Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 114 references

Jeans-analysis priors shift dwarf dark matter limits by a factor of 2–4, and a cosmological prior drops the b-bbar exclusion from 130 to 70 GeV.

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 09:26 UTC pith:NISAOFQE

load-bearing objection Careful and honest update of dwarf J-factors that quantifies prior systematics at factor 2–4; the headline 70 GeV exclusion is real but conditional on the SatGen prior and on unresolved binaries not inflating dispersions. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27326 v1 pith:NISAOFQE submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COhep-ph

Semi-analytic Inference of Satellite Densities in the Cold Dark Matter Model Part II. Implications for Dark Matter Indirect Detection Constraints

Kailash Raman , Dylan Folsom , Manoj Kaplinghat , Mariangela Lisanti , Benjamin R. Safdi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords dark matter annihilationdwarf spheroidal galaxiesJ-factorsJeans analysisFermi-LATsemi-analytic satellite modelsBayesian priorsGalactic Center excess
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 tries to establish that the J-factors of Milky Way dwarf spheroidals — the astrophysical quantities that set the expected gamma-ray flux from dark matter annihilation — are not pinned down by stellar kinematics alone. Using a semi-analytic satellite population to build cosmologically motivated priors, it shows that Jeans-based J-factor inference shifts the 95% confidence upper limits on the b-bbar annihilation cross section by a factor of 2–4. With the most physically motivated prior, thermal-relic cross sections are excluded only below about 70 GeV, whereas standard wide priors exclude below 130 GeV. Two further claims follow: the highest-J dwarfs are extended about a degree on the sky, so point-source analyses of Fermi data are not fully justified, and the highest-J halos have likely already been discovered, so future ultra-faint dwarfs will not much strengthen the limits. If right, published dwarf annihilation limits carry a prior-dependence systematic that is currently underappreciated.

Core claim

The central claim is that the dark matter annihilation limits derived from Fermi-LAT observations of dwarf galaxies are sensitive to how one assigns priors to the NFW halo parameters in a Jeans analysis. The paper builds a ladder of priors, from a wide log-uniform prior that lets kinematics dominate to an SHMR-weighted log-normal prior derived from a semi-analytic satellite population, and recomputes J-factors for 39 dwarfs. It finds that the inferred 95% confidence upper limit on the velocity-averaged annihilation cross section to b-bbar varies by roughly a factor of 2–4 across these priors. Adopting the cosmologically informed prior excludes the thermal-relic cross section only below about

What carries the argument

The astrophysical J-factor — the integral along the line of sight of the dark matter density squared, integrated over a 0.5-degree region of interest — is the central quantity; it converts a measured gamma-ray flux into an annihilation cross-section limit. The machinery is the spherical Jeans equation, which maps the line-of-sight stellar velocity dispersions to an assumed NFW halo profile, and the SatGen semi-analytic satellite population, which provides the cosmological distributions of halo parameters used to build priors. The variant of Jeans analysis with an SHMR-weighted SatGen-informed prior is the device that most reduces J-factors for the high-J dwarfs that dominate the bound. The c

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation-based prior, anchored to the stellar-mass–halo-mass relation, faithfully represents the Milky Way’s dwarf population, and that the measured velocity dispersions are not systematically inflated by unresolved binary stars or other kinematic errors; if either fails, the weakened 70 GeV exclusion is not the true constraint.

What would settle it

Take the highest-J-factor ultra-faint dwarfs (e.g., Segue 1, Willman 1, Reticulum II) and obtain multi-epoch spectra for all member stars to identify and remove unresolved binaries, then recompute the line-of-sight velocity dispersions and re-run the Jeans analyses with the same priors. If the dispersions fall systematically, the M1/2-based J-factors are biased high and the MW would no longer look like an outlier with extra-dense satellites; the limit would move toward the M⋆-informed, ~70 GeV exclusion.

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

If this is right

  • Reported Fermi-LAT dwarf annihilation limits should be understood as prior-dependent: the spread across reasonable priors is a factor of 2–4 in cross section.
  • With a cosmologically motivated prior, the thermal-relic b-bbar cross section is excluded only below ~70 GeV, so current dwarf limits do not robustly rule out the dark matter explanation of the Galactic Center excess.
  • Treating the highest-J dwarfs as point sources is unwarranted: their 95% J-factor containment radii approach ~1 degree, larger than the Fermi PSF at 10 GeV, so extended-source modeling can only weaken limits.
  • Future ultra-faint dwarf discoveries are unlikely to substantially improve annihilation limits, because the highest-J halos have already been found; the expected number of new dwarfs with J>10^19 GeV^2 cm^-5 sr is at most one under the informed prior.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable implication not in the paper: if the prior sensitivity is real, then comparisons of Fermi dwarf limits with limits from other targets (e.g., galaxy clusters or the isotropic gamma-ray background) should fold in the same J-factor prior uncertainty, which could shift which probe is formally strongest.
  • The MW being an outlier with denser satellites could be an artifact of unresolved binaries; if multi-epoch spectroscopy removes binary stars from the ultra-faint kinematics, the M1/2-inferred J-factors would drift toward the M⋆-inferred values, weakening the strongest limits.
  • A direct validation of the SatGen-informed prior would be to generate mock dwarfs with known density profiles, apply the same Jeans+prior analysis, and check coverage of the recovered J-factor posteriors — a calibration the paper does not report.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper infers the astrophysical J-factors of 39 Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies using two complementary routes: (i) a semi-analytic SatGen subhalo population conditioned on each dwarf's observed dynamical mass M1/2 or stellar mass M*, and (ii) spherical Jeans analyses with updated stellar kinematics and a ladder of priors ranging from a wide log-uniform 'standard' prior to an SHMR-weighted 'SatGen-informed' prior. These J-factors are then used to recast the Fermi-LAT b-bbar annihilation limits of Circiello et al. (2026). The central quantitative claims are that the choice of Jeans prior changes the annihilation limits by a factor of 2-4; that a cosmologically informed prior excludes thermal relic cross sections below about 70 GeV, whereas standard priors exclude below about 130 GeV; that the highest-J dwarfs are spatially extended with 95% containment angles of order 1 degree, challenging the point-source approximation; and that the highest-J halos have likely already been discovered.

Significance. If the central results hold, the paper establishes that prior dependence in Jeans-based J-factors is a dominant systematic in Fermi-LAT dwarf limits, larger than several previously studied modeling uncertainties, and that the commonly quoted limits may overstate the constraining power of the current dwarf sample. The paper's strengths include public code and data products, robustness checks against SatGen modeling choices (concentration-mass relation, SHMR, host mass, mass resolution), and the use of the updated KDSA kinematic sample. The factor 2-4 prior-envelope result is directly evidenced by Figure 3 (right) and is internally consistent. However, the more consequential 70 GeV exclusion and the 'MW is an outlier' interpretation depend on two assumptions that the paper itself flags but does not resolve: the kinematic data being free of unresolved-binary contamination, and the validity of the point-source approximation for the recast limits.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5 and Section 3.2, Fig. 3] The headline SatGen-informed exclusion (67-70 GeV) and the claim that the MW has unusually dense satellites are not robust to the admitted systematic of unresolved binaries. The paper states that 'unaccounted observational systematics might still explain these results if they preferentially bias kinematic J-factor inferences upward,' but this caveat is not quantified or propagated. Because the same stellar velocity dispersions enter both the M1/2 inference and the Jeans likelihood, a SatGen-informed prior only restricts halo shapes; it cannot correct a biased dispersion. I request a concrete sensitivity test: redo the M1/2 and Jeans J-factor inferences and the resulting limits after excluding dwarfs with few stars or known variability, or after injecting a plausible binary-contamination model. Until then, the 70 GeV exclusion should be presented as conditional on the kinematic data being
  2. [Section 3.2, Fig. 3 and Section 5] The quoted exclusion masses (146/127/67 GeV) are all computed under the point-source approximation, yet Section 3.1 shows that the highest-J dwarfs have theta95 substantially exceeding the Fermi PSF at relevant energies (e.g., Segue 1 and Draco ~1 deg vs PSF ~0.2 deg at 10 GeV). The authors cite Di Mauro et al. (2022) for a possible factor-of-2 weakening but do not fold this into the limits. Since one of the paper's three central conclusions is that point-source analyses are unjustified, the headline limits should either be corrected for extension or unambiguously reported as point-source upper limits that may be weaker by up to a factor of 2.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Section 5] The recommendation to use the Fattahi+18 SHMR-weighted prior is justified by the statement that Paper I demonstrated this SHMR 'provides the best fit to the dwarf galaxy kinematic data.' If this selection used the same kinematic sample that is then analyzed in the present paper, the SatGen-informed prior is not fully independent of the data to which it is applied, and the resulting 70 GeV exclusion and the 'MW is an outlier relative to M*-sampled expectations' interpretation may partly encode that choice. The SHMR sensitivity shown in Appendix B (factor ~1.4) is reassuring, but the paper should clarify the selection procedure and, if the SHMR was chosen using the kinematic data, state the possible double-counting and consider presenting a prior averaged over the SHMR variants.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2] Typo: 'recovered densitiy' should be 'recovered density'.
  2. [Section 3.1] Typo: 'minimal affect' should be 'minimal effect'.
  3. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'These expectations are set without considering observational incompleteness effects and are therefore underestimates of the true J-factor functions' is confusing. Ignoring incompleteness should make the predicted observable counts higher, not lower, relative to an incomplete survey; please rephrase.
  4. [Figure 3, left panel] The light-blue bands are described as 68% and 95% containment for 10^3 realizations. Please clarify whether these are credible intervals on the limit or containment intervals over realizations, and state how the per-dwarf log-normal J-factor uncertainties are averaged over asymmetric errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No definitional circularity; the 70 GeV SatGen-prior bound is a conditional prior consequence, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the definitional sense. J-factors are defined by Eq. (1) and inferred either by conditioning SatGen population reweightings on M1/2 or M* (Eq. 2) or by a Jeans likelihood using per-star velocities; the annihilation limits are recasts of the external Fermi likelihoods of Circiello et al. (2026). No equation defines the J-factor in terms of the cross-section limit, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The main claim, that Jeans-based limits vary by a factor of 2-4 with priors, is an internal comparison documented in Figures 3 and B2. The only self-citation-adjacent step is the recommendation of the Fattahi+18 SHMR-weighted prior because 'Paper I demonstrated [it] provides the best fit to the dwarf galaxy kinematic data' (Section 5). The resulting ~70 GeV exclusion is a conditional consequence of that prior, not an independent prediction, but Paper I's SHMR comparison is externally falsifiable dwarf-kinematics evidence rather than a uniqueness theorem, and the paper reports the full prior envelope (standard prior excludes below 130 GeV) instead of suppressing alternatives. The limitation flagged in Section 5--that 'unaccounted observational systematics might still explain these results if they preferentially bias kinematic J-factor inferences upward,' such as unresolved binaries--is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity: biased dispersions would inflate kinematic J-factors, but this is an external systematic, not an input-output identity. Overall, the central result is self-contained against external benchmarks, and the self-citation is minor rather than load-bearing; score 2 reflects that mild self-citation within an otherwise independent derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard CDM modeling assumptions (NFW profiles, SatGen population statistics, SHMR), plus a handful of fitted or hand-chosen parameters in the Jeans analysis and SatGen configuration. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main burden is the assumption that the Fattahi+18-based SatGen prior is the correct physical prior for Milky Way dwarfs.

free parameters (6)
  • NFW scale radius r_s (per dwarf, Jeans analysis) = posterior-dependent
    Fitted to stellar kinematics and degenerate with rho_s; directly controls the J-factor.
  • NFW scale density rho_s (per dwarf, Jeans analysis) = posterior-dependent
    Fitted to stellar kinematics; combined with r_s sets the dark matter density profile.
  • Velocity anisotropy beta (per dwarf, Jeans analysis) = posterior-dependent
    Weakly constrained but enters the Jeans modeling and hence the J-factor.
  • Systemic velocity Vbar (per dwarf) = posterior-dependent
    Nuisance parameter in the Gaussian likelihood for stellar velocities.
  • SatGen mass-resolution threshold M_peak = 1e8 Msun (robustness check at 1e7 Msun)
    Fiducial SatGen run resolves halos down to M_peak = 1e8 Msun; the paper checks 1e7 Msun but uses 1e8 as baseline.
  • Standard Jeans prior range = log10 rs/kpc in [-2,1], log10 rho_s in [4,14], vmax > 1 km/s
    Chosen to match Pace & Strigari 2019; affects dwarfs with few member stars.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption All dwarf halos are assumed to follow an NFW density profile.
    Invoked in §2.2 and Eq. A5; the J-factor integral and Jeans analysis are computed assuming NFW profiles.
  • domain assumption Dwarf galaxies are spherically symmetric and in steady-state equilibrium.
    Stated in §2.2: 'this procedure assumes each dwarf is spherically symmetric and in steady state.' Tidal effects and internal rotation could violate this, as noted for Antlia II.
  • domain assumption SatGen subhalo populations are representative of the Milky Way's CDM satellite population.
    §2.1 conditions SatGen satellites on distance and either M1/2 or Mstar; the paper acknowledges the MW may not be a median SatGen host.
  • domain assumption The Fattahi+18 SHMR maps stellar mass to halo mass.
    Used for the Mstar inference and for the SatGen-informed prior; the paper also tests Kim+24, Danieli+23, and Moster+18 variations.
  • domain assumption Tidal truncation is described by the Springel+08 tidal radius formula using current galactocentric distance.
    Eq. 5; the paper states it approximates current distances instead of pericenters.
  • domain assumption Fermi-LAT likelihood products from Circiello+26 can be recast with arbitrary J-factors under the point-source approximation.
    §3.2 relies on these data products; the authors explicitly caution that point-source treatment is not fully justified for extended high-J dwarfs.
  • domain assumption The stellar kinematic samples are free of unmodeled binary contamination after quality cuts.
    Appendix A flags variable stars, but §5 cautions that unresolved binaries could bias kinematic J-factors upward.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 32325 in / 13889 out tokens · 121934 ms · 2026-08-01T09:26:09.517361+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Dwarf galaxies provide excellent targets to search for signals of dark matter annihilation or decay. Using a calibrated semi-analytic model and the latest stellar kinematic data (presented in Part I), this paper updates the astrophysical J-factors for the Milky Way's dwarf spheroidal galaxies. We infer the probability distributions for the J-factors of 39 dwarfs by conditioning a population of subhalos, generated with the SatGen semi-analytic satellite model, on either a dwarf's kinematically determined dynamical mass or its stellar mass. We also compute the J-factors using the Jeans equation with updated stellar kinematics and priors that incorporate varying degrees of SatGen information. We use the computed J-factors to recast existing limits from Fermi-LAT data on the annihilation cross section. Our main result is that variations in the J-factors computed using the Jeans analysis introduce a factor of 2-4 uncertainty into the inferred limits on the cross section. We argue that a cosmologically informed prior is a motivated choice that excludes thermal relic annihilation cross sections to $b\bar{b}$ below about 70 GeV. For comparison, the more commonly used priors, which can lead to unphysical halo parameters, exclude masses below 130 GeV at 95% confidence level. We also show that the highest-J-factor dwarfs are spatially extended, approximately one degree on the sky, which challenges the validity of the point-source approximation adopted in many analyses of Fermi data. Finally, based on the semi-analytic model and the kinematic data, the highest J-factor halos have already been discovered, suggesting future ultra-faint discoveries are unlikely to substantially strengthen limits on annihilating dark matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27326 by Benjamin R. Safdi, Dylan Folsom, Kailash Raman, Manoj Kaplinghat, Mariangela Lisanti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Inferred values for the z = 0 maximum circular velocity vmax and the radius rmax at which it occurs for the MW dwarf Segue 1 (Seg1). In gray are the 68, 95, and 99.5% containment regions for the SatGen satellite halos satisfying the distance selection for Seg1. The solid and dash-dotted black contours show the 68% containment for the profile pa￾rameters inferred using M1/2 and M⋆, respectively. The M⋆ infe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: The astrophysical J-factor for each MW satellite, integrated to an angular radius of 0.5 ◦ . Median results and associated 68% uncertainties are shown for the M1/2 inference (light orange squares), the Fattahi+18 M⋆ inference (light blue diamonds), as well as Jeans analyses using the standard prior (indigo triangles) and SatGen-informed prior (teal circles). The MW satellites are ordered by increasing… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: The 95% confidence upper limit on the χχ → b ¯b velocity-averaged DM annihilation cross section computed by recasting the Fermi-LAT gamma-ray flux limits from Circiello et al. (2026) for the M1/2-inferred J-factors (solid black). The results are limited to the 30 dwarf galaxies shared between this work and the benchmark sample from Circiello et al. (2026). The observed 95% upper limit from Circiello … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The median number of satellites with J(0.5 ◦ ) above a given value, along with 68% containment bands. The results for the underlying Fiducial SatGen model are shown in gray, selecting for LMC-associated hosts. The results for the MW dwarf galaxies conditioned on M1/2 weights are shown in light orange; those conditioned on M⋆ weights from the Fattahi+18 SHMR are shown in light blue. Additionally, the distri… 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

114 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abazajian, K. N. 2011, JCAP, 1103, 010, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/03/010

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/03/010 2011

  2. [2]

    N., Canac, N., Horiuchi, S., & Kaplinghat, M

    Abazajian, K. N., Canac, N., Horiuchi, S., & Kaplinghat, M. 2014, Phys.Rev., D90, 023526, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.023526

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.023526 2014

  3. [3]

    N., & Kaplinghat, M

    Abazajian, K. N., & Kaplinghat, M. 2012, Phys.Rev., D86, 083511, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.083511

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.083511 2012

  4. [4]

    2020, Phys

    Abdallah, H., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 062001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.062001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.062001 2020

  5. [5]

    A., et al

    Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010, , 712, 147, 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/147

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/1/147 2010

  6. [6]

    2026, JCAP, 03, 035, 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/035

    Abdollahi, S., et al. 2026, JCAP, 03, 035, 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/035

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/035 2026

  7. [7]

    2011, Phys

    Ackermann, M., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, 241302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.241302

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.241302 2011

  8. [8]

    2014, Phys

    Ackermann, M., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 042001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.042001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.042001 2014

  9. [9]

    2015, Phys

    Ackermann, M., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 115, 231301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.231301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.231301 2015

  10. [10]

    2017, , 840, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6cab

    Ackermann, M., et al. 2017, , 840, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6cab

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6cab 2017

  11. [11]

    2017, , 834, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/110

    Albert, A., et al. 2017, , 834, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/110

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/110 2017

  12. [12]

    2018, , 853, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6d8

    Albert, A., et al. 2018, , 853, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6d8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6d8 2018

  13. [13]

    2020, Phys

    Albert, A., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 103001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.103001 2020

  14. [14]

    2020, Phys

    Ando, S., Geringer-Sameth, A., Hiroshima, N., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 061302, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.061302

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.061302 2020

  15. [15]

    2017, Phys

    Archambault, S., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 082001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.082001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.082001 2017

  16. [16]

    M., Battaglia, G., & Thomas, G

    Arroyo-Polonio, J. M., Battaglia, G., & Thomas, G. F. 2026, Estimating the dynamical masses of dwarf galaxies in the presence of binary-star contamination. 2603.03129

    arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    2018, Nat

    Bartels, R., Storm, E., Weniger, C., & Calore, F. 2018, Nat. Astron., 2, 819, 10.1038/s41550-018-0531-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0531-z 2018

  18. [18]

    2015, , 807, 50, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/50

    Bechtol , K., Drlica-Wagner , A., Balbinot , E., et al. 2015, , 807, 50, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/50

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/1/50 2015

  19. [19]

    A., Gunnels , S

    Bernstein , R., Shectman , S. A., Gunnels , S. M., Mochnacki , S., & Athey , A. E. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood , 1694--1704, 10.1117/12.461502

    doi:10.1117/12.461502 2003

  20. [20]

    2005, Mod

    Bertone, G., & Merritt, D. 2005, Mod. Phys. Lett., A20, 1021

    2005

  21. [21]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney , J., & Tremaine , S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  22. [22]

    Bonnivard, V., Maurin, D., & Walker, M. G. 2016, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 462, 223, 10.1093/mnras/stw1691

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1691 2016

  23. [23]

    2015, Mon

    Bonnivard, V., et al. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 453, 849, 10.1093/mnras/stv1601

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1601 2015

  24. [24]

    S., Pace, A

    Bruce, J., Li, T. S., Pace, A. B., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 950, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc943

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc943 2023

  25. [25]

    L., Safdi, B

    Buschmann, M., Rodd, N. L., Safdi, B. R., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 023023, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023023

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.023023 2020

  26. [26]

    2015, JCAP, 1503, 038, 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/03/038

    Calore, F., Cholis, I., & Weniger, C. 2015, JCAP, 1503, 038, 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/03/038

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/03/038 2015

  27. [27]

    D., & Zaldivar, B

    Calore, F., Serpico, P. D., & Zaldivar, B. 2018, JCAP, 10, 029, 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/029

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/029 2018

  28. [29]

    2025, , 979, 164, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8eba

    Cerny, W., et al. 2025, , 979, 164, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8eba

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8eba 2025

  29. [30]

    J., Mishra-Sharma, S., Lisanti, M., et al

    Chang, L. J., Mishra-Sharma, S., Lisanti, M., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev., D101, 023014, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.023014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.023014 2020

  30. [31]

    D., Frebel, A., et al

    Chiti, A., Simon, J. D., Frebel, A., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 939, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac96ed

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac96ed 2022

  31. [32]

    P., et al

    Chiti, A., Frebel, A., Ji, A. P., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 55, 10.3847/1538-3881/aca416

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca416 2023

  32. [33]

    D., & Surdutovich, J

    Cholis, I., Zhong, Y.-M., McDermott, S. D., & Surdutovich, J. P. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 103023, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103023

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.103023 2022

  33. [34]

    2026, Astrophys

    Circiello, A., Di Mauro, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2026, Astrophys. J. Lett., 1004, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/ae71c7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae71c7 2026

  34. [35]

    2025, Astrophys

    Circiello, A., McDaniel, A., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 978, L43, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9dde

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9dde 2025

  35. [36]

    S., Kuritz \'e n, N., & Linden, T

    Crnogor c evi \'c , M., Delos, M. S., Kuritz \'e n, N., & Linden, T. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 103001, 10.1103/wtkl-nkdw

    work page doi:10.1103/wtkl-nkdw 2025

  36. [37]

    2024, Phys

    Crnogor c evi\'c, M., & Linden, T. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 083018, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.083018

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.083018 2024

  37. [38]

    E., Carlsten , S., et al

    Danieli , S., Greene , J. E., Carlsten , S., et al. 2023, , 956, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/acefbd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acefbd 2023

  38. [39]

    Darragh-Ford, E., Hunt, J. A. S., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Johnston, K. V. 2023, ESCARGOT : Mapping Vertical Phase Spiral Characteristics Throughout the Real and Simulated Milky Way. 2302.09086

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [40]

    P., Hooper, D., et al

    Daylan, T., Finkbeiner, D. P., Hooper, D., et al. 2016, Phys. Dark Univ., 12, 1, 10.1016/j.dark.2015.12.005

    doi:10.1016/j.dark.2015.12.005 2016

  40. [41]

    S., Korsmeier, M., Widmark, A., et al

    Delos, M. S., Korsmeier, M., Widmark, A., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 083512, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.083512

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.083512 2024

  41. [42]

    S., & White, S

    Delos, M. S., & White, S. D. M. 2023, JCAP, 10, 008, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/008

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/008 2023

  42. [43]

    Di Mauro, M. 2026. 2605.22913

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [44]

    2022, Phys

    Di Mauro, M., Stref, M., & Calore, F. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 123032, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.123032

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.123032 2022

  44. [45]

    Di Mauro, M., & Winkler, M. W. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 123005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.123005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.123005 2021

  45. [46]

    2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 123, 288, 10.1086/658908

    Dressler, A., Bigelow, B., Hare, T., et al. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 123, 288, 10.1086/658908

    doi:10.1086/658908 2011

  46. [47]

    2015, Astrophys

    Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2015, Astrophys. J. Lett., 809, L4, 10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/L4

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/l4 2015

  47. [48]

    Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2019. 1902.01055

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [49]

    W., Rix, H.-W., & Ness, M

    Eilers, A.-C., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., & Ness, M. K. 2019, Astrophys. J., 871, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf648

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf648 2019

  49. [50]

    F., Frenk, C., et al

    Fattahi, A., Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C., et al. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 476, 3816, 10.1093/mnras/sty408

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty408 2018

  50. [51]

    P., & Bridges, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 398, 1601, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    arXiv 2009

  51. [52]

    2024, Mon

    Folsom, D., Slone, O., Lisanti, M., Jiang, F., & Kaplinghat, M. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 536, 2891, 10.1093/mnras/stae2736

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2736 2024

  52. [53]

    2026, The Keck/DEIMOS Stellar Archive: II

    Geha, M. 2026, The Keck/DEIMOS Stellar Archive: II. Dynamical Masses and Metallicities for a Uniform Sample of Milky Way Satellites. 2602.10202

    arXiv 2026

  53. [54]

    X., et al

    Geha, M., Pelliccia, D., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2026, The Keck/DEIMOS Stellar Archive: I. Uniform Velocities and Metallicities for 78 Milky Way Dwarf Galaxies and Globular Clusters. 2602.10200

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [55]

    M., & Walker, M

    Geringer-Sameth, A., Koushiappas, S. M., & Walker, M. 2015 a , , 801, 74, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/74

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/2/74 2015

  55. [56]

    M., & Walker, M

    Geringer-Sameth, A., Koushiappas, S. M., & Walker, M. G. 2015 b , Phys. Rev. D, 91, 083535, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.083535

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.083535 2015

  56. [57]

    Goodenough, L., & Hooper, D. 2009. 0910.2998

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  57. [58]

    B., van den Bosch , F

    Green, S. B., van den Bosch , F. C., & Jiang, F. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 509, 2624, 10.1093/mnras/stab3130

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3130 2021

  58. [59]

    T., Simon, J

    Hansen, T. T., Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., et al. 2024, Chemical Diversity on Small Scales -- Abundance Analysis of the Tucana V Ultra-Faint Dwarf Galaxy. 2403.13060

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [60]

    E., et al

    Heiger, M. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 234, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cf7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cf7 2024

  60. [61]

    2020, JCAP, 02, 012, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/02/012

    Hoof, S., Geringer-Sameth, A., & Trotta, R. 2020, JCAP, 02, 012, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/02/012

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/02/012 2020

  61. [62]

    2019, PoS, TASI2018, 010

    Hooper, D. 2019, PoS, TASI2018, 010. 1812.02029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  62. [63]

    2011, Phys.Lett., B697, 412, 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.02.029

    Hooper, D., & Goodenough, L. 2011, Phys.Lett., B697, 412, 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.02.029

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.02.029 2011

  63. [64]

    2023, Phys

    Horigome, S., Hayashi, K., & Ando, S. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 083530, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083530

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.083530 2023

  64. [65]

    P., Koposov, S

    Ji, A. P., Koposov, S. E., Li, T. S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1869

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1869 2021

  65. [66]

    2021, Mon

    Jiang, F., Dekel, A., Freundlich, J., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 502, 621, 10.1093/mnras/staa4034

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa4034 2021

  66. [67]

    Kaplinghat, M., & Strigari, L. E. 2008, Astrophys. J. Lett., 682, L93, 10.1086/591052

    doi:10.1086/591052 2008

  67. [68]

    Y., Read , J

    Kim , S. Y., Read , J. I., Rey , M. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15214, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15214

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.15214 2024

  68. [69]

    N., Simon, J

    Kirby, E. N., Simon, J. D., & Cohen, J. G. 2015, Astrophys. J., 810, 56, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/56

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/56 2015

  69. [70]

    2025, joshspeagle/dynesty: v3.0.0, v3.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.17268284

    Koposov, S., Speagle, J., Barbary, K., et al. 2025, joshspeagle/dynesty: v3.0.0, v3.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.17268284

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.17268284 2025

  70. [71]

    E., et al

    Koposov, S. E., et al. 2015, Astrophys. J., 811, 62, 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/62

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/1/62 2015

  71. [72]

    E., Walker, M

    Koposov, S. E., Walker, M. G., Belokurov, V., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 5343–5361, 10.1093/mnras/sty1772

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1772 2018

  72. [73]

    K., & Slatyer, T

    Leane, R. K., & Slatyer, T. R. 2019. 1904.08430

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  73. [74]

    K., Lisanti, M., Safdi, B

    Lee, S. K., Lisanti, M., Safdi, B. R., Slatyer, T. R., & Xue, W. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 051103, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.051103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.051103 2016

  74. [75]

    A., & Panci, P

    Lefranc, V., Mamon, G. A., & Panci, P. 2016, JCAP, 09, 021, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/09/021

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/09/021 2016

  75. [76]

    S., et al

    Li, T. S., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 838, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6113

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6113 2017

  76. [77]

    S., et al

    Li, T. S., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 857, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab666

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab666 2018

  77. [78]

    L., Safdi, B

    Linden, T., Rodd, N. L., Safdi, B. R., & Slatyer, T. R. 2016. 1604.01026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  78. [79]

    2017, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics : New Frontiers in Fields and Strings , 399--446, 10.1142/9789813149441_0007

    Lisanti, M. 2017, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics : New Frontiers in Fields and Strings , 399--446, 10.1142/9789813149441_0007

    doi:10.1142/9789813149441_0007 2017

  79. [80]

    L., Schoen, E., & Wolf, F

    List, F., Park, Y., Rodd, N. L., Schoen, E., & Wolf, F. 2025. 2507.17804

    arXiv 2025

  80. [81]

    L., & Lewis, G

    List, F., Rodd, N. L., & Lewis, G. F. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 123022, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.123022

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.123022 2021

Showing first 80 references.