Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 101 references

This paper argues that current kinematic data for ultra-diffuse galaxies cannot distinguish a non-minimal dark-matter–gravity coupling from General Relativity, yielding only upper limits on the coupling length scale.

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

2026-08-04 05:59 UTC pith:3DTXSU2O

load-bearing objection Solid null-result paper on NMC from UDG kinematics, but the central L upper limits are not interpretable because the prior on L is never reported. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2602.14747 v2 pith:3DTXSU2O submitted 2026-02-16 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

Exploring Non-minimal coupling using ultra-diffuse galaxies

Saboura Zamani , Vincenzo Salzano , Dario Bettoni This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th
keywords non-minimal couplingdark matterultra-diffuse galaxiesJeans modelingmodified gravityvelocity dispersionDragonfly 44
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 asks whether dark matter's non-minimal coupling to spacetime curvature—an extension of General Relativity with a coupling length scale L—can be detected in the internal motions of ultra-diffuse galaxies, the most diffuse galaxies known. It models three UDGs spanning the range from dark-matter-deficient (NGC 1052-DF2, NGC 1052-DF4) to dark-matter-dominated (Dragonfly 44), using Bayesian Jeans analysis with eight dark-matter halo profiles, two orbital anisotropy models, and with and without stellar-to-halo mass priors. The result is a null detection: across all configurations, the inferred astrophysical parameters match their General Relativity counterparts, and the posterior for L is always compatible with zero, giving only upper limits. The authors stress these limits are a sensitivity limit of current data, not a tight exclusion, because UDGs have shallow density profiles that suppress the coupling correction, which scales with the Laplacian of the dark-matter density.

Core claim

Three ultra-diffuse galaxies—NGC 1052-DF2, NGC 1052-DF4, and Dragonfly 44—show no statistical preference for a non-minimal dark-matter–gravity coupling. The model changes the Poisson equation by a term proportional to L²∇²ρ_DM, equivalent to an effective mass M_eff(r)=M(r)−4π ε r² L² dρ_DM/dr. Using this in the Jeans equation, the analysis recovers General Relativity parameters across eight halo profiles and two anisotropy models. The coupling length L yields only upper limits, which the authors interpret as a sensitivity limit of the sparse globular-cluster and stellar velocity data rather than as a tight exclusion of the coupling.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective mass profile M_eff(r)=M(r)−4π ε r² L² dρ_DM/dr, derived from the modified Poisson equation ∇²Φ=4πG[ρ_tot − ε L² ∇²ρ_DM]. This lets the standard spherical Jeans equation be applied with M_eff in place of M, converting the non-minimal coupling into an effective force-law change. The correction scales as L² times the dark-matter density's Laplacian; because ultra-diffuse galaxies have shallow density profiles over the observed radii, the term is tiny, which is why the data cannot distinguish the non-minimal coupling from General Relativity.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the globular-cluster and stellar velocities in the three galaxies are equilibrium tracers of a spherical, non-rotating potential; if the galaxies are flattened, unvirialized, or contaminated by interlopers, the inferred velocity dispersions—and therefore the L upper limits—could be biased.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the same three galaxies with a model that relaxes spherical symmetry (e.g., an axisymmetric potential) or removes interloper contamination; if the posterior for L then excludes zero, the paper's null conclusion would be falsified.

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

If this is right

  • If the non-minimal coupling exists, its characteristic scale on galactic scales is below the current detection threshold; only upper limits can be set, not a measurement.
  • The GR and NMC fits are statistically indistinguishable, so the mass–anisotropy degeneracy and SHMR-prior effects seen in DF2 and DF4 (extremely low halo mass with high concentration) are unaffected by the coupling.
  • The L upper limits are similar across dark-matter-poor and dark-matter-dominated systems, hinting at a nearly universal coupling scale if combined with cluster-scale results, though the sample is small.
  • Future high-precision velocity measurements—more globular clusters or finer radial bins—are required to determine whether non-minimal coupling effects can be distinguished in low-acceleration systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A logical extension the authors do not develop: if L is genuinely small, the most promising observational targets for NMC are systems with sharp dark-matter density gradients (e.g., cuspy dwarf spheroidals or cluster cores), where the Laplacian of the density is large, rather than the diffuse regions where UDGs live.
  • The mock-data sensitivity test implies that merely adding more tracers to the same UDGs may not break the degeneracy; gains in velocity precision per tracer, or selecting galaxies with steeper inner profiles, would be more effective.
  • The spread in Dragonfly 44 Bayesian evidences (e.g., NMC logB ≈ 0.64–0.65 vs GR −0.31 despite similar posteriors) suggests the evidence estimates carry systematic uncertainty; repeating the comparison with an independent nested-sampling implementation or an information criterion would clarify whether any model is actually favored.

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper tests a non-minimal coupling (NMC) between dark matter and curvature using spherical Jeans models of three ultra-diffuse galaxies: NGC 1052-DF2, NGC 1052-DF4, and Dragonfly 44. The NMC correction is absorbed into an effective mass profile (Eq. 3.9) proportional to L^2 ∇^2 ρ_DM. For each galaxy the authors run Bayesian MCMC/Nested Sampling over multiple halo profiles, two anisotropy models, with and without a stellar-to-halo mass relation, and the two polarization signs ϵ=±1. The principal result is that GR and NMC fits are statistically indistinguishable, the L posterior is always compatible with zero and yields only upper limits, and the inferred astrophysical parameters agree with GR literature values. A mock DF44 sensitivity test indicates that only large L values produce a detectable signal. The paper concludes that current UDG kinematics provide only weak sensitivity limits on the NMC length scale.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a useful null result: it extends NMC constraints from galaxy clusters to individual galaxies and demonstrates that UDGs, despite their extreme dynamical environments, cannot yet discriminate this coupling. The study is thorough in its exploration of halo profiles, anisotropy prescriptions, and SHMR variants; the effective-mass formulation is clean; the GR baselines are checked against literature values; and a mock-data sensitivity test is included. However, the headline quantitative upper limits on L cannot be reproduced or interpreted without the prior on L, and several reported limits appear to sit at prior boundaries. The no-detection conclusion is likely robust, but the quantitative sensitivity claims are not self-contained as presented.

major comments (5)
  1. [Table II / Sec. V] The prior on the new parameter L is never reported. Table II lists priors for c200, M200, γ, β, r_a, M*, D, v_sys, and Υ*, but not for L, and no statement is given in the text about whether L is uniform in linear or log space, its bounds, or its sign. Because the headline output is a set of Bayesian upper limits (Tables III–IX), and because those limits depend on the prior volume, the reported numbers are not reproducible. Values such as logL < −109, < −38, and < −33 (Tables IV, VII) cannot be distinguished from prior-boundary artifacts without knowing the prior. Please state the L prior explicitly and test sensitivity to its width and type.
  2. [Table II] The prior for the anisotropy radius r_a is listed as U(0,∞). As written, this is an improper prior, so the Bayesian evidences used for model comparison (logB in Tables III–IX) are not strictly well-defined. If a large finite upper bound is used in practice, it must be reported; otherwise the evidence ratios should be treated as provisional. The same concern applies to any unbounded direction in the L prior.
  3. [Eq. (3.14)] The printed gNFW enclosed mass appears to omit the 1/(3−γ) prefactor that arises from ∫_0^x t^{2−γ}(1+t)^{γ−3} dt, and the normalization ρ_s is typeset in a garbled way with a hypergeometric argument (γ−2)c_Δ. If the code implements the standard formula, this is a typo, but as written the equation is not reproducible and is central to every halo fit. Please correct the formula and verify that the code matches the standard expression.
  4. [Table IX / Sec. VI] The claim of a universal, small L is stronger than the presented constraints. The largest-L selections in Table IX include logL = 22.15 for the GPI profile (DF44), and cNFW yields unconstrained L; within the main tables, upper limits vary by many orders of magnitude across galaxies and configurations (e.g., Table III logL<0.30 vs. Table IV logL<−109). The conclusion should be rephrased as a no-detection statement with configuration-dependent upper limits, rather than a universal small-L result.
  5. [Sec. VI / Tables III–IV] The paper acknowledges that without the SHMR prior, DF2 and DF4 develop 'astrophysically implausible' halos (logM200 ∼ 4–5, c200 ∼ 23–25). Since the NoSHMR runs are used to argue that the near-GR outcome is not an artifact of halo modeling, and since Table IX selects high-L cases from these runs, the authors should demonstrate that the L upper limits are not driven by the unphysical parameter region—for example, by repeating the analysis with a physically motivated lower bound on M200 or by showing that the high-L posterior mass lies in the plausible region.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III / Sec. VI] The analysis assumes spherical, non-rotating equilibrium and treats the globular clusters and DF44 radial bins as relaxed tracers. The paper does not test for interloper contamination or flattening; this should be acknowledged as a limitation affecting the absolute scale of the L limits.
  2. [Sec. VI] The mock DF44 test is generated with the same model and noise statistics as the real observations, so it calibrates ideal sensitivity but not robustness to model misspecification. This should be stated explicitly in the text.
  3. [Table V heading] The heading 'NGC1052-DF44' should read 'Dragonfly 44' to match the rest of the paper.
  4. [Sec. VI] The statement 'the polarization parameter ϵ likewise has little impact, as the cases ϵ=±1 yield comparable constraints on L' is difficult to reconcile with Table IV, where logL ranges from <−5.14 to <−109 between the two polarizations. Please clarify whether this refers to the qualitative conclusion rather than the numerical limits.
  5. [Sec. VI] The text says 'we do not report individual evidence values in the tables', yet Tables III–IX contain logB columns. Please rephrase to avoid the apparent contradiction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No demonstrable circularity: L is fitted from UDG kinematics, the NMC theory is a stated input, and the mock test is a sensitivity calibration; the main caveats are an unreported L prior and self-citations that are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an empirical constraint: the NMC length scale L is a free parameter added to the Jeans-model likelihood (Sec. V, Eq. 5.1-5.2), and its posterior is found to be compatible with zero from UDG kinematics. Nothing in the derivation defines L in terms of the output or fits a parameter and then calls it a prediction. The NMC Poisson equation (2.5) and effective mass (3.9) are stated model inputs, imported from Bettoni & Liberati [38,39]; the paper does not claim to derive them here, and the inference does not assume L=0 — it merely finds no preference for L≠0. The mock DF44 test is a sensitivity calibration, not a circular prediction: mock data are generated with known L and the recovery is checked. The self-citations to [38,39] for the theory and to [43,44] for previous cluster constraints are not load-bearing for the current no-detection: the theory assumptions are explicit, and the cluster constraints use independent external data. The 'apparent universality of L' remark combines the present posterior limits with previous cluster results, but that is a cross-study comparison, not an input to the fit. The most serious issue is that Table II, despite being 'A detailed list of the priors that we have considered,' contains no prior for L, and no L prior is given elsewhere; the reported extreme logL upper limits (e.g., < -109) could reflect prior-boundary behavior and the quantitative upper limits are not reproducible as presented. That is a transparency/reproducibility flaw, not a circular reduction. The authors' own flagging of evidence inconsistencies in DF44 (Table V) is likewise a numerical/interpretational caveat, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction, so the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the NMC theoretical framework from the authors' earlier work, standard spherical Jeans modeling, and literature priors; no new particles or forces are introduced. The main fitted quantity is L, whose prior is not specified, plus the usual halo/stellar nuisance parameters.

free parameters (8)
  • L (NMC coupling length scale) = upper limits; e.g. log10(L/kpc) < 0.30 for DF2 gNFW SHMR; many runs unconstrained or at prior boundary (logL < -33)
    Central parameter of the modified gravity model; its prior range is not listed in Table II, and the quoted upper limits vary by orders of magnitude across configurations.
  • c200 (halo concentration) = ~8 with SHMR; ~23-25 without SHMR
    NFW/gNFW concentration fitted from kinematics; without SHMR prior it runs into the mass-concentration-anisotropy degeneracy.
  • log10(M200/M_sun) = ~10.7-10.9 with SHMR; ~4-5 without SHMR
    Virial halo mass fitted; no-SHMR values are physically implausible and acknowledged as degenerate.
  • gamma (gNFW inner slope) = ~0.6-1.0; often U
    Inner density slope fitted for gNFW; often unconstrained by the sparse data.
  • anisotropy parameters (beta_c or beta0, beta_inf, r_a) = beta_c mostly negative; r_a often unconstrained
    Orbital anisotropy fitted to address the mass-anisotropy degeneracy; r_a frequently not constrained.
  • D (distance) = DF2/DF4 ~21.9-22.1 Mpc; DF44 ~90-107 Mpc
    Distance sampled with Gaussian priors; directly scales luminosity and mass.
  • Upsilon* (stellar mass-to-light ratio) = ~1.45-1.95
    Stellar mass-to-light ratio fitted with Gaussian priors.
  • v_sys (systemic velocity) = ~1802 km/s (DF2), ~1445 km/s (DF4)
    Systemic velocity fitted as a nuisance parameter.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Spherical Jeans equation with Abel projection describes the kinematics; no net streaming motions.
    Section III, Eqs. (3.1)-(3.7). If UDGs are flattened or tracers are not relaxed, the inferred dispersions and L limits are biased.
  • domain assumption The NMC action and weak-field Poisson modification Eq. (2.5) with F_i(rho) proportional to rho_DM and alpha_d F_d = -8 pi G L^2 rho_DM are the correct description of non-minimal coupling.
    Adopted from Bettoni-Liberati [38,39]; not re-derived here. All constraints are conditional on this theoretical premise.
  • domain assumption The NMC introduces no new propagating degrees of freedom and can be treated as a coarse-grained fluid effect.
    Section II. If this fails, the weak-field equations and the effective-mass formula Eq. (3.9) would change.
  • domain assumption The c-M relation [75] and the stellar-to-halo mass relation [76] used as priors apply to UDGs.
    Section V and Table II. Without the SHMR prior, the fits produce implausible halos (logM200 ~ 4-5), so the priors anchor the analysis.
  • domain assumption Literature distance and mass-to-light-ratio priors are accurate for the three UDGs.
    Table II. Distance errors directly scale masses and therefore affect L constraints.
  • ad hoc to paper The mock Dragonfly 44 data set is generated with the same model and noise statistics as the real observations and is representative for sensitivity calibration.
    Section VI. The conclusion that only large, already-disfavored L values are detectable depends on this mock construction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26714 in / 18101 out tokens · 172209 ms · 2026-08-04T05:59:11.503221+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate whether a non-minimal coupling between dark matter and gravity can influence the internal dynamics of ultra-diffuse galaxies. Within this framework, the gravitational potential is modified by an additional term that captures the interaction between spacetime curvature and the dark matter with a coupling constant determined by a length scale L. Using spherical Jeans modelling, we analyze the kinematic data of three ultra-diffuse galaxies: NGC 1052-DF2, NGC 1052-DF4, and Dragonfly 44, which span the observational extremes from dark matter deficient to dark matter dominated systems. For each galaxy we explore several dark matter halo profiles, two orbital anisotropy models, and both with and without Stellar to Halo Mass Relation scenarios, and we perform a Bayesian parameter inference. We further validate the analysis through a sensitivity test on mock Dragonfly 44 data, which shows that only large couplings, which are already disfavored by the data, produce a detectable imprint, while smaller values remain indistinguishable from General Relativity at the current observational precision. Across all the considered configurations, the constrained astrophysical parameters are consistent with standard ones from General Relativity. The posterior distributions of L show no preference for non-zero values and result only in upper limits. These upper limits should be interpreted as a sensitivity limit of current UDG kinematics rather than as a tight exclusion of the coupling. Future high precision velocity measurements will be essential to determine whether non-minimal coupling effects can become observationally distinguishable in low-acceleration systems.

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

101 extracted references · 74 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Bothun, C

    G. Bothun, C. Impey, and S. McGaugh, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific109, 745 (1997)

    1997

  2. [2]

    M. L. Buzzo, D. A. Forbes, T. H. Jarrett, F. R. Mar- leau, P.-A. Duc, J. P. Brodie, A. J. Romanowsky, A. Ferr´ e-Mateu, M. Hilker, J. S. Gannon, J. Pfeffer, and L. Haacke, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society536, 2536 (2025), arXiv:2412.01901 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    J. D. Van Nest, F. Munshi, A. Wright, M. Tremmel, A. Brooks, D. Nagai, and T. Quinn, The Astrophysical Journal926, 92 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    M. J. Disney, Nature263, 573 (1976)

    1976

  5. [5]

    G. D. Bothun, C. G. Impey, and D. B. Malin, Astro- nomical Journal94, 23 (1987)

    1987

  6. [6]

    van Dokkum, R

    P. van Dokkum, R. Abraham, A. Merritt, J. Zhang, M. Geha, and C. Conroy, Astrophys. J. Lett.798, L45 (2015), arXiv:1410.8141 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    J. A. Benavides, L. V. Sales, M. G. Abadi, F. Marinacci, M. Vogelsberger, and L. Hernquist, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society522, 1033 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    ERDF A way of making Europe

    These values remain robust against changes in the anisotropy prescription, reflecting the fact that the ris- ing velocity-dispersion profile of DF44 tightly constrains the depth and scale of the gravitational potential. With- out the SHMR prior, similar degeneracies to those seen in DF2 and DF4 reappear, but the prior effectively sup- presses these nonphy...

    2021

  9. [9]

    Di Cintio, C

    A. Di Cintio, C. B. Brook, A. A. Dutton, A. V. Macci` o, A. C. Obreja, and A. Dekel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.466, L1 (2017), arXiv:1608.01327 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    N. C. Amorisco and A. Loeb, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters459, L51 (2016), arXiv:1603.00463 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    L. V. Sales, J. F. Navarro, L. Penafiel, E. W. Peng, S. Lim, and L. Hernquist, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 494, 1848 (2020), arXiv:1909.01347 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Fujita, Publ

    Y. Fujita, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap.56, 29 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0311193

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  13. [13]

    R. G. Abraham and P. G. van Dokkum, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.126, 55 (2016), arXiv:1401.5473 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Bhatia, S

    E. Bhatia, S. Chakrabarti, and S. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D112, 024034 (2025), arXiv:2412.03658 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Muller, M

    O. Muller, M. Rejkuba, and H. Jerjen, Astronomy & Astrophysics625, A96 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Silk, Mon

    J. Silk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.488, L24 (2019), arXiv:1905.13235 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Rom´ an, M

    J. Rom´ an, M. A. Beasley, T. Ruiz-Lara, and D. Valls- Gabaud, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486, 823 (2019), arXiv:1903.08168 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Merritt, P

    A. Merritt, P. van Dokkum, S. Danieli, R. Abra- ham, J. Zhang, I. D. Karachentsev, and L. N. Makarova, The Astrophysical Journal833, 168 (2016), arXiv:1610.01609 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    A. V. S. Castelli, F. R. Faifer, and C. G. Es- cudero, Astronomy & Astrophysics596, A23 (2016), arXiv:1609.00224 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    R. F. J. van der Burg, A. Muzzin, and H. Hoek- stra, Astronomy & Astrophysics590, A20 (2016), arXiv:1602.00002 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    Mart ´ ınez-Delgadoet al., The Astrophysical Journal 151, 96 (2016), arXiv:1601.06960 [astro-ph.GA]

    D. Mart ´ ınez-Delgadoet al., The Astrophysical Journal 151, 96 (2016), arXiv:1601.06960 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    C. F. P. Laporte, A. Agnello, and J. F. Navarro, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society484, 245 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    Trujillo, M

    I. Trujillo, M. A. Beasley, A. Borlaff, E. R. Car- rasco, A. DiCintio, M. Filho, M. Monelli, M. Montes, J. Rom´ an, T. Ruiz-Lara, J. S´ anchez Almeida, D. Valls-Gabaud, and A. Vazdekis, Monthly 11 Table III: Results from the statistical analysis of NGC1052-DF2. considering gNFW profile GR c200 logM200 γlogL βc β0 β∞ ra DΥ ∗ vsys logBij M⊙ kpc kpc Mpc km s...

    2019

  24. [24]

    Nusser, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society484, 510 (2019)

    A. Nusser, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society484, 510 (2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    Danieli, P

    S. Danieli, P. van Dokkum, C. Conroy, R. Abraham, and A. J. Romanowsky, Astrophys. J. Lett.874, L12 (2019), arXiv:1901.03711 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    van Dokkum, S

    P. van Dokkum, S. Danieli, R. Abraham, C. Conroy, and A. J. Romanowsky, Astrophys. J. Lett.874, L5 (2019), arXiv:1901.05973 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Leisman, M

    L. Leisman, M. P. Haynes, S. Janowiecki, G. Hal- lenbeck, G. J´ ozsa, R. Giovanelli, E. A. K. Adams, D. Bernal Neira, J. M. Cannon, W. F. Janesh, K. L. Rhode, and J. J. Salzer, The Astrophysical Journal 842, 133 (2017), arXiv:1703.05293 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    N. C. Amorisco, A. Monachesi, A. Agnello, and S. D. M. White, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475, 4235 (2018), arXiv:1610.01595 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    M. A. Beasley, A. J. Romanowsky, V. Pota, I. M. Navarro, D. Martinez-Delgado, F. Neyer, and A. L. De- ich, The Astrophysical Journal Letters819, L20 (2016), arXiv:1602.04002 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    E. W. Peng and S. Lim, The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters822, L31 (2016), arXiv:1604.07496 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    Milgrom, Astrophys

    M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J.270, 365 (1983)

    1983

  32. [32]

    Milgrom, Astrophys

    M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J.270, 371 (1983)

    1983

  33. [33]

    Milgrom, Astrophys

    M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J.270, 384 (1983)

    1983

  34. [34]

    Famaey and S

    B. Famaey and S. McGaugh, Living Rev. Rel.15, 10 (2012), arXiv:1112.3960 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D70, 083509 (2004), [Er- ratum: Phys.Rev.D 71, 069901 (2005)], arXiv:astro- ph/0403694

    arXiv 2004

  36. [36]

    Milgrom, Phys

    M. Milgrom, Phys. Rev. D80, 123536 (2009), arXiv:0912.0790 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  37. [37]

    Skordis and T

    C. Skordis and T. Zlosnik, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 161302 (2021), arXiv:2007.00082 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Bruneton, S

    J.-P. Bruneton, S. Liberati, L. Sindoni, and B. Famaey, JCAP03, 021 (2009), arXiv:0811.3143 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  39. [39]

    Bettoni, S

    D. Bettoni, S. Liberati, and L. Sindoni, JCAP11, 007 (2011), arXiv:1108.1728 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  40. [40]

    Bettoni and S

    D. Bettoni and S. Liberati, JCAP08, 023 (2015), 12 Table IV: Results from the statistical analysis of NGC1052-DF4. considering gNFW profile GR c200 logM200 γlogL βc β0 β∞ ra DΥ ∗ vsys logBij M⊙ kpc kpc Mpc km s −1 Stars + DM (SHMR)9.06+4.12−2.72 10.75+0.16−0.17 0.73+0.61−0.47 − <0.46− − − 21.93+1.20−1.21 1.90+0.51−0.50 1445.67+5.30−5.60 −0.12+0.01−0.02 8....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Bettoni, M

    D. Bettoni, M. Colombo, and S. Liberati, JCAP02, 004 (2014), arXiv:1310.3753 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  42. [42]

    Ivanov and S

    D. Ivanov and S. Liberati, JCAP07, 065 (2020), arXiv:1909.02368 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Beltran Jimenez, L

    J. Beltran Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, G. J. Olmo, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Phys. Rept.727, 1 (2018), arXiv:1704.03351 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Zamani, V

    S. Zamani, V. Salzano, and D. Bettoni, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 618 (2024), arXiv:2401.02221 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Zamani, V

    S. Zamani, V. Salzano, and D. Bettoni, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 263 (2025), arXiv:2412.19569 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Gandolfi, A

    G. Gandolfi, A. Lapi, and S. Liberati, Astrophys. J. 929, 48 (2022), arXiv:2203.00572 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    J. D. Brown, Class. Quant. Grav.10, 1579 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9304026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  48. [48]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D48, 3641 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9211017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  49. [49]

    C. G. Boehmer and T. Harko, JCAP06, 025 (2007), arXiv:0705.4158 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  50. [50]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  51. [51]

    M. R. Merrifield and S. M. Kent, Astronomical Journal 99, 1548 (1990)

    1990

  52. [52]

    E. L. Lokas and G. A. Mamon, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.343, 401 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302461

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  53. [53]

    M. I. Wilkinson, J. Kleyna, N. W. Evans, and G. Gilmore, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical SocietY330, 778 (2002)

    2002

  54. [54]

    N. R. Napolitanoet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 393, 329 (2009), arXiv:0810.1291 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  55. [55]

    Zhanget al., Astrophys

    H.-X. Zhanget al., Astrophys. J.802, 30 (2015), arXiv:1501.03167 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

    G. A. Mamon, A. Biviano, and G. Boue, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.429, 3079 (2013), arXiv:1212.1455 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [57]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J.462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025. 13 Table V: Results from the statistical analysis of NGC1052-DF44, considering gNFW profile GR c200 logM200 γlogL βc β0 β∞ ra DΥ ∗ logBij M⊙ kpc kpc Mpc Stars + DM (SHMR) 8.12+2.30−1.78 10.87+0.17−0.17 U− <−0.22− − − 93.62+13.56−12.90 1.45+0.39−0.28 0 6...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  58. [58]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  59. [59]

    Umetsu, A

    K. Umetsu, A. Zitrin, D. Gruen, J. Merten, M. Don- ahue, and M. Postman, Astrophys. J.821, 116 (2016), arXiv:1507.04385 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  60. [60]

    Zhao, Mon

    H. Zhao, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.278, 488 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9509122

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  61. [61]

    Ascasibar, G

    Y. Ascasibar, G. Yepes, S. Gottlober, and V. Muller, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.352, 1109 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0312221

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  62. [62]

    J. L. S´ ersic, Bolet ´ ın de la Asociaci´ on Argentina de As- tronom ´ ıa6, 41 (1963)

    1963

  63. [63]

    J. L. S´ ersic,Atlas de galaxias australes(Observato- rio Astron´ omico, Universidad Nacional de C´ ordoba, C´ ordoba, Argentina, 1968) p. 150

    1968

  64. [64]

    C. N. A. Willmer, The Astrophysical Journal Supple- ment Series236, 47 (2018), arXiv:1804.07788 [astro- ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  65. [65]

    N. Caon, M. Capaccioli, and M. D’Onofrio, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.265, 1013 (1993), arXiv:astro- ph/9309013

    arXiv 1993

  66. [66]

    G. B. L. Neto, D. Gerbal, and I. Marquez, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.309, 481 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9905048

    arXiv 1999

  67. [67]

    van Dokkumet al., Nature555, 629 (2018), arXiv:1803.10237 [astro-ph.GA]

    P. van Dokkumet al., Nature555, 629 (2018), arXiv:1803.10237 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [68]

    Wengeret al., Astron

    M. Wengeret al., Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser.143, 9 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0002110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  69. [69]

    Montes, R

    M. Montes, R. Infante-Sainz, A. Madrigal-Aguado, J. Rom´ an, M. Monelli, A. S. Borlaff, and I. Trujillo, Astrophys. J.904, 114 (2020), arXiv:2010.09719 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  70. [70]

    van Dokkum, R

    P. van Dokkum, R. Abraham, J. Brodie, C. Conroy, S. Danieli, A. Merritt, L. Mowla, A. Romanowsky, and J. Zhang, Astrophys. J. Lett.828, L6 (2016), arXiv:1606.06291 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  71. [71]

    van Dokkum, Y

    P. van Dokkum, Y. Cohen, S. Danieli, A. J. Ro- manowsky, R. Abraham, J. Brodie, C. Conroy, A. Mer- 14 Table VI: Results from the statistical analysis of NGC1052-DF2. considering NFW profile GR c200 logM200 logL βc β0 β∞ ra DΥ ∗ vsys logBij M⊙ kpc kpc Mpc km s −1 Stars + DM (SHMR) 8.34+3.79−2.45 10.77+0.16−0.18 − <−0.40− − − 21.87+1.21−1.24 1.55+0.52−0.52 ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  72. [72]

    Fahrion, M

    K. Fahrion, M. A. Beasley, A. Gvozdenko, S. Guerra Arencibia, T. Jer´ abkov´ a, J. Fensch, and E. Emsellem, Astronomy & Astrophysics697, A145 (2025), arXiv:2503.03404 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Wasserman, A

    A. Wasserman, A. J. Romanowsky, J. Brodie, P. van Dokkum, C. Conroy, R. Abraham, Y. Cohen, and S. Danieli, Astrophys. J. Lett.863, L15 (2018), arXiv:1807.07069 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  74. [74]

    D. A. Forbes, A. Alabi, J. P. Brodie, and A. J. Ro- manowsky, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.489, 3665 (2019), arXiv:1908.10858 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    van Dokkumet al., Astrophys

    P. van Dokkumet al., Astrophys. J.880, 91 (2019), arXiv:1904.04838 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    C. A. Correa, J. S. B. Wyithe, J. Schaye, and A. R. Duffy, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.452, 1217 (2015), arXiv:1502.00391 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  77. [78]

    Shenet al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters914, L12 (2021), arXiv:2104.03319 [astro-ph.GA]

    Z. Shenet al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters914, L12 (2021), arXiv:2104.03319 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  78. [79]

    Thomsen, W

    B. Thomsen, W. A. Baum, M. Hammergren, and G. Worthey, Astrophys. J. Lett.483, L37 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9704121

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  79. [80]

    Wassermanet al., The Astrophysical Journal885, 155 (2019)

    A. Wassermanet al., The Astrophysical Journal885, 155 (2019)

    2019

  80. [81]

    Rodr ´ ıguez-Puebla, J

    A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Puebla, J. R. Primack, V. Avila- Reese, and S. M. Faber, mnras470, 651 (2017), arXiv:1703.04542 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.