Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 42 references

The paper claims that SFDM's interaction sector, once promoted to RAQUAL and mapped to the Jordan frame, matches BECDM's up to a small correction, but the kinetic terms cannot be reconciled, so the models are related but not dynamically equ

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

2026-08-01 10:39 UTC pith:5KCQ2TK3

load-bearing objection A careful and useful dictionary between SFDM and BECDM via RAQUAL; the main conclusion about kinetic-sector inequivalence holds only in the perturbative disformal class, and the paper should say so. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26841 v2 pith:5KCQ2TK3 submitted 2026-07-29 gr-qc

Bridging Superfluid and Nonminimally Coupled BEC Dark Matter through RAQUAL

Stefano Liberati , Valentin Pomakov , Samuele Silveravalle This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83D0583F05 PACS 04.50.Kd95.35.+d98.80.-k
keywords Superfluid dark matterBose-Einstein condensate dark matterRAQUALMONDnon-minimal couplingdisformal transformationEinstein frameJordan frame
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.

Superfluid Dark Matter (SFDM) is a non-relativistic model designed to reproduce MOND-like galaxy dynamics through a phonon field coupled to baryons. The paper shows that this model is the Newtonian, low-acceleration limit of a relativistic RAQUAL theory in the Einstein frame. Mapping that theory to the Jordan frame turns the phonon-baryon interaction into a derivative coupling to the Einstein tensor plus a small coupling to the Ricci scalar — the same structure used in BEC Dark Matter (BECDM). The interaction sectors therefore coincide up to a linear perturbation of the Einstein-Hilbert term. Their kinetic sectors, however, do not: BECDM's quadratic kinetic term cannot be transformed into SFDM's non-analytic X√|X| term, so the models are related but not dynamically equivalent.

Core claim

The central claim is that the MOND-producing version of SFDM can be covariantly interpreted through RAQUAL, and that its interaction term, written in the Jordan frame, is equivalent to BECDM's non-minimal coupling G^μν ∂_μϕ ∂_νϕ up to a small correction of the form ϕ R. The equivalence is established by identifying the phonon-baryon coupling with the first-order expansion of a disformal metric shift h_μν = (A−1)g_μν + B ∂_μϕ ∂_νϕ. The same shift produces a non-analytic kinetic term X√|X| in the Einstein frame, whereas BECDM has a standard quadratic kinetic term; the authors argue that no perturbative disformal transformation can convert one into the other. Hence the two models share their in

What carries the argument

The disformal transformation g_μν → g_μν + h_μν with h_μν = (A(ϕ)−1)g_μν + B(ϕ,X)∂_μϕ∂_νϕ is the bridge that connects the Einstein-frame interacting action to the Jordan-frame non-minimally coupled action; it converts the SFDM phonon-baryon interaction into curvature couplings. The distinguishing object is the non-analytic kinetic function X√|X| required by RAQUAL/SFDM, which resists mapping onto BECDM's quadratic kinetic term.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the models are not dynamically equivalent rests on the assumption that a small disformal transformation cannot change the kinetic structure; if a non-perturbative transformation could convert the quadratic term into X√|X|, BECDM might recover the MOND limit.

What would settle it

Perform the disformal transformation without the small-h_μν truncation and check whether the non-analytic kinetic term X√|X| can arise from a quadratic kinetic term; alternatively, search for a non-perturbative field redefinition that maps the two kinetic functions. If such a transformation exists, the claimed inequivalence collapses.

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

If this is right

  • SFDM's phonon-baryon interaction admits a covariant interpretation as the Einstein-frame avatar of a non-minimal coupling to curvature.
  • BECDM, with its standard kinetic term, is not expected to reproduce MOND exactly even if its derivative coupling matches SFDM's interaction sector.
  • The MOND-producing SFDM inherits RAQUAL's known issues, including possible loss of hyperbolicity where X=0.
  • The mapping clarifies which results can transfer between the two models: interaction-level features transfer, kinetic-level ones do not.
  • The analysis lends theoretical support to newer BECDM-like scalar models with standard kinetic terms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The kinetic inequivalence is argued only at first order in h_μν; a non-perturbative disformal transformation or a non-small B∇ϕ∇ϕ term might, in principle, reshape the kinetic term, which would reopen the MOND route for BECDM.
  • The extra Ricci-scalar coupling ϕR, though small, could have observable consequences in strong-curvature regimes or in cosmology.
  • The result suggests a classification scheme: MOND-like theories can be organized by the form of the disformal shift h_μν, independent of their kinetic details.
  • The authors' kinetic check is credited to a private Mathematica notebook; publishing that calculation would make the negative result independently verifiable.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper examines the relation between the MOND-reproducing version of Superfluid Dark Matter (SFDM) and Non-Minimally Coupled Dark Matter / Bose-Einstein Condensate Dark Matter (NMCDM/BECDM). It first argues that the Newtonian SFDM action can be viewed as the low-acceleration limit of a Relativistic AQUAdratic Lagrangian (RAQUAL) in the Einstein frame, with the phonon-baryon interaction arising from a small conformal factor A(φ)=1+φ in the physical metric. It then transforms the Einstein-frame interaction sector to the Jordan frame via a disformal transformation, obtaining two non-minimal couplings: φR and B(φ,X) Gμν∇μφ∇νφ. Choosing B/(16πG_N)=L² matches the BECDM Einstein-tensor coupling, leaving φR as a small perturbation. The paper's central claim is that the interaction sectors are therefore equivalent up to a linear perturbation, while the kinetic sectors are not: the standard quadratic kinetic term of BECDM cannot be mapped, by a perturbative disformal transformation, to the non-analytic X√|X| term required by SFDM/RAQUAL. It concludes that the two models are related but not dynamically equivalent.

Significance. If the result holds in the stated restricted sense, it is a useful contribution to the frame-dictionary of modified-gravity models. It clarifies the status of the SFDM phonon-baryon interaction as an Einstein-frame manifestation of a non-minimal coupling, and it explicitly transfers RAQUAL's known consistency problems (hyperbolicity at X=0, lensing, solar-system constraints) to the SFDM context. The paper is candid about the phenomenological weaknesses of the MOND-producing SFDM and about the partial, construction-based nature of the matching. Its main limitation is that the non-equivalence claim is proven only for perturbative disformal transformations and even there the calculation is not shown; as it stands, the conclusion is narrower than the abstract states. If the missing no-go proof is supplied, the paper would be a solid contribution to the theoretical-viability literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V.B, Eq. (17), abstract] The central claim that the quadratic BECDM kinetic term 'cannot be mapped' to the RAQUAL term X√|X| is overstated and underproved. The argument restricts to a perturbative disformal transformation and invokes a private Mathematica notebook rather than a shown calculation. The 'same functional of different metrics' reasoning is not decisive: under g̃=A g+B∇φ∇φ, the canonical kinetic density becomes √−g A^{3/2}X/√(A−2BX) on the X>0 branch. For A=1 and B(X)=1/(2X)−1/(2k²X²), this equals k X^{3/2} and satisfies A−2BX=1/(k²X)>0, so a non-perturbative disformal map does convert the quadratic term into the aquadratic one. The abstract and Sec. VI should either state and prove the no-go theorem within the small-h class or abandon the unqualified 'cannot be mapped' wording.
  2. [After Eq. (34)] The consistency check uses −X=ρ_DM 'when there is no scalar field potential' without derivation. For the RAQUAL/SFDM kinetic sector P(X)∝X^{3/2}, the energy density is 2X P_X − P = 2P, not −X; for the BECDM canonical scalar the identification would require specifying the frame and potential. Consequently the order-of-magnitude conclusion that Eq. (33) is compatible with the Lorentzian-signature condition (34) is not established. Please derive the relation or explicitly state all assumptions (frame, kinetic term, potential, units).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, Sec. II.B] Typographical issues: 'exasperated' should be 'exacerbated' (Introduction); 'charactrized' should be 'characterized' and 'BECDMS' should be 'BECDM' (Sec. II.B).
  2. [Eq. (13)] The identity relating XR, (□φ)², (∇μ∇νφ)² and Gμν∇μφ∇νφ is stated without derivation or reference to the specific equation in Refs. [9–11]; a short derivation or precise citation would help the reader.
  3. [Sec. IV.B] The matching A(φ)=1+φ is chosen to reproduce the SFDM interaction, and the matching B/(16πG_N)=L² is chosen to reproduce BECDM. The paper is transparent about this at the technical level, but the abstract's 'maps onto' should be accompanied by an explicit statement that these are consistency conditions, not predictions. This would avoid the appearance of circularity.
  4. [Sec. V.A] The derivation of Eq. (31) truncates at first order in h_{μν} but the notation in Eq. (30) makes it easy to miss that terms like ϕ h_{μν} are dropped. A sentence or footnote making the truncation explicit would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

The SFDM–RAQUAL and interaction-sector matches are constructed by choosing free functions, and the central kinetic-sector inequivalence is imported from same-author references plus an unpublished notebook.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. IV.B, around Eq. (28) (RAQUAL–SFDM equivalence)]
    "Now we can clearly see that, in the Newtonian limit c→∞, ρ_b c^2 ≫ p_b. Thus, the interaction Lagrangian simplifies to L_int ≈ 1/2 (A−1)ρ_b c^2 which has the exact form required in SFDM if we choose A(ϕ) = 1 + ϕ. We conclude that we can recover the EF-int form (15) of the SFDM action from the RAQUAL general relativistic theory written in EF-mond (16) form."

    The claimed recovery of SFDM from RAQUAL is obtained by choosing the conformal factor A(ϕ)=1+ϕ precisely so that RAQUAL's interaction term becomes SFDM's L_int ∝ ϕ ρ_b. The aquadratic kinetic term was likewise inserted as 'precisely the kinetic term imposed in SFDM'. Thus the statement that SFDM arises as the Newtonian limit of RAQUAL is a restatement of the chosen ansatz, not an independent derivation. This is a constructed dictionary rather than a prediction, and the paper is transparent about the matching, but the equivalence is definitional rather than derived.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V.A, Eq. (33)]
    "The second term is exactly of the BECDM form (14) if B(ϕ,X)/(16πG_N) ≡ L^2, i.e. if B(ϕ,X)/(16πG_N) is chosen to be a constant with dimensions length squared [11]."

    The claimed equivalence of the interaction sectors is contingent on setting the free disformal function B to the BECDM constant L². This is an input condition, not a derived output. The abstract presents the phonon-baryon interaction as 'mapping onto' the BECDM Einstein-tensor coupling, but that particular coincidence is built in by construction. The only non-tuned piece is the residual φR term, which is why the headline is honestly 'up to a perturbation'; however the Einstein-tensor part of the match is a fitted input, not a prediction.

  3. self citation load bearing [Sec. V.B (Transformation of the kinetic term)]
    "We already know that this is not the case [9, 10], i.e., the kinetic term does not change its structure upon this transformation, if h is considered a small perturbation ... which we merely reported here from Refs. [9, 10], that the DM kinetic term cannot change structure. We have also explicitly checked this by performing the disformal transformation Eq. (17) ... convinced ourselves ... the rest sum up to a total derivative."

    The central conclusion that BECDM's quadratic kinetic term cannot be mapped to the non-analytic SFDM/RAQUAL kinetic term is not derived in this paper; it is imported from Refs. [9,10] by the same research group (Bettoni, Liberati, Sindoni; Bettoni, Pettorino, Liberati, Baccigalupi) and from a private Mathematica notebook. The in-text 'same functional of different metrics' argument does not by itself prove that S_dm[g(g̃,φ),φ] stays quadratic under a general non-perturbative disformal map. Since this no-go underpins the paper's headline claim that the two models are 'not dynamically equivalent', the claim rests on a load-bearing self-citation rather than on an independent proof presented here.

full rationale

The paper is an explicit frame-dictionary construction. Section IV fixes RAQUAL's free functions to reproduce SFDM: f(X) = X√|X| is inserted as precisely the SFDM kinetic term, and A(ϕ)=1+ϕ is chosen so that L_int matches L_int ∝ ϕ ρ_b. Section V.A then requires B=16πG_N L² to match BECDM's Einstein-tensor coupling. These matches are therefore built in rather than predicted, though the paper is candid about the choices and the residual φR term is a genuine, non-tuned difference. The decisive claim that the quadratic kinetic term cannot become the non-analytic RAQUAL kinetic term is not demonstrated in the paper: it is attributed to Refs. [9,10] from the same authors and to a private Mathematica notebook, with the in-text 'same functional of different metrics' argument at best a perturbative statement. Thus the central inequivalence conclusion rests partly on a self-citation chain and an unpublished check. Overall, partial circularity: score 4.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central mapping inherits the EFT assumptions of SFDM and RAQUAL, adds a hand-chosen conformal factor and a matching condition for B, and uses an unstated kinetic-identification for the hyperbolicity check. No new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • A(φ) conformal factor coefficient (A=1+φ) = coefficient 1; φ≪1
    Chosen by hand so the linear interaction term reproduces the SFDM phonon–baryon coupling L_int∝φρ_b (Eq. 28); the exponential completion e^φ and rescaling φ→2αφ are post hoc.
  • B(φ,X)/(16πG_N) = L² (BECDM matching constant) = not specified; L² ~ |R|^{-1} for relevance
    Imposed in Eq. (33) to identify the Einstein-tensor coupling with BECDM's coupling; the claimed equivalence holds only if this function is a constant.
  • α (RAQUAL conformal coupling) = α² < 10^-5 (Cassini bound from Ref. [1])
    Used to absorb the field redefinition φ→2αφ and complete A(φ)=e^{2αφ}; smallness is required for the h_μν perturbation expansion.
  • Ω (SFDM energy scale) = O(meV) to set a0≈1.2×10^-8 cm/s²
    Inherited from SFDM; sets the tiny prefactor φ∝Ωπ/M_Pl and hence the perturbation expansion. Not fitted in this paper.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption SFDM phonon action P_SFDM(X)∝X√|X| with L_int∝πρ_b (Sec. II.A)
    Taken from Refs. [6–8]; the entire RAQUAL kinetic matching relies on this non-analytic form, and the analysis explicitly excludes later quartic/sextic SFDM variants.
  • domain assumption RAQUAL action with f(X)=l0 X^{3/2} and physical metric g̃=e^{2αφ}g (Sec. IV.A)
    Taken from Ref. [1]; the Newtonian low-acceleration limit of this action is the target SFDM theory.
  • domain assumption Pressureless baryon approximation in halos: p_b≪ρ_b c² so T_b≈−ρ_b c² (Eqs. 27–28)
    Used to reduce L_int to 1/2(A−1)ρ_b c²; not valid near relativistic sources.
  • domain assumption Stationary spherical symmetry φ=φ(r) (Sec. IV.B)
    Assumed to eliminate the T^{rr} term; the mapping is demonstrated only in this regime.
  • domain assumption First-order perturbation theory in h_μν (Eqs. 19, 30)
    Expansion and truncation underpins the linear φR correction and the neglect of iterative terms.
  • domain assumption Canonical quadratic kinetic term cannot transform into X^{3/2} under a perturbative disformal transformation (Sec. V.B)
    Invoked from Refs. [9,10] plus an unshown Mathematica check; the 'not dynamically equivalent' conclusion rests on this.
  • ad hoc to paper −X=ρ_DM for a scalar with no potential (after Eq. 34)
    Stated without derivation and used in the order-of-magnitude check of the Lorentzian-signature constraint; dimensions and sign conventions are opaque.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 14695 in / 16064 out tokens · 148263 ms · 2026-08-01T10:39:52.681845+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Motivated by their common condensed-matter inspiration and their shared aim of reconciling MOND-like phenomenology on galactic scales with particle dark matter on larger scales, we investigate the relation between Superfluid Dark Matter (SFDM) and Bose--Einstein Condensate Dark Matter (BECDM). Since SFDM is formulated in the Newtonian regime whereas BECDM is fully relativistic, we first show that the MONDian formulation of SFDM arises as the Newtonian, low-acceleration limit of a Relativistic AQUAdratic Lagrangian (RAQUAL) theory in the Einstein frame. We then transform its covariant interaction sector to the Jordan frame and compare it with BECDM. The phonon--baryon interaction of SFDM maps onto the BECDM derivative coupling to the Einstein tensor, supplemented by a small non-minimal coupling to the Ricci scalar. The interaction sectors are therefore equivalent up to a linear perturbation of the Einstein--Hilbert term. Their kinetic sectors, however, remain inequivalent: the standard quadratic kinetic term of BECDM cannot be mapped onto the non-analytic kinetic term required by SFDM. The two models are consequently related but not dynamically equivalent. This mapping provides a covariant interpretation of the SFDM interaction and clarifies which theoretical properties can be transferred between the two frameworks.

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

42 extracted references · 20 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Bruneton and G

    J.-P. Bruneton and G. Esposito-Far` ese, Field-theoretical formulations of mond-like gravity, Phys. Rev. D76, 124012 (2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    E. E. Flanagan, The Conformal frame freedom in theories of gravitation, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 3817 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0403063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    T. P. Sotiriou, V. Faraoni, and S. Liberati, Theory of gravitation theories: A No-progress report, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D17, 399 (2008), arXiv:0707.2748 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    Kuntz and S

    I. Kuntz and S. Liberati, Off-shell equivalence in quantum field theory and gravity, (2026), arXiv:2607.12644 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Bettoni and S

    D. Bettoni and S. Liberati, Disformal invariance of second order scalar-tensor theories: Framing the horndeski action, Physical Review D88, 10.1103/physrevd.88.084020 (2013)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.084020 2013

  6. [6]

    Khoury, Alternative to particle dark matter, Physical Review D91, 10.1103/physrevd.91.024022 (2015)

    J. Khoury, Alternative to particle dark matter, Physical Review D91, 10.1103/physrevd.91.024022 (2015)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.024022 2015

  7. [7]

    Khoury, Dark matter superfluidity, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes 10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.42 (2022)

    J. Khoury, Dark matter superfluidity, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes 10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.42 (2022)

    doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.42 2022

  8. [8]

    De Luca and J

    V. De Luca and J. Khoury, Superfluid dark matter around black holes, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(04), 048

  9. [9]

    Bettoni, S

    D. Bettoni, S. Liberati, and L. Sindoni, Extendedλcdm: generalized non-minimal coupling for dark matter fluids, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2011(11), 007–007

  10. [10]

    Bettoni, V

    D. Bettoni, V. Pettorino, S. Liberati, and C. Baccigalupi, Non-minimally coupled dark matter: effective pressure and structure formation, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012(07), 027

  11. [11]

    Bettoni, M

    D. Bettoni, M. Colombo, and S. Liberati, Dark matter as a bose-einstein condensate: the relativistic non-minimally coupled case, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014(02), 004–004

  12. [12]

    Bettoni and S

    D. Bettoni and S. Liberati, Dynamics of non-minimally coupled perfect fluids, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2015(08), 023–023

  13. [13]

    Milgrom, A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis., Astrophys

    M. Milgrom, A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis., Astrophys. J.270, 365 (1983)

    1983

  14. [14]

    Famaey and S

    B. Famaey and S. S. McGaugh, Modified newtonian dynamics (mond): Observational phenomenology and relativistic extensions, Living Reviews in Relativity15, 10.12942/lrr-2012-10 (2012)

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2012-10 2012

  15. [15]

    Milgrom, MOND theory, Can

    M. Milgrom, MOND theory, Can. J. Phys.93, 107 (2015), arXiv:1404.7661 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    Bekenstein and M

    J. Bekenstein and M. Milgrom, Does the missing mass problem signal the breakdown of Newtonian gravity?, Astrophys. J.286, 7 (1984)

    1984

  17. [17]

    Bruneton, S

    J.-P. Bruneton, S. Liberati, L. Sindoni, and B. Famaey, Reconciling mond and dark matter?, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2009(03), 021–021

  18. [18]

    Berezhiani and J

    L. Berezhiani and J. Khoury, Theory of dark matter superfluidity, Phys. Rev. D92, 103510 (2015), arXiv:1507.01019 [astro-ph.CO]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    Berezhiani and J

    L. Berezhiani and J. Khoury, Dark Matter Superfluidity and Galactic Dynamics, Phys. Lett. B753, 639 (2016), arXiv:1506.07877 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Berezhiani, B

    L. Berezhiani, B. Famaey, and J. Khoury, Phenomenological consequences of superfluid dark matter with baryon-phonon coupling, JCAP09, 021, arXiv:1711.05748 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Berezhiani and J

    L. Berezhiani and J. Khoury, Emergent long-range interactions in Bose-Einstein Condensates, Phys. Rev. D99, 076003 (2019), arXiv:1812.09332 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Berezhiani, B

    L. Berezhiani, B. Elder, and J. Khoury, Dynamical Friction in Superfluids, JCAP10, 074, arXiv:1905.09297 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1905

  23. [23]

    Berezhiani, On effective theory of superfluid phonons, Phys

    L. Berezhiani, On effective theory of superfluid phonons, Phys. Lett. B805, 135451 (2020), arXiv:2001.08696 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Berezhiani, G

    L. Berezhiani, G. Cintia, and M. Warkentin, Core fragmentation in simplest superfluid dark matter scenario, Phys. Lett. B819, 136422 (2021), arXiv:2101.08117 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Berezhiani, G

    L. Berezhiani, G. Cintia, and J. Khoury, Thermalization, fragmentation, and tidal disruption: The com- plex galactic dynamics of dark matter superfluidity, Phys. Rev. D107, 123010 (2023), arXiv:2212.10577 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Berezhiani, G

    L. Berezhiani, G. Cintia, V. De Luca, and J. Khoury, Dynamical friction in dark matter superfluids: The evolution of black hole binaries, JCAP06, 024, arXiv:2311.07672 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Berezhiani, G

    L. Berezhiani, G. Cintia, V. De Luca, and J. Khoury, Superfluid dark matter, Phys. Rept.1172, 1 (2026), arXiv:2505.23900 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Hossenfelder and T

    S. Hossenfelder and T. Mistele, Strong lensing with superfluid dark matter, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019(02), 001–001

  29. [29]

    Hossenfelder and T

    S. Hossenfelder and T. Mistele, The Milky Way’s rotation curve with superfluid dark matter, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498, 3484 (2020), arXiv:2003.07324 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Mistele, Three problems of superfluid dark matter and their solution, JCAP01, 025, arXiv:2009.03003 [gr-qc]

    T. Mistele, Three problems of superfluid dark matter and their solution, JCAP01, 025, arXiv:2009.03003 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  31. [31]

    Mistele, S

    T. Mistele, S. McGaugh, and S. Hossenfelder, Galactic mass-to-light ratios with superfluid dark matter, Astron. Astrophys.664, A40 (2022), arXiv:2201.07282 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Mistele, S

    T. Mistele, S. McGaugh, and S. Hossenfelder, Superfluid dark matter in tension with weak gravitational lensing data, JCAP09, 004, arXiv:2303.08560 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Benetti, A

    F. Benetti, A. Lapi, S. Silveravalle, and S. Liberati, Ultra-compact objects of non-minimally coupled dark matter, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(03), 029

  34. [34]

    Silveravalle, A

    S. Silveravalle, A. Lapi, F. Benetti, and S. Liberati, Cosmology with a non-minimally coupled dark matter fluid. part i. background evolution, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(11), 067

  35. [35]

    Gandolfi, A

    G. Gandolfi, A. Lapi, and S. Liberati, Empirical evidence of nonminimally coupled dark matter in the dynamics of local spiral galaxies?, The Astrophysical Journal929, 48 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    Gandolfi, A

    G. Gandolfi, A. Lapi, and S. Liberati, Self-gravitating Equilibria of Non-minimally Coupled Dark Matter Halos, Astrophys. J.910, 76 (2021), arXiv:2102.03873 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Barcel´ o, S

    C. Barcel´ o, S. Liberati, and M. Visser, Analogue gravity, Living Reviews in Relativity8, 10.12942/lrr- 2005-12 (2005)

    doi:10.12942/lrr- 2005

  38. [38]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Relation between physical and gravitational geometry, Physical Review D48, 3641–3647 (1993)

    1993

  39. [39]

    Zumalac´ arregui, T

    M. Zumalac´ arregui, T. S. Koivisto, and D. F. Mota, Dbi galileons in the einstein frame: Local gravity and cosmology, Physical Review D87, 10.1103/physrevd.87.083010 (2013)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.083010 2013

  40. [40]

    Thaalba, N

    F. Thaalba, N. Franchini, M. Bezares, and T. P. Sotiriou, Hyperbolicity in scalar-gauss-bonnet gravity: A gauge invariant study for spherical evolution, Phys. Rev. D111, 024053 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Gandolfi, B

    G. Gandolfi, B. S. Haridasu, S. Liberati, and A. Lapi, Looking for Traces of Nonminimally Coupled Dark Matter in the X-COP Galaxy Clusters Sample, Astrophys. J.952, 105 (2023), arXiv:2305.13974 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Alternatives to Dark Matter: Modified Gravity as an Alternative to dark Matter, , 99 (2010), arXiv:1001.3876 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010