Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Dark Galactic subhalos and the Gaia snail

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Dark subhalos cannot explain the Gaia snail by themselves, but they should leave a persistent, detectable $0.1$–$0.5$ km/s vertical velocity signal in the solar neighborhood.

desk verdict Solid, honest model study: the Gaia snail null result is well-supported within the model, but the phenomenological diffusion kernel is the real soft spot and deserves a sensitivity analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02757 v3 pith:RFHSJLLI submitted 2024-12-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Daniel Gilman , Jo Bovy , Neige Frankel , Andrew Benson This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords darksubhalosGaiasnailphase-spacespiralverticaldistributionmeanvelocityasymmetrysemi-analyticmodelingmolecularclouddiffusion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether repeated close encounters with small dark-matter subhalos, objects too faint to host stars, can be the source of the Gaia snail, the spiral pattern in the vertical positions and velocities of nearby stars. It builds a probabilistic model of the dark satellite population of a Milky Way-like galaxy, feeds their orbits through a one-dimensional stellar-dynamics response calculation, and adds a phenomenological damping that mimics how giant molecular clouds erase old disturbances. The model says no on its own: the abundance of subhalos predicted by cold dark matter produces vertical velocity fluctuations of only $\sim 0.1$–$0.5$ km/s and vertical-number-count asymmetries of $\sim 1$–$3\%$, far too weak to match Gaia's snail. The paper also argues that these small fluctuations should persist today and would show up as multiple faint stripes in frequency-angle space, giving a way to look for dark matter's kinematic imprint.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is a one-dimensional action-angle model of vertical stellar motion. In the equilibrium Milky Way potential, each passing satellite changes a star's vertical action $\Delta J$ by integrating the vertical force along the unperturbed orbit (Equation 4), and the perturbed distribution function is a rational isothermal-like function of the action $J$ evaluated at $J_\mathrm{eq}+\sum_i \Delta J_i$. Subhalo orbits and masses come from a semi-analytic merger-tree model that yields a kernel density estimate of the joint position-velocity distribution of present-day subhalos that passed near the Sun. A diffusion layer made of spatially varying Gaussian convolutions with kernel widths set by local action and frequency scales, calibrated to damp signals as $\exp(-\tau^3/t_0^3)$ with $t_0=0.6$ Gyr, is what lets the paper say which perturbations survive to now.

What would settle it

Search the local Gaia sample for the paper's predicted floor: fluctuations of $0.1$–$0.5$ km/s in the mean vertical velocity $\langle v_z(z)\rangle$ together with a multi-stripe pattern in frequency-angle coordinates. If the data show no such signal where the CDM abundance model says it must appear, or show a signal far stronger than the model's ceiling, then the combination of the subhalo orbit generator, the action-response calculation, or the diffusion kernel is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a CDM-like population of $10^6$–$10^8\,M_\odot$ dark subhalos, the invisible low-mass end of the predicted halo mass function, cannot by itself reproduce the observed Gaia snail. Subhalos are individually and collectively too weak: for plausible abundances, the maximal mean vertical velocity perturbation stays between 0.1 and 0.5 km/s and the vertical asymmetry between about one and three percent. Only with 5–10 times more subhalos than CDM predicts, or with peak rather than bound masses assigned throughout, would the combined population match Gaia. The same model predicts that subhalo encounters produce a distinctive stochastic pattern of stripes in frequency-angle coordinates, with slopes set by encounter time, that could be mistaken for one older single disturbance.

Load-bearing premise

The whole answer depends on how long the kinematic memory of an old encounter lasts: the paper assumes molecular-cloud scattering damps spirals with the specific $\exp(-\tau^3/t_0^3)$ law with $t_0 = 0.6$ Gyr, and if that decay is wrong the verdict on subhalos could flip.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If subhalos cannot explain the snail, its observed amplitude requires another, more massive perturber acting in combination with the satellite population.
  • If the predicted 0.1–0.5 km/s vertical-velocity signal persists, it should be detectable as a stochastic disequilibrium component in high-quality Gaia samples, independent of the snail.
  • The multiple stripes in frequency-angle coordinates are a fingerprint of ongoing encounters; a single-age reconstruction of the snail will be systematically misleading when subhalos contribute.
  • For subhalo abundances set by $\eta \gtrsim 3000$, dark subhalos overtake all known dwarf galaxies, including Sagittarius, as the most probable strong perturbers of the solar neighborhood.
  • The factor of 5–10 gap between the abundance needed to explain the snail and the CDM prediction gives a quantitative target for future subhalo mass function constraints from streams and dwarf galaxies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The predicted $\sim 0.1$–$0.5$ km/s vertical-velocity floor gives next-generation astrometric surveys a concrete, testable target: measuring the fluctuation spectrum as a function of encounter time could constrain the subhalo mass function below the galaxy-formation limit.
  • Because the diffusion kernel is spatially varying, old subhalo perturbations may survive selectively in phase-space regions less affected by molecular-cloud scattering, so selecting stars at higher $|z|$ or in lower-density sightlines could expose a faint, old component that the paper's summary statistics wash out.
  • The same semi-analytic machinery could be extended to radial phase mixing, where subhalo encounters would imprint a similar multi-stripe pattern in the radial frequency-angle plane, giving a three-dimensional test in the same Gaia data.
  • A decisive check of the diffusion model would come from comparing the paper's subhalo-only predictions to N-body simulations that include a live giant-molecular-cloud population, testing whether the assumed $\exp(-\tau^3/t_0^3)$ decay with $t_0=0.6$ Gyr is the right description of how old spirals actually die.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper models the response of the solar-neighborhood vertical phase-space distribution to perturbations from a population of low-mass (10^6-10^8 M_sun) dark subhalos, using an action-angle impulse approximation for stellar orbits and a galacticus-calibrated probabilistic model for subhalo orbits and masses. A phenomenological diffusion model, calibrated to the exp(-tau^3/t0^3) damping law of Tremaine et al. (2023), is used to erase signatures of perturbations older than ~0.6 Gyr. The paper finds that dark subhalos alone cannot explain the observed Gaia snail amplitude unless the subhalo mass-function normalization is eta > 12,000, roughly 5-10 times above the CDM-motivated range, but that subhalos do produce persistent stochastic fluctuations of ~0.1-0.5 km/s in the mean vertical velocity and a multi-stripe pattern in frequency-angle space. The methods are validated in Appendix A against direct orbit integration.

Significance. If the central null result is robust, the paper makes an important statement: the Gaia snail cannot be produced by CDM subhalos alone, so a more massive perturber (or an alternative mechanism) is required, while a stochastic subhalo signal should be present in the local vertical phase space. The paper also provides an open-source code (darkspirals) and clear documentation of a fast forward-modeling approach that resolves phase-space structure beyond N-body capabilities. The use of a semi-analytic model for subhalo orbits and the careful validation of the action-angle approximation against direct orbit integration are strengths. The main uncertainty is the phenomenological diffusion kernel, which is calibrated to a global amplitude decay but not to the phase-space pattern of diffusion; this directly affects the survivability of the coherent signal that drives the null result.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2, Eqs. (8)-(12), Fig. 3; Figs. 11-12] The central null result (eta > 12,000 required) hinges on how much subhalo-induced phase-space structure survives to the present day. The diffusion model in Section 2.2 is a Gaussian convolution in (z, v_z) with widths k_z and k_vz growing linearly in tau, calibrated only to the global amplitude decay exp(-tau^3/t0^3). This particular phase-space pattern is not validated against a physical action-diffusion calculation, and it may over-smooth the coherent large-scale stripes that contribute most to max|A(z)| and max|⟨v_z⟩|. Because the required eta is only a factor of 2-3 above the upper end of the CDM-motivated range (eta ~ 500-12,000), a modest change in the diffusion pattern could bring subhalo-only predictions into agreement with Gaia, reversing the main conclusion. Please add a robustness test: e.g., implement an action-space diffusion treatment following Tremaine et al. (2023) or Banik et al. (2023), or vary c1, c2, and t0 over their plausible ranges, and report how the inferred eta threshold shifts.
  2. [§3.3, Figs. 10-12] The claim that 'none of configurations ... can simultaneously match' the Gaia snail is not accompanied by a quantitative significance statement. The Gaia DR2 point in Figure 12 appears without error bars, and no confidence level is attached to the exclusion of each eta. Given the stochastic scatter among realizations at fixed eta, please report the fraction of realizations at each eta that are consistent with the Gaia measurements within their uncertainties and state the resulting uncertainty on the eta threshold. This is important for making the null result falsifiable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.3.3] The normalization of eta is calibrated using subhalos in the range 10^7-10^8 M_sun, but the abstract and several figures (e.g., Fig. 8 and the discussion) quote 10^6-10^8 M_sun or 10^5.7-10^8 M_sun. Please clarify the mass range used for the normalization and whether the extrapolation below 10^7 M_sun is included in all reported summary statistics.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (18)] The notation 'max|v_z(z)|' is used in Figures 10-12 and the text but never explicitly defined; it should be identified as the maximum of the absolute value of the mean vertical velocity profile ⟨v_z(z)⟩ from Eq. (18).
  3. [Figure 5 caption] The caption states the colors in the top panel correspond to different subhalo mass ranges, but the ranges (e.g., 10^5.7-10^6, 10^6-10^7, 10^7-10^8 M_sun) are not given in the caption or a visible legend; please add them.
  4. [Figure 10] The abbreviation 'dSphr.' is used in the figure key but not expanded in the caption or text; please use 'dSph' or spell out 'dwarf spheroidal'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the central subhalo-versus-snail comparison is external, and the self-citations used for the diffusion timescale are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain does not reduce any predicted quantity to an input by construction. Subhalo perturbation amplitudes are computed from a galacticus-calibrated orbit and mass population (Section 2.3.3) and the linear response of the disk (Equation 4), and are then compared with the external Gaia DR2/DR3 snail measurements of Bennett & Bovy (2019/2021). The diffusion treatment in Section 2.2 is explicitly labeled phenomenological, and it is calibrated to the damping law exp(-tau^3/t0^3) with t0 = 0.6 Gyr from Tremaine et al. (2023); although Bovy and Frankel are co-authors of both papers, the same t0 is independently cited to Banik et al. (2023), and the calibration target is the amplitude decay, not the Gaia snail. The abundance parameter eta is fixed by matching the galacticus-predicted subhalo counts (Ngalac = 249 +/- 65 for bound masses, 1743 +/- 455 for peak masses), so the stated requirement eta > 12000 is a comparison between that predicted abundance and the abundance needed to reproduce the observed snail amplitude. The scaling relations max|vz| = A sqrt(eta/1000) are fits to the model outputs, not to the Gaia data. Appendix A checks Equation 4 against direct orbit integration, and Figures 8 and 9 show no-diffusion cases alongside diffused cases, so the damping assumption is not hidden. The identified limitations (Gaussian diffusion-kernel ansatz, one-dimensional treatment) are model-uncertainty concerns rather than circular reductions. The self-citations to galpy and Tremaine et al. are therefore not load-bearing in a circular sense.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard CDM substructure assumptions (NFW profiles, mass function slope 1.9, galacticus calibration to N-body simulations) plus the equilibrium MWPotential2014 and the Tremaine et al. diffusion law. There are six fitted or adopted numerical parameters that control the background, diffusion, and substructure abundance. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha (vertical DF power-law index) = 2.34
    Fitted to Gaia DR3 vertical velocity dispersion profile in Section 2.1 and Figure 1; sets the equilibrium background distribution for computing phase-space perturbations.
  • sigma_v (vertical velocity scale) = 15.20 km/s
    Fitted to Gaia DR3 along with alpha; part of the equilibrium distribution function.
  • c1, c2 (diffusion kernel normalization) = c1=0.24, c2=1.00
    Chosen in Section 2.2 so the model damps impulse perturbations as exp(-tau^3/t0^3), matching Tremaine et al. (2023); controls how quickly old subhalo signatures are erased.
  • eta (subhalo mass function normalization) = 500 to 12000, nominal ~770
    Calibrated in Section 2.3.3 so that the number of generated 10^7-10^8 Msun subhalos passing within 50 kpc matches galacticus (N = 249 +/- 65), then varied over a factor of 24 to bracket mass-definition and host-halo uncertainties.
  • t0 (diffusion timescale) = 0.6 Gyr
    Adopted from Tremaine et al. (2023) and Banik et al. (2023) to set the damping timescale in the diffusion model; not measured in this paper.
  • mass function slope alpha_mf = 1.9
    Adopted from Springel et al. (2008) in Section 2.3.3; sets the relative number of low-mass to high-mass subhalos.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption All satellites are modeled as Navarro-Frenk-White profiles with a concentration-mass relation from Diemer & Joyce (2019) and Johnson et al. (2021).
    Used in Section 2.3.1 for both dark and luminous perturbers; standard but not exact for tidally stripped halos.
  • domain assumption MWPotential2014 in galpy approximates the equilibrium vertical potential of the solar neighborhood.
    Used in Section 2.1 to integrate unperturbed orbits and compute actions and frequencies; approximate for |z| of order 1 kpc.
  • domain assumption Small-perturbation linear response, integrating the change in vertical action along unperturbed orbits, captures the disk response.
    Equation (4) is validated in Appendix A against direct orbit integration to 1-2% for test populations, but the validation does not cover all random subhalo configurations.
  • domain assumption Phase-spiral damping follows exp(-tau^3/t0^3) with t0 = 0.6 Gyr from Tremaine et al. (2023).
    Underpins the diffusion model in Section 2.2; imported from prior work partly co-authored by current authors (Frankel and Bovy).
  • domain assumption Subhalo orbits are independent of subhalo mass and can be resampled from a KDE of galacticus orbits.
    Assumed in Section 2.3.3; dynamical friction is small for 10^6-10^8 Msun halos.
  • domain assumption The CDM subhalo mass function slope and normalization range bracket the true subhalo population.
    Slope from Springel et al. (2008); normalization calibrated to galacticus but varied by a factor of 24 to cover bound-mass versus peak-mass definitions.
  • domain assumption Nadler et al. (2020) stellar-mass to halo-mass relation assigns infall masses to luminous satellites.
    Used in Section 2.3.2 to set the masses of the 18 dwarf galaxies in Table 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Galactic subhalos and the Gaia snail." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFHSJLLI

@misc{pith2026241202757,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Galactic subhalos and the Gaia snail},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFHSJLLI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02757}
}
abstract

Gaia has revealed a clear signal of disequilibrium in the solar neighborhood in the form of a spiral (or snail) feature in the vertical phase-space distribution. We investigate the possibility that this structure emerges from ongoing perturbations by dark $\left(10^{6} M_{\odot} - 10^8 M_{\odot}\right)$ Galactic subhalos. We develop a probabilistic model for generating subhalo orbits based on a semi-analytic model of structure formation, and combine this framework with an approximate prescription for calculating the response of the disk to external perturbations. We also develop a phenomenological treatment for the diffusion of phase-space spirals caused by gravitational scattering between stars and giant molecular clouds, a process that erases the kinematic signatures of old ($t \gtrsim 0.6$ Gyr) events. Perturbations caused by dark subhalos are, on average, orders of magnitude weaker than those caused by luminous satellite galaxies, but the ubiquity of dark halos predicted by cold dark matter makes them a more probable source of strong perturbation to the dynamics of the solar neighborhood. Dark subhalos alone do not cause enough disturbance to explain the Gaia snail, but they excite fluctuations of $\sim 0.1-0.5 \ \rm{km} \ \rm{s^{-1}}$ in the mean vertical velocity of stars near the Galactic midplane that should persist to the present day. Subhalos also produce correlations between vertical frequency and orbital angle that could be mistaken as originating from a single past disturbance. Our results motivate investigation of the Milky Way's dark satellites by characterizing their kinematic signatures in phase-space spirals across the Galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02757 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The velocity dispersion predicted by the distri￾bution function given in Equation 5 (black curves) fit to the velocity dispersion of stars in the solar neighborhood mea￾sured by Gaia (blue points). We have adjusted the original formula presented by Li & Widrow (2021) to use the action and vertical frequency, Jzν, in place of the orbital energy Ez, and fit the parameters α and σv to the data. the package, and effort … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The evolution of an impulse perturbation as a function of time using the phenomenological treatment of diffusion discussed in Section 2.2. Each panel shows the perturbed distribution function relative to the equilibrium distribution function, where we use the distribution function given by Equation (5). The time since the application of the impulse perturbation, τ , is shown in each panel. Perturbations decay with t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The damping of the perturbed distribution func￾tions shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A simulated population of dark subhalos (106.5 < msub/M⊙ < 108 ) and dwarf galaxies, shown as black and colored curves, respectively. Only subhalo orbits passing within 80 kpc of the solar position in the past 1.2 Gyr are included. Line width and marker sizes scale wit…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The force exerted as a function of time by a realization of dark subhalos (top), dwarf galaxies (middle), and the combination of both populations of satellites (bottom). Colors in the top panel correspond to different subhalo mass ranges, while colors in the middle pan…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: The joint distribution of the maximum vertical force exerted by a dark or luminous satellite in the past 2.4 Gyr and halo mass. Some low-mass satellites exert a maximum vertical force comparable to that of luminous satellites if their orbits bring them in close p…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: The joint distribution of the average perturbation to the vertical action by a satellite normalized by the mean vertical action in equilibrium (the same quantity as in the right-hand panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution function perturbed by the same population of dark subhalos (105.7 < m/M⊙ < 108 and η = 1500) whose vertical force and orbital properties are shown in Figures 5-7. To highlight the effects of subhalos, effects from luminous satellites are not included. …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: An example of a distribution function perturbed by dark subhalos 106 < m/M⊙ < 108  with an abundance set by η = 3000. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A comparison between the strength of the per￾turbations caused by Sagittarius alone, and the rest of the dwarf galaxies listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The combined effects of subhalos and dwarf galaxies. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Vertical perturbing forces as a function of time (left) and a comparison between the exact and model-predicted changes to the vertical action (right). Points in the right panel represent samples drawn uniformly from the phase-space area color coded by their vertical v…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The distribution function produced from the series of perturbing forces shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Perturbed distribution functions produced from four realizations of dark subhalos from different random seeds. Only perturbations by dark subhalos are included in the model, and the abundance is set by η = 750. The first and third rows show the perturbation to the dis…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The same as Figures 15 and 16, but with subhalo abundance set by η = 3000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The same as Figures 15-17, but with subhalo abundance set by η = 6000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The same as Figures 15-18, but with subhalo abundance set by η = 12000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, A&A, 673, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245518

    Antoja, T., Ramos, P., Garc ´ ıa-Conde, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245518

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245518 2023

  2. [2]

    2018, Nature, 561, 360, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Antoja, T., Helmi, A., Romero-G´ omez, M., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 360, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collab...

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 2018

  3. [3]

    Banik, N., Bovy, J., Bertone, G., Erkal, D., & de Boer, T. J. L. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2364, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab210

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab210 2021

  4. [4]

    C., & Weinberg, M

    Banik, U., van den Bosch, F. C., & Weinberg, M. D. 2023, ApJ, 952, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd641

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd641 2023

  5. [5]

    D., & van den Bosch, F

    Banik, U., Weinberg, M. D., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2022, ApJ, 935, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ff9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ff9 2022

  6. [6]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813 —

    Bennett, M., & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813 —. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab524

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2813 2019

  7. [7]

    Bennett, M., Bovy, J., & Hunt, J. A. S. 2022, ApJ, 927, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5021

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5021 2022

  8. [8]

    Benson, A. J. 2012, NewA, 17, 175, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2011.07.004

    doi:10.1016/j.newast.2011.07.004 2012

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    J., & Du, X

    Benson, A. J., & Du, X. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2750

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 1215, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07870.x

    Cole, S. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1215, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07870.x

    2004

  3. [11]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 1889, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18268.x

    Binney, J., & McMillan, P. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1889, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18268.x

    2011

  4. [12]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1501, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2378

    Binney, J., & Sch¨ onrich, R. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1501, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2378

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 1167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz217

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Sharma, S., Tepper-Garcia, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz217

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 —

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 —. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 121301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.121301

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    R., & Wu, C.-L

    Buschmann, M., Kopp, J., Safdi, B. R., & Wu, C.-L. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 211101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.211101

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Carlberg, R. G. 1987, ApJ, 322, 59, doi: 10.1086/165702 13 https://github.com/galacticusorg/galacticus/wiki 14 https://github.com/dangilman/darkspirals

    1987 doi

  9. [17]

    H., Widrow, L

    Chequers, M. H., Widrow, L. M., & Darling, K. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4244, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2114

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    G., Baugh, C

    Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 168, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03879.x

    2000

  11. [19]

    Johnston, K. V. 2023, ApJ, 955, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf1fc

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    A., & Ng, K

    Dekker, A., Ando, S., Correa, C. A., & Ng, K. C. Y. 2022, PhRvD, 106, 123026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.123026

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafad6

    Diemer, B., & Joyce, M. 2019, ApJ, 871, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafad6

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    C., et al

    Du, X., Benson, A., Zeng, Z. C., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 023019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023019

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 1000, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2147

    Feldmann, R., & Spolyar, D. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1000, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2147

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Frankel, N., Bovy, J., Tremaine, S., & Hogg, D. W. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad908

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    W., Tremaine, S., Price-Whelan, A., & Shen, J

    Frankel, N., Hogg, D. W., Tremaine, S., Price-Whelan, A., & Shen, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07149, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07149 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Bro...

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    S., Johnston, K

    Gandhi, S. S., Johnston, K. V., Hunt, J. A. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac47f7 Garc ´ ıa-Conde, B., Antoja, T., Roca-F` abrega, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347446

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    S., et al

    Garrison-Kimmel, S., Wetzel, A., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1710

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    Y., Kravtsov, A

    Gnedin, O. Y., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., & Nagai, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 16, doi: 10.1086/424914 G´ omez, F. A., Minchev, I., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 159, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts327

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    Grand, R. J. J., Pakmor, R., Fragkoudi, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1969

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Grand, R. J. J., Springel, V., G´ omez, F. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw601 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    F., Ji, A

    Griffen, B. F., Ji, A. P., Dooley, G. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 10, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/10

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Hunt, J. A. S., Hong, J., Bovy, J., Kawata, D., & Grand, R. J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2532 Dark snails 21

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac082

    Darragh-Ford, E. 2022, MNRAS, 516, L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac082

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Hunt, J. A. S., Price-Whelan, A. M., Johnston, K. V., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3918

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Hunt, J. A. S., Stelea, I. A., Johnston, K. V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1459, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2580

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    1990, MNRAS, 245, 305

    Jenkins, A., & Binney, J. 1990, MNRAS, 245, 305

    1990

  30. [38]

    J., & Grin, D

    Johnson, T., Benson, A. J., & Grin, D. 2021, ApJ, 908, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd563

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Kalnajs, A. J. 1973, ApJ, 180, 1023, doi: 10.1086/152023

    1973 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, A&A, 674, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244220

    Katz, D., Sartoretti, P., Guerrier, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244220

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    S., Zentner, A

    Kazantzidis, S., Bullock, J. S., Zentner, A. R., Kravtsov, A. V., & Moustakas, L. A. 2008, ApJ, 688, 254, doi: 10.1086/591958

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    2019, A&A, 622, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834707

    Khoperskov, S., Di Matteo, P., Gerhard, O., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834707

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F

    Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82, doi: 10.1086/307643

    1999 doi

  36. [44]

    C., & de Grijs, R

    Kregel, M., van der Kruit, P. C., & de Grijs, R. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 646, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05556.x

    2002

  37. [45]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 286, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1574

    Garavito-Camargo, N., & Besla, G. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 286, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1574

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    Laporte, C. F. P., Minchev, I., Johnston, K. V., & G´ omez, F. A. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz583

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    W., Bovy, J., Mackereth, J

    Leung, H. W., Bovy, J., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3529

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Li, H., & Widrow, L. M. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab574 —. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3329, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad244

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 2905, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw764

    Moetazedian, R., & Just, A. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2905, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw764

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1206

    Monari, G., Famaey, B., & Siebert, A. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1206

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    1999, ApJL, 524, L19, doi: 10.1086/312287

    Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., et al. 1999, ApJL, 524, L19, doi: 10.1086/312287

    1999 doi

  44. [52]

    O., Wechsler, R

    Nadler, E. O., Wechsler, R. H., Bechtol, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab846a

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  46. [54]

    R., Frenk, C

    Newton, O., Lovell, M. R., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16042, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16042

    2024 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    Pace, A. B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07424, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.07424

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    R., Benson, A

    Pullen, A. R., Benson, A. J., & Moustakas, L. A. 2014, ApJ, 792, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/24

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    J., Hernquist, L., & Fullagar, D

    Quinn, P. J., Hernquist, L., & Fullagar, D. P. 1993, ApJ, 403, 74, doi: 10.1086/172184 Sch¨ onrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x

    1993

  50. [58]

    1951, ApJ, 114, 385, doi: 10.1086/145478

    Spitzer, Lyman, J., & Schwarzschild, M. 1951, ApJ, 114, 385, doi: 10.1086/145478

    1951 doi

  51. [59]

    2008, MNRAS, 391, 1685, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14066.x

    Springel, V., Wang, J., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1685, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14066.x

    2008

  52. [60]

    1999, MNRAS, 307, 877, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02690.x

    Tremaine, S. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 877, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02690.x

    1999

  53. [61]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad577

    Tremaine, S., Frankel, N., & Bovy, J. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad577

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 4162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2114

    Vasiliev, E., & Belokurov, V. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2114

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    Wang, W., Han, J., Cautun, M., Li, Z., & Ishigaki, M. N. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 109801, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1541-6

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    O., et al

    Wang, Y., Mansfield, P., Nadler, E. O., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.01487, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.01487

    2024 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    Widmark, A., Laporte, C. F. P., de Salas, P. F., & Monari, G. 2021, A&A, 653, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141466

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    Widmark, A., Laporte, C. F. P., & Monari, G. 2022, A&A, 663, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142819

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    2012, ApJL, 750, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L41

    Chen, H.-Y. 2012, ApJL, 750, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L41

    2012 doi

  60. [68]

    J., Pullen, A

    Yang, S., Du, X., Benson, A. J., Pullen, A. R., & Peter, A. H. G. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2496

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    S., et al

    Zheng, H., Bose, S., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 7300, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae289 22 Gilman et al. 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 time [Gyr] 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 vertical force [2 GM pc 2] 2 1 0 1 2 Jtrue [km s 1kpc] 2 1 0 1 2 Jmodel [km s 1kpc] 0 20 40 60 80 |vz| [...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.