004, 210 (2026)

    2026

  23. [23]

    J. S. Gannon, M. L. Buzzo, A. Ferr´ e-Mateu, D. A. Forbes, J. P. Brodie, and A. J. Romanowsky, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society524, 2624 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    M. A. Keim, P. van Dokkum, Z. Shen, H. Souchereau, I. Pasha, S. Danieli, R. Abraham, A. J. Romanowsky, and Y. Tang, The Astrophysical Journal988, 165 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    van Dokkum, Z

    P. van Dokkum, Z. Shen, M. A. Keim, S. Trujillo-Gomez, S. Danieli, D. Dutta Chowdhury, R. Abraham, C. Con- roy, J. D. Kruijssen, D. Nagai,et al., Nature605, 435 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Y. Tang, G. S. Anand, A. J. Romanowsky, P. G. van Dokkum, and K. A. Bundy, The Astrophysical Journal Letters1005, L16 (2026)

    2026

  27. [27]

    Dvorkin, K

    C. Dvorkin, K. Blum, and M. Kamionkowski, Physical Review D89, 023519 (2014)

    2014

  28. [28]

    W. L. Xu, C. Dvorkin, and A. Chael, Physical Review D 97, 103530 (2018)

    2018

  29. [29]

    de Putter, O

    R. de Putter, O. Dor´ e, J. Gleyzes, D. Green, and J. Mey- ers, Physical Review Letters122, 041301 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    K. K. Boddy, V. Gluscevic, V. Poulin, E. D. Kovetz, M. Kamionkowski, and R. Barkana, Physical Review D 98, 123506 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

    Maamari, V

    K. Maamari, V. Gluscevic, K. K. Boddy, E. O. Nadler, and R. H. Wechsler, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 907, L46 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    T. R. Slatyer and C.-L. Wu, Physical Review D98, 023013 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    Stuart and K

    E. Stuart and K. Pardo, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18706 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Foot and S

    R. Foot and S. Vagnozzi, Physical Review D91, 023512 (2015)

    2015

  35. [35]

    Essig, S

    R. Essig, S. D. McDermott, H.-B. Yu, and Y.-M. Zhong, Physical review letters123, 121102 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    Schutz, T

    K. Schutz, T. Lin, B. R. Safdi, and C.-L. Wu, Physical review letters121, 081101 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    J. Buch, S. C. Leung, and J. Fan, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019(04), 026

  38. [38]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Physical Review Letters85, 1158 (2000)

    2000

  39. [39]

    Bar-Or, J.-B

    B. Bar-Or, J.-B. Fouvry, and S. Tremaine, The Astro- physical Journal871, 28 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    X. Du, B. Schwabe, J. C. Niemeyer, and D. B¨ urger, Phys- ical Review D97, 063507 (2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    Schive, T

    H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh, and T. Broadhurst, Nature Physics10, 496 (2014)

    2014

  42. [42]

    Irˇ siˇ c, M

    V. Irˇ siˇ c, M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, J. S. Bolton, and G. D. Becker, Physical review letters119, 031302 (2017)

    2017

  43. [43]

    Dalal and A

    N. Dalal and A. Kravtsov, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05750 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022